Here you will find other documents, reviews, and quotations relating to Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory.

This Book Is Scarce-Hard To Find Outside Of The Utah Area.

The Modern LDS Church Considers This Book Apostate Literature, Because It Doesn't Conform With Present Day Teachings!

    The Adam-God Doctrine has always been one of the most controversial subjects in Mormon Church history, perhaps even more so than Polygamy. Anti-Mormons use it as a tell-tale sign that the Latter Day Saints are deceived, yet few know that the doctrine, (theory as some would call it,) has a complete cosmology that coincides beautifully with the Plan Of Salvation. In the early days of the Church, Adam-God was taught in the Temples as part of the Endowment. If you look closely, as you go through this ceremony, you can still see a small remnant of what was relayed in the enactment.

    Anyone who has an interest in this subject will find this book very informative. Very few books are still published that contain as much information as is written here. This one should be in every collectors library.

From The Introduction:
"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God."
(Joseph Smith)

"There are but very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God." (Joseph Smith)

There seems to be no end to the mysteries surrounding the creation of mankind, this and other worlds, and even the creation and identity of God Himself. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "We never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven, but by revelation. We may spiritualize and express opinions to all eternity; but that is no authority." (Teachings Of The Prophet Joseph Smith, Page 292)

For this reason, we need to look to the words of the prophets as well as personal revelation to help in understanding many of these mysteries. Without spiritual guidance we tend to follow the customs, traditions, and teachings of the world-a world with very little spiritual understanding.

The purpose of this book is to help in answering such questions as:

• Who created the spirits and bodies of mortals on this earth?
• When, how and why did we come here?
• Who is the God of this earth?

With the Gospel restoration in these last days came important information on these subjects.

Available within these pages are the history and teachings of what has become known as the Adam-God Doctrine, as it was recorded by early leaders of the LDS Church and how it then evolved into its current stage of denial.

Theologians, scientists, philosophers, in fact nearly all mortals, at some time, have wondered how mankind got on this earth. For many centuries various theories have been propounded and discussed, but seldom have any of them carried the spirit of truth.

Until the time of the Gospel Restoration in 1830, speculation and disputation had caused contention and division among religious sects and scientists alike. Most people still remember the famous "Monkey Trial" that was debated for several days in the courts-between Darwin's theory and Biblical statements. Nothing was proved or resolved, and people remained in the same state of confusion as before.

With the restoration of the Gospel, the Lord said: "For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times. "(D&C 124:41)

The great Prophet Joseph Smith understood what the Lord was saying and he commented: "There are many things which belong to the powers of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, that have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world; they are hid from the wise and prudent to be revealed in the last times." (DHC 4:209-210)

The restoration has brought a flood of light upon many hidden and lost truths. However, many more remain, as the Prophet Joseph said he could divulge only a very few of the things which the Lord had revealed to him. Brigham Young said the Prophet left the Elders of Israel in the dark on many mysteries because they were unable to receive the knowledge that God wanted them to understand. Joseph revealed a few of these mysteries in one of his last and greatest addresses called "The King Follett Discourse".

1. Some scientists say that man "evolved" from a little bug that came creeping out of a swamp and gradually grew legs and arms and stood upright to become a man. Evolution is perhaps the most popular belief and is even taught as factual in public schools. However, science has never yet produced the "missing link" in these evolutions. It is the wildest, unscientific speculation ever published under the title of fact.

2. The Bible presents a few short sentences about the beginning of man by saying that he was scooped up like an adobe, some special breathings were blown into it, and suddenly man popped up out of the mud to become a real live mortal. This has been taken literally by some, but at best it is merely a figurative representation that Moses used for the rebellious children of Israel.

3. So, to, the Bible makes a strange statement about the creation of woman: that a rib was taken out of the man's side and was used as a crucible for the beginning of females. By some mysterious power this rib was added to, molded, and breathed on to miraculously become a woman. This is certainly an interesting story, but neither can it be taken literally-so the mystery continues.

4. If God really did use mud and a rib for His method of propagation, it seems He would have continued to use such a method from then on. There would be no reason for adopting some other system. On the other hand, if propagation, as we see it in living things today, was the original method of introducing man to the earth, there would be no reason to use mud and a rib.

5. Some maintain a belief that a space ship came to this planet leaving some "garbage", from which bacteria gradually evolved into all the living things on the earth.

6. Stories exist of how the embryos of man were hurled through space, perhaps in ice, and landed here to thaw and become mankind.

7. Some postulate that a space vehicle landed here and left a small colony of beings to populate this globe.

8. A popular belief exists that God came upon the earth to have a son called Adam and a daughter, Eve. who were to carry on the work of creation by propagation. But it is impossible for an immortal being to produce mortal children.

These are some of the assumptions and speculations, but none really reveals the mystery of man's true beginning. To find the accurate account, we need to turn to the prophets of God who receive(d) revelation. Certainly for our dispensation the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successor, Brigham Young, should be the main prophets to look to for answers.

Even though the actual public announcement clarifying these mysteries came from Brigham Young, he undoubtedly learned the answers from Joseph Smith. 

On April 9, 1852, Brigham Young delivered a sermon at a conference session in Salt Lake City. This discourse became the cause of more heated arguments, doctrinal controversy, and violent reaction from both member and non-member alike than any other oration delivered in the Church. Since then, Brigham Young has been the victim of more slander, ridicule and derision than any other president of the Latter Day Saints. In later years, some members would even be excommunicated for advocating it. The doctrine still stands as a classic in theological expose.

Because this doctrine is not incorporated into the Articles Of Faith, nor is it now recognized as truth by the LDS Church, both the student of scripture and the lay member should, on his own, become acquainted with the history, the basis for, and the principles behind that doctrine-rather than just ignoring it or saying it never existed in the Church. History shows that it was publicly announced, published on two continents, advocated by members of the First Presidency and most Apostles, and even taught by many missionaries. For this reason it can not be concealed, especially in light of the fact that so many opponents of the Church today continue to expose this doctrine in their attempts to discredit the validity of the LDS Church and the teachings of Brigham Young.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

INTRODUCTION: THE MYSTERY OF CREATION

THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT

BLOOD AND MORTALITY

THE LAW OF PROPAGATION

ADAM-FATHER OF THE SPIRITS OF MEN

EVE-THE MOTHER OF ALL LIVING

MICHAEL-THE CREATOR

JESUS-THE SON OF ADAM

CELESTIAL BODIES AND CELESTIAL KEYS

ORIGIN OF THE ADAM-GOD DOCTRINE

CHRONOLOGY OF THE DOCTRINE

SELECTED SERMONS

VOICES OF OPPOSITION

CONCLUSION: ELECT HEIRS

APPENDIX: BRIGHAM YOUNG CALLED OF GOD

ADAM IS GOD???

Chris A. Ulachos

BRIGHAM YOUNG'S FALSE TEACHING: ADAM IS GOD

PREFACE: This is a reprint of an article appearing in the Journal of Pastoral Practice, Volume III, Number 2, pages 93 through 119. It is reprinted in this form with the permission of the author. Copyright 1979, Institute of Pastoral Studies of The Christian Counseling & Education Foundation.

Of all the vices that entangle a man, perhaps none is as unholy as jealousy. Jealousy, the "green-eyed monster", dwells in the deeper regions of sin because the source of its existence is unbridled covetousness growing out of pride and insecurity. However, in the case of jealousy, what is a vice in human nature is a virtue in the divine nature of God. Though among men jealousy is a ravaging and soul-destroying cancer, in God it is a righteous zeal, based upon His covenant love for His own people, which seeks to protect a love- relationship and avenge it when broken. The godly zeal which the Lord has for those whom He has chosen is an attribute worthy of all praise and adoration.

The fact that He is a jealous God was one of the first characteristics that the Lord made known to Israel after He had redeemed her out of the slave market of Egypt. She became His love and possession, and He demanded from her a love and devotion that would extend to no other (1).

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me...for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God (Ex. 20:1,3,5).

Thou shalt worship no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (Ex. 34:14).

Throughout Old Testament history the Lord taught Israel that He was the only God with whom they had to do. For her to worship and serve another would be sheer adultery and whoredom:

And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them (Judges 2:17).

In the New Testament we find the same teaching. The New Testament writers shared the Lord's jealousy over His covenant people:

For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ (II Cor. 11:2).

While throughout the flow of Bible history we see God proclaiming that He alone is to be worshiped, at the same time we find prophets who were not of God taught the contrary. True prophets would never be found teaching the people to worship another god - whether is was a stone idol, and imaginary god dwelling in heaven, or a deified man. They knew that it was Jehovah who had redeemed Israel out of Egypt and that He alone is God. Inspired by God's Spirit, they knew the mind of the Lord: that He would give His glory to no other. Therefore, when these living oracles of God spoke as prophets, they were moved to proclaim, "Thou shalt worship the LORD thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

In light of this insistence upon the exclusiveness of the true God, we can understand the test of a prophet that Moses taught the children of Israel. By applying this timeless test, people throughout all ages may detect the false ones: If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all you soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice, and ye shall serve Him, and cleave unto Him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death; because he has spoken to turn you away form the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee (Deut. 13:1-5)

These words tell us that though a man might exercise miraculous powers, he could not be a prophet of the Lord if he sought to lead the people away to a strange god. Any prophet who advocates the service and worship of another god is not a mouthpiece of the Lord, is false, and, under the theocratic nation of Israel, was to be slain.

Holding fast to these truths let us now turn to Brigham Young, a man who claimed for himself the station and office of prophet of God. Recent history records the lives of few men who have possessed the leadership qualities that Young exhibited. For thirty years he presided as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator over the Mormon Church, a people claiming to be led by prophets of God as in the days of ancient Israel. On the basis of this claim the Mormons have always regarded themselves as the only true Church on earth today (2). Their priesthood claims sole possession of the authority or power needed to act on behalf of God (3), and they consider all other "Christian churches" to be in a state of apostasy, who at best teach a partial truth about the gospel of Christ(4). Now if Brigham Young, Mormon prophet from 1847 to 1877, were a false prophet all along, then the claims of those who have sought to derive their priesthood authority through him are empty and void (5). If Brigham taught false doctrine, that cuts the ground from under Mormonism's claim of latter-day prophetic revelation and the Mormon Church is not divinely led. Acknowledging this to be true, LDS Apostle Orson Hyde stated: To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God, and that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he [Brigham Young] can advance incorrect doctrine is to lay the axe at the root of the tree. Will he suffer his mouthpiece to go into error? No. (6) Any boast of prophetic guidance would be worthless if that guidance were false. John Taylor, Mormon Apostle and later President, admitted also this to be the case: "If that mouthpiece [Brigham Young] has not the power to dictate I would throw all Mormonism away." (7)

The Mormon Church must base the truth of her claims on the authenticity of Brigham's calling. Yet, we shall see that Brigham Young, who presided over the Mormon Church longer than any other man, did indeed advance false doctrine that focused worship on a god other than the Lord God of Israel.

ADAM-GOD FIRST PROCLAIMED

It stormed heavily on April 9, 1852, but the people turned out for the sessions of the Spring LDS Conference that were that day. Each session of the six-day church conference was filled to capacity. Those desiring the best seats lined up outside the doors hours before they opened. At times, because the crowds were so large, many male members would leave the tabernacle to allow more room for the women to attend.

At 6:00 on the evening of the ninth, all LDS male members gathered

together in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for another session. The house

was full. After the usual introductory exercises, Mormon Prophet and

President Brigham Young began to address his brethren upon various

subjects. He instructed them concerning the place recreation and

amusements should occupy in their lives and concerning the

principle of tithing.

Then, after a moment's pause, the Mormon Prophet took up his next

topic. The question was, Who begat Jesus Christ in the flesh? This

was a hot issue. There had been no little dispute about it among the

LDS Elders, and there were opposing views. As a Prophet and `

mouthpiece of God, Brigham Young stepped forward to silence all

erroneous opinions and to declare with finality the true answer to

the inquiry (8).

First, he repeated the fundamental Mormon doctrine that the Father

and Son each has a physical body of flesh and bones. Next, he set

forth Mormonism's belief that God the Father in a pre-existent

period, begot every spirit that would come to this earth. Then

Brigham looked out over the vast audience and boldly commanded all

of his hearers, whether near or far, Mormon or non-Mormon to take

heed to his next statements:

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 or non-professing, must hear it, and will

know it sooner or later (9).

After declaring that Adam was the God of this world and the Father

of its inhabitants, Brigham then addressed the original inquiry

concerning the savior's birth:

When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the

Father had begotten him in his own likeness. he 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.... I could tell you much more about

this; but were I to tell you the whole truth,

blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation

of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind.

However, I have told you the whole truth as far as I

have gone... What a learned idea! 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. I have given you a few

leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more

remains to be told. Now, remember from this time

forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten

by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I

was in conversation with a certain learned professor

upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea - "if

the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be

very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and

give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget

children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people,

bringing the Elders into great difficulties." Treasure

up these things in your hearts. In the Bible, you have

read the things I told you tonight; but you have not

known what you did read (10).

Having made this response, Young concluded his comments with another

reference to tithing. The Mormon choir then sang a hymn and Elder H.

G. Sherwood gave the closing benediction.

Few of the Latter-day Elders who filed out of the Tabernacle that

night missed the meaning of what their prophet had just announced.

Upon returning home that evening, Hosea Stout, the prominent Mormon

pioneer, recorded the following in his daily journal:

Friday 9th April 1852. - Stormy morning. attended

conference House much crowded, did not stay in House

long. after noon was not in because of the crowd. -

Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught

that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ and the only

God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected

body &c more hereafter (11).

Samuel Rogers, who also was present that night, similarly noted the

content of Brigham Young's discourse:

April 16 1852, Conference commenced on the 6 and

continued untill the 11, it was heled in the new

tabernacle, adjourned untill the 6 of next October we

had the best Conference that I ever attended during

the time of the Conference President Brigham Young

said that our spirits ware begotten before that Adam

came to the earth, and that Adam helped to make the

Earth, that he had a Celestial boddy when we came to

the Earth, and that he brought his wife or one of his

wives with him, and that Eave was allso a Celestial

being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground untill

they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam

was the only God that we would have, and that Christ

was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, but of Father

Adam...(12).

DENIAL ADAM-GOD WAS TAUGHT

As we consider Brigham Young's claim that Adam is God, it becomes

clear that he was a false, uninspired prophet. This teaching not

only runs counter to what has been revealed in the Bible, but it is

also branded as false doctrine in modern Mormonism. LDS Apostle Mark

E. Petersen, one of Mormonism's doctrinal authorities, stated:

Some dissidents would have us believe that Adam is our

God and that we have nothing to do with any other God,

which, on the face of it, is ridiculous. To say that

Adam is God is, of course, opposed utterly and

completely to the scriptures as well as to our

Articles of faith,.(13)

Spencer W. Kimball, Mormon Prophet, also denounced the teaching that

Adam is God:

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... 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 (14).

These and most other Mormon General Authorities, while denouncing

the doctrine that Adam is God, avoid or deny the fact that Brigham

Young himself was the major exponent of this doctrine. In his book,

_Adam_Who_Is_He?_, Mark E. Petersen tries to rescue Mormonism's

second prophet from teaching false doctrine by maintaining that

Brigham Young was misquoted in the address in question. On pages

16-17 of his book, Petersen sets forth as evidence for his defense

as reference in which C. C. Rich supposedly stated that Brigham was

misquoted in this sermon. Petersen claims that Rich was present on

the ninth of April and was therefor in a position to note the

misquotation which later crept into the published account of the

discourse:

Elder Charles C. Rich, of the Council of the Twelve,

was present on a day when President Young gave an

address that was wrongly reported as saying that

Adam was Deity. In the copy of the Journal of

Discourses that he had, Elder Rich referred to the

misquotations as it appears in the Journal of

Discourses,and in his own hand he wrote the following

as the correct statement made by President Young:

"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 heavenly Father."

(This signed statement is in the hands of the Church

Historian.) Some of the reporters at the Tabernacle

in those days were not as skill as others, and

admittedly made mistakes, such as the misquotation of

President Young as above, which was corrected by

Brother Rich and which has caused some persons in the

Church to go astray. The erroneously reported

statement has been mistakenly made to read: "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." (JD, 1:51) On the face of

it the mistake is obvious and was quickly noted by

Elder Rich, who was present and heard the sermon.

Hence the correction that he made.

What seems to be a good case made by Petersen crumbles, however,

upon cross examination. C. C. Rich, who Petersen claims "was present

and heard the sermon," was in reality not even in Salt Lake City on

that day! Rich left San Bernardino, California, on March 24, 1852,

for the Great Salt Lake (15). He did not reach his destination until

April 21. Under this date, the LDS Journal History records:

April 21, 1852:

Elder Chas. C. Rich and thirteen others arrived today

in G.S.L. from California (16).

In the May 1, 1852, issue of the Mormon _Deseret_Weekly_ the

following announcement was made:

Elder C. C. Rich arrived on Wednesday, the 21

of April, in company with 13 others...direct

from San Bernardino (17).

Hosea Stout, in his journal, also noted the event:

Wednesday 21st April 1852 Engaged as yesterday. Gen

Rich and some 15 others arrived today from

California by the South rout all well.

Furthermore, not only was C. C. Rich absent on the ninth, but the

reference which Petersen claims was written by C. C. Rich "in his

own hand" was in reality written and signed by his son, Ben E. Rich,

many years after the sermon was delivered! (18).

Whether Mr. Petersen was deliberately seeking to suppress the facts

or not, the truth is that there is no evidence whatsoever that

Brigham Young was misquoted. As we shall see, Young came under much

criticism from outside and from within the Mormon Church for

teaching that Adam was God the Father. If he had merely been

misquoted, Brigham simply could have corrected his hearers and

accusers. Instead, however, Young continued to affirm and preach

this doctrine against all opposition (19).

These facts have forced other Mormon writers to maintain that

Brigham was quoted correctly, but that he has been misinterpreted

by his hearers and readers. Realizing the implications of one of

their prophets teaching false doctrine on such an essential matter

as who God is, these LDS apologists insist that Brigham Young did

not mean to say that Adam was deity. Characteristic of this

argument are the following statements made by the tenth Mormon

President, Joseph Fielding Smith:

In discussing the statement by President Brigham Young

that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same character

who was in the garden of Eden, I maintain that

President Young was not referring to Adam, but to God

the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the garden

of Eden, and according to Mormon doctrine Adam was in

his presence constantly, walked with him, talked with

him and the Father taught Adam his language. It was

not until the fall, that the Father departed from Adam

and from the Garden of Eden (20).

In regard to Brigham's statement that Jesus was begotten by "the

First of the human family", Smith states that this is referring to

the God and creator of Adam, who was the "first of the human family",

being its "progenitor" (21).

Brigham's statement that Adam is "our Father and our God and the

only God with whom we have to do" is interpreted to mean that Adam,

being the first man, is the patriarchal head of the human race, and

in this regard he could be considered a god. In no way would these

later Mormon writer believe that Brigham is identifying Adam as God

their heavenly Father and the Father of Jesus in the flesh. (22).

YOUNG'S STATEMENTS BECOME PLAINER

It must be admitted that Brigham's statements in the 1852 discourse

can be taken in more than one way. However, it again needs to be

asserted that both Brigham's friends and his opponents had

understood him to mean that Adam was God and was the Father of

Jesus Christ in the flesh. He simply could have corrected the

misinterpretation, but he didn't. Instead, 25 years after his

original "Adam-God" sermon, we find that the Mormon "Revelator"

continued to declare in no uncertain terms that Adam was the Lord

God Almighty (23).

During a discourse given on Sunday night, February 19, 1854, Brigham

Young again addressed the question of who begot Jesus Christ in the

flesh. Speaking of Christ, he asked:

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; Micheal;

the Ancient of days. Has he a father? He has. Has he

a mother? He has. Now to say the Son of God was

begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say that the Holy

Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and

contrary to all the revelations of God both modern,

and ancient. I silenced this erroneous doctrine a year

ago last fall conference. It was I think 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, and some

that it was Elohim. When I spoke upon it in this stand

before a conference of Elders, I cautioned them when

they laid their hands upon people for the gift of the

H Ghost, according to the instructions of the Savior,

to be very careful how they laid hands upon the young

women for if it begat a child in the days of the

virgin Mary it is just as liable to beget children in

these last days (24).

While Brigham in his discourse of 1852 may have been unclear, in

this 1854 address there is no question about his meaning. Here

Brigham distinctly names Adam as God the Father. Wilford Woodruff,

Mormon Apostle and later Church President, had not doubt about what

Brigham meant. Referring to this discourse under the date of `

February 19, 1854, in his journal, Woodruff recorded:

He [Brigham Young] said that our God was Father Adam

He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ - Our

God was no more less than ADAM, Michael the Arkangel

(25).

It should be noted that Brigham identifies Adam as the "Father of

our spirits."One of Mormonism's fundamental doctrines is the belief

that God the Father was married and that he and his celestial wife

in a pre-existent period had begotten every spirit that would come

to this earth. These spirits then enter into individual infants who

are born physically upon the earth (26). By referring to Adam as

the Father of our spirits, Brigham was clearly identifying him as

the being whom Mormons address as "Heavenly Father".

On June 26-28, 1854, a special General Council of the authorities

of the LDS British Mission convened in London, England. The council

minutes show that Brigham's doctrine of Adam being God was not

readily received by some of the members there. After the introductory

exercise, Mormon Elder Thomas Caffall rose to state the affairs of

the Southern LDS conference. Among other things he reported the

following:

...some of the officers have not met in council for

three years. They are lacking faith on one principle

- the last 'cat that was let out of the bag.' Polygamy

has been got over pretty well, that cloud as 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 as 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 (27).

Elder Joseph Hall followed with a report of his district's progress.

Despite the non-Biblcal nature of the Adam-God doctrine, those in

his area were willing to receive it as truth:

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 (28).

On the final day of the council Elder James A. Little rose and made

the following remarks:

I believe in the principle of obedience; and if I am

told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just

believe it (29).

Mission president Samuel W. Richards followed with a concluding

exhortation concerning the Adam-God doctrine:

Concerning the item of doctrine alluded t by Elder

Caffall and others, viz., that Adam is our Father and

God, I have to say do not trouble yourselves, neither

let the Saints be troubled about that matter... 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 IS THE WORD OF THE LORD. (30).

APOSTLE PRATT OPPOSES YOUNG'S ADAM-GOD

Though Richards and most of the other Church authorities accepted

their prophet's declaration as the word of God, there was one member

of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who openly opposed Brigham in

his views. That man was Orson Pratt. Under the date of September 17,

1854, LDS Apostle Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal the

details of a confrontation between Young and Pratt. Pratt had been

writing and publishing a monthly periodical which contained

doctrine contrary to the Mormon President. When Young declared some

of Orson's doctrines to be false, Pratt retaliated against the

prophet by voicing his disbelief in the Adam-God doctrine:

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 & made

this brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the

Earth begat children & they ware Earthly & had mortal

bodies & if we were faithful we should become Gods as

He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his

Philosophical reasoning & get revelation from God to

govern him & enlighten his mind more...

This dispute between the Mormon Prophet and his Apostle continued

for several years. Because of his disbelief in the Adam-God

teaching and in other doctrines of Young, Pratt was for years upon

the point of being severed from the Church (31).

In October of 1854, the Mormon Church held it's semi-annual

Conference. The session of October 8 was help out of doors in the

open air. The congregation, which numbered in thousands, heard

Brigham Young deliver what was perhaps the most colorful discourse

ever presented in the history of the Mormon Church. Addressing this

immense gathering upon the subject of the identity of God, Young

made the following statements:

...my text is in the Bible and reads as follows: "And

this is life eternal, that they might know thee the

only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent."

I will now put another text with this and then offer 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 us there is but one God, the

Father of whom 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...

Now if you believe what you have heard me say you will

believe there are Lords many, and Gods many; and you

will believe that unto us, the inhabitants of the

earth there is but one God with whom we have to do...

You and I have only one God to whom we are accountable,

so we will let the rest along, and search after the

one we have to do with; let us seek after him, the

very being who commenced this creation...

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...

I tell you more, Adam is the father of our spirits.

He had lived upon an earth; he did abide his

creation, and did honor to his calling and priesthood,

and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of

his wives did the same and they lived, and died upon

an earth and then were resurrected again to

immortality and eternal life...

I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being,

with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial

kingdom they were crowned with glory, immortality, and

eternal lives,with thrones, principalities and powers;

and it was said to him it is your right to organize

the elements; and to your creations and posterity

there shall be no end...

Our spirits and the spirits of all human family were

begotten by Adam and born of Eve (32).

At no previous time had Brigham gone into as much detail concerning

Adam as he did during this discourse. While the Mormon prophet had

formerly taught that Adam was the God and Father of Jesus Christ and

the father of men's spirits, he had never expounded upon Adam's

pre-earthly course of life as he did during this 1854 conference.

to fully comprehend the implications of Brigham's statements

concerning Adam's pre-earthly development and advancement from stage

to stage, it is necessary to understand the Mormon doctrine of

"eternal progression." Mormonism's fifth President, Lorenzo Snow,

summarized this doctrine with his aphorism:

As man is, God once was;

As God is, man may become.

The doctrine of eternal progression states that God the Father was

once a man who lived, died, and was resurrected upon an earth

similar to ours. By his faithfulness to the commandments of his God

he progressed and advanced from degree until he was crowned with

exaltation, or Godhood. Having become God, he was then given the

privilege of creating this world and being the Lord over it. He

and his wife then begot the spirits which would later enter into

the fleshly tabernacles which he would form for them. In a discourse

in September of 1856, Brigham, Young described this progression to

exaltation which God the Father had passed through:

...our father in heaven is exalted and glorified. he

was received His thrones, His principalities and

powers, and He sits as a governor, as a monarch, and

overrules kingdoms, thrones, and dominions that have

been bequeathed to Him, and such as we anticipate

receiving. While He was in the flesh, as we are, He

was as we are. But it is now written of Him that our

God is as a consuming fire, that He dwells in

everlasting burnings,...God is the Father of our

spirits; He begat them and has sent them here to

receive tabernacles...(33).

This same doctrine of eternal progression teaches that men today,

if faithful as their God was, will continue on the road of

progression until they too are exalted and crowned with Godhood.

They will then not only receive eternal life, but they will as Gods

be given "eternal lives" or the power of eternal increase. They will

then have the ability to organize a world and to be the progenitors

of the spirits of its inhabitants. In a discourse delivered during a

special conference in August of 1852, Brigham, Young described this

process:

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns

- have become Gods, even the sons of God - are made

Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power

then or propagating their species in spirit; and that

is the first of their operations with regard to

organizing a world. Power is then given to them to

organize the elements, and then commence the

organization of tabernacles (34).

Having an understanding of the Mormon concept of eternal progression,

we can now clearly see the implications of Brigham Young's

statements in his 1854 General Conference discourse. When he stated

that Adam "was a resurrected being", he meant that Adam had lived,

died, and had been resurrected upon another earth. By stating that

Adam "in the celestial kingdom...was crowned with glory, immortality,

and eternal lives", he was saying that Adam had attained to

exaltation and was therefore a God. In his statement that "our

spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by

Adam", he was claiming, in no uncertain terms, that Adam was

Heavenly Father. In short, by applying these statements to Adam,

Brigham meant that prior to the organization of this world Adam had

advanced along the road to eternal progression and was exalted to

Godhood. He would therefore be our Father and our God and the only

God with whom we have to do.

Throughout the lengthy address which was delivered in the open air

that day, according to the _Deseret_News_ Brigham "held the vast

audience as it were spellbound" (35). Wilford Woodruff believed

Brigham's address to be "the greatest sermon ever delivered to the

Latter-Day Saints since they were a people" (36)

_The_Journal_of_the_Southern_Indian_Mission_ also noted Brigham

Young's address, stating that it was a "discourse equaled by none"

(37).

Though many were favorable impressed with Brigham's statements that

afternoon, there were nevertheless some who opposed. Joseph Lee

Robinson, who attended the conference, noted that Orson Pratt was

among them.

Attended conference, a very interesting conference,

for at this meeting President Brigham Young said thus,

that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and

woman of every earth that was ever organized and that

Adam and ever were the natural father and mother of

every spirit that comes to this planet, or that

receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we

are brothers and sisters and that Adam was God, our

Eternal Father. This as Brother Heber remarked, was

letting the cat out of the bag,...but behold ye 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 scriptures it was not correct. I felt very sorry to

hear Professor Orson Pratt say that. I feared lest he

should apostatize (38).

While Pratt was publicly denying the doctrine of the Church

President, others who trusted their prophet's counsel and doctrine

were adopting his revelations into their own writings. On January 9,

1855, during a social party in the Great Salt Lake City, Eliza R.

Snow (39) recited the following from a poem she had written:

Father Adam, our God, let all Israel extol, and Jesus,

our Brother, who died for us all:... (40).

Shortly after this a new edition of the LDS Church hymn book was

printed. Among the hymns contained in the book was one which

confessed Adam along with the other two members of the Godhead:

We believe in our God, the great Prince of his race,

The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days,

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for his children again.

We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who in love,

To his brethren and sisters, came down from above,

To die to redeem them from death, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the Gospel we preach.

We believe in the Spirit most holy, that's given

From God our great Father, who dwells high in heaven,

To instruct and enlighten, to comfort and cheer-

Tongues, dreams, visions, healings proclaim it is here

(41).

In the spring of 1856 another confrontation erupted between Young

and Pratt over the position of Adam. Under the date of March 11,

1856, Samuel Richards recorded in his journal the events which

transpired between the two that evening:

Evening with the Regency in the Upper Room of the

President's office,... A very serious conversation

took place between Prest. B. Young and Orson Pratt

upon doctrine. O.P. was directly opposed to the

Prest. views and very freely expressed his entire

disbelief in them after being told by the President

that things were so and so in the name of the Lord.

He was firm in the Position that the Prest's word in

the name of the Lord, was not the word of the Lord to

him. The Prest. did not believe that Orson would ever

be Adam, to learn by experience the facts discussed,

but every other person in the room would if they lived

faithful (42).

Brigham's statements, that Pratt would never be "Adam", suggest that

the two were again disputing over the subject of the first man.

Wilford Woodruff, who was also present that night, noted this

indeed was the issue discussed.

I spent part of the day in the committee room and met

with the regency in the evening...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.

A few months after this event, Brigham Young's first Counselor,

Heber C. Kimbell, publicly sustained the Church President as the

Prophet of God whose doctrines were inspired:

Just think of your position; you have heard the

teachings and instructions of President Young, and his

instructions are the word of God to us, and I know

that every man and woman in this Church who rejects

his testimony, and the testimony of those that he

sends, rejects the testimony of God his Father. I know

that, just as well as I know that I see your faces

today (43).

Because rejecting Brigham's word was rejecting God, Orson Pratt was

walking on thin ice. According to Wilford Woodruff, Pratt's Church

membership was on the line:

President Young made some remarks about Orson Pratt and said that

if he did not take a different course in his philosophy..he

would not stay long in this Church (44).

OPPOSITION TO ADAM-GOD INTENSIFIES

Brigham's opposition did not consist of Orson Pratt alone.

Apparently there were a number of Mormons who were muttering their

disbelief. It was to this group that the prophet addressed the

following remarks during a discourse delivered on October 7, 1857:

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... 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 (45).

Nevertheless, it was the Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt who was the real

thorn in Brigham's side, and it was inevitable that the President

would seek its removal. In 1860 Young gathered his Apostles to

consider the case of Orson Pratt's remarks.

After the Mormon General Authorities assembled in the President's

office on the evening of January 27, Brigham read to them various

doctrinal statements written by Pratt. He followed by expressing his

disbelief in these doctrines. Wilford Woodruff then confessed his

trust in Young:

...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 point 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

the Church before he would unto me, and the word of

the Lord through the prophet is the End of the Law

unto me (46).

One by one the Apostles expressed their faith in their prophet and

sought to lead Pratt to a confession and repentance. The stubborn

Apostle did not budge, however. Having no confidence in the

prophet's declaration, Pratt refused to confess what he believe to

be false:

I must have something more than a declaration of

President Young to convince me. I must have evidence.

I am willing to take President Young as a guide in

most things, but not in all.... President Young said

I ought to make a Confession But Orson Pratt is not a

man to make a Confession I do not believe. I am not

going to crawl to Brigham Young and act the hypocrite

and confess what I do not believe.... President Young

condemns my doctrine to be false. I do not believe

them to be false... I will not act the hypocrite. It

may cost me my fellowship But I will stick to it. If

I die tonight I would say O Lord God Almighty I

believe what I say.

The Apostles stood amazed. After a moment's pause Apostle John

Taylor tried to convince Orson of his error. Wilford Woodruff

followed:

Brother Orson Pratt, I wish to ask you one or two

questions. You see that the spirit and doctrine which

you possess is entirely in opposition to the First

Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and all who are

present this evening, and it chills the blood in our

veins to hear your words and feel your spirit. Should

not this be a Guidance to you that you are wrong...

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 his doctrines are true...

Various other Apostles testified that Orson was in error. President

Young then closed by stating the importance of following God's

Prophet. The meeting was dismissed; Pratt made no concession.

It must have been a sleepless night for Orson, however; the

following day saw a change in the disposition of the Apostle.

Wilford Woodruff noted this in his journal:

I spent the day in the office. I met with the Twelve

in the prayer circle. Orson Pratt met with us. He did

not dress but said he wanted to be in the society of

the Twelve. He seemed much more soft in his spirit

then he had been.

Quite unexpectedly, Orson Pratt on the next day confessed from the

Tabernacle stand that he was in error. Woodruff informs us of the

event:

Sunday I met at the Tabernacle. Orson Pratt was in the

stand and quite unexpected to his brethren he 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 Young was right and that all was 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.

AT ISSUE: IS YOUNG TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE?

Strange and fickle as it might seem, however, within a few months

Pratt was again openly opposing Brigham! On April 4 and 5 the

Church Authorities again convened to discuss Pratt. Though the

subject of Adam was not the major issue during the January 27

meeting, it was brought up often during these sessions.

On April 4 in the Church Historians Office Pratt told the quorum

members that he did not find the Adam-God doctrine to be supported

by Joseph's revelation:

I would like to enumerate items first preached and

published that Adam is the Father of our spirits...

When I read the revelation given Joseph I read

directly the opposite.

Brigham later responded to Orson's attack by appealing to his own

prophetical calling:

It is my duty to see that correct doctrine is taught

and to guard the Church from error, it is my calling.

Orson spurned this statement; still believing that the Mormon

prophet could err in doctrine even when he was acting as a

prophet. With Brigham absent on the following day, Mormon Apostle

Orson Hyde answered Pratt by affirming that to charge the prophet

with advancing false doctrine was in reality undermining the entire

truth and foundation of their religion. God's prophets cannot

advance false doctrine. Therefore, to acknowledge that the prophet

Brigham was indeed advancing false doctrine would be to acknowledge

that he was not divinely led. This would destroy their claim to be

the Kingdom of God. Hyde insisted on this implication:

To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God, and

that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he

can advance incorrect doctrine is to lay the axe at

the root of the tree. Will he suffer his mouthpiece

to go into error? No. He would remove him and place

another there. 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 expressed his total disbelief in Brigham's doctrine regarding

Adam:

In regard to Adam being our Father and God... I

frankly say, I have no confidence in it, although

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.

Orson Pratt's central argument was that Young's doctrine

contradicted the Scriptures. Joseph Smith claimed to have restored

the pure version of the Genesis creation narrative in his inspired

revision of the earlier chapters of the Bible. This "inspired"

revision later became part of Mormon scripture, entitled the Book of

Moses. In the following verse Joseph's account of Genesis distinctly

implies that Adam was not the God and Father of Jesus Christ:

And he called upon out father Adam by his own voice

saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before

they were in the flesh. And he also said unto him:

If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice,

and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions,

and be baptized, even in water, in the name of Jesus

Christ... and now, behold, I say unto you: This is

the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood

of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian

of time (Moses 6:51f., 62)

These and other passages in Joseph's Book of Moses teach that the

Father of the only begotten son, Jesus Christ, spoke to Adam in the

Garden. that clearly indicates that Adam was not God the Father. It

was to this fact that Orson Pratt appealed:

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, thus

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.

The apostles answered Pratt by reassuring Brigham's divine calling;

he was God's mouthpiece. The thought that a prophet of God could

advance false doctrine chilled their blood. It was the duty of all

to set aside any personal opinions and to be subject to the

pronouncements of their divinely led leader. Wilford Woodruff

angrily retorted:

As our leaders are inspired to talk, they are

inspired oracles, and we should be as limber as a dish

cloth.

Hyde, the President of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles, later in

the session asked his brethren what should be required of Orson

Pratt. George A. Smith, Church Historian, responded by suggesting

that Orson acknowledge Brigham as a prophet and inspired man. Smith

assured that if Brigham was indeed the Church President, he would be

a inspired man. On the other hand, if Orson Pratt were correct in

his doctrines, which were declared to be false by Brigham, then all

would have to conclude that the man whom they had thought was God's

prophet was in fact not divinely led. Smith told Hyde that Pratt

should,

...acknowledge Brigham Young as President of the

Church in the exercise of this calling. But he only

acknowledges him as a poor driveling fool, he preaches

doctrines opposed to Joseph, and all other revelations.

If Brigham Young is the President of the Church he is

an inspired man. If we have not an inspired man, then

Orson Pratt it right.

Pratt's January confession sermon was then revised for publication.

Shortly after this the meeting came to a close. It was agreed that

the proceedings of the sessions would be kept silent. Brigham and

Pratt assured each other that no more would be said concerning

their disagreement, and though Orson still disagreed with the

prophet's teachings, it seemed that Brigham would not take any

drastic action. In a few months, however, Orson received a mission

call which would remove him from the Salt Lake area to the eastern

United States (48).

YOUNG'S ADAM-GOD MEETS CONTINUED OPPOSITION

All opposition did not cease with Orson Pratt's removal. This time,

though, the attack came from a group outside the LDS fold - the

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (49).

Believing the original teachings of Joseph Smith to be true, the

Reorganized Church immediately spotted the contradiction in

Brigham's doctrine of Adam becoming God. In the November and

December issues of their _True_Latter-Day_Saint_Herald_, the RLDS

Church printed a lengthy refutation of Brigham's Adam-God doctrine.

This article uses the same arguments and quotes the same scriptures

as Orson Pratt did earlier that year when he contended with the

Utah prophet. The _Herald_ sought to overthrow the words of the

living prophet by appealing to the written word.

The _True_Latter-Day_Saint_Herald_ saw clearly that Brigham Young

was teaching false doctrine though he claimed to be acting as a

prophet. They also clearly realized the implications. The man

whom many looked to as being the successor of their martyred

prophet was in reality a false prophet who taught as the word

of God the imaginations of his own heart. Seeing by this that the

Utah faction was not of God, they urged Utah Mormons to return to

the true God.

The article in the _Herald_ caused no small stir when it reached

Utah. In his diary under the date of February 3, 1861, John D. Lee,

adopted son of Brigham Young, recorded the following:

Eving attendd Prayer meeting & instructed the Saints

on the points of Doctrine refereed to by the true

Latterday Saints Herald & their Bombarding Pres. B.

Young for Saying that Adam is all the god that we have

to do with & to those that know no better, it is quite

a stumbling Block... (50).

The Utah authorities held to the revelations revealed by their

prophet. Some even claimed to have received for themselves a

revelation that confirmed what the Living oracle had spoken. In a

notebook that contained several personal revelations which he

believed God had personally revealed to Him, Heber C. Kimbell,

counselor to Brigham Young, recorded the following:

April 30, 1862, the Lord told me that Adam was my

father and that he was the God and father of all the

inhabitants of this earth (51).

Though assailed from outside and from within the ranks of his own

people, Brigham Young continued to set forth his belief in the

doctrine. Speaking in the Tabernacle on the morning of October

8, 1861, Young remarked:

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 curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of

their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in

darkness and will. Is is one of the most glorious

revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world

holds it [in] derision. 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 doomsday. But they are ignorant and stupid like

the dumb ass (52).

A year prior to this statement Brigham stated that the only thing

of which he was guilty was that he had revealed too much truth to

the people.

...if guilt before my God and 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 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 (53).

Nevertheless, as the years passed Young was still emphatically

claiming that Adam was God the Father. In fact, he asserted this

revelation in terms stronger than he ever had before. On June 8,

1873, Brigham again addressed his audience concerning Adam, and the

week following he had his discourse published in 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... The

Christian world read of, and think about, St. Paul,

also St. Peter, the chief of Apostles. These men were

faithful to and magnified the priesthood while on the

earth. Now, where will be the mystery, after they have

passed through all the ordeals, and have been crowned

and exalted, and received their inheritances in the

eternal worlds of glory, for them to be sent forth, as

the Gods have been forever and ever, with the command

- "Make yourselves an earth, and people it with your

own children?"... Oh fools, and slow of heart to

believe the great things that God has purposed in his

own mind... Adam came here and got it up in a shape

that would suit him to commence business. What is the

great mystery about it? None, that I have seen. The

mystery in this, as with miracles, or anything else,

is only to those who are ignorant. 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 who were born

to me in the spirit world to come here and take

tabernacles of flesh..."

The opposition was still present, and there were still those who

disbelieved in the sayings of their leader. It is interesting to

note in this sermon that Brigham does not grieve over any

misquotations or misunderstandings of his previous statements

concerning Adam, but rather he laments over the disbelief which

existed among his brethren. During all the years Young never claimed

to be misquoted or misinterpreted. Instead, he appealed to his

divine calling as proof of the truth of this statements.

Young also did not shy away from claiming that his teachings were

the Word of God. He did not believe his doctrine to be just his

personal opinion, which could be wrong. On the contrary, believing

himself to be a prophet of God, he declared all of his sermons to be

revelation, directly from the Lord:

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, as I know the road to

my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in

our midst. He teaches the people continually. 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 (54).

Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained

about not getting revelations. I will make a statement

here that has been brought against me as a crime,

perhaps as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not

allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in

the councils of the nations - that Brigham Young has

said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world

they may call them Scripture." I say now when they are

copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture

as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read

revelation read the sayings of him who knows this mind

of God... (55).

There is no room for thinking that Brigham was expressing what he

believed to be merely his own opinions. No. He rightly believed

that when a prophet of God acts as a prophet, he speaks the truth.

YOUNG FIRM TO THE END ON ADAM-GOD

As we come to 1877, the last year of Brigham Young's life, we find

him still teaching what he had first taught 25 years before. The

setting for this discourse is in the home of Brigham Young. There

appears to be evidence that part of this address was to be used as

the lecture before the veil in all future endowment ceremonies:

...after supper went to Prest Young's... Prest Young

was filled with the spirit of God and revelation and

said... "In the creation the gods entered into an

agreement about forming this earth & 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 Jesus made while in Jerusalem. This is

life eternal that they might know thee, the only

true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. we

were once acquainted with the Gods & 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 & some thing he was made like an

adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of

life, for we read 'from dust thou are art and unto

dust thou shalt 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 he Keys thereof and had

been faithful in all things and gained his

resurrection and his 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 begotton all the spirits 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 and Michael who is Adam

our common Father, Adam and 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 assisted 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 does not produce

it, consequently she was taken from the side or bowels

of her father. this explains the mystery of Moses' ark

sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam & Eve when they

were placed on this earth were immortal beings with

flesh and bones, and sinues, but upon partaking of the

fruit of the earth while in the garden and cultivating

the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to

mortal beings with blood coursing through their veins

as the action of life... Father Adam's oldest son

(Jesus the Savior) 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 their work

on earth they did not lay their bodies down in the

dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they

came."

I felt myself much blessed in being permitted to

associate with such men and hear such instructions as

they savored of life to me (56).

At one minute past 4:00 P.M., on August 29, 1877, Brigham Young died.

He presided over the Mormon Church longer than any other man -

30 years. Though many continued to believe in Adam as their God,

the doctrine was largely buried along with Brigham. Rather than

publicly preaching this doctrine, the Church authorities sought to

avoid controversy by remaining silent.

THE PRESENT DILEMMA AND THE TRUE WAY OUT

As time went on, not only did the Adam doctrine cease to be preached,

but it began to be denied. Most LDS General Authorities even denied

that Brigham had ever taught it. Being far removed from the time in

which the second Mormon President expounded the teaching, these

apologist were safe in dismissing his remarks as being misquoted or

misinterpreted. Those who continued to believe the Adam-God teaching

were soon to be excommunicated from the Church for believing it.

Books and articles were written to denounce the Adam-God theory These

books quoted against the false doctrine the precise verses that Orson

Pratt and the Reorganized Church had employed against Brigham a

hundred years before (57). There were no admissions that Brigham had

taught it. Instead, there were denials.

An examination of the evidence, however, will admit to no other

conclusion that that Brigham Young did teach that Adam was Heavenly

Father, the Father of men's spirits as well as the Father of Jesus

Christ in the flesh. Brigham Young, one of recent history's most

prominent religious leaders, did indeed advance a doctrine that was

to focus worship on a strange god. The doctrine that he taught for

over 25 years was false doctrine and the LDS Church admits this

today. It has, in effect, sided with Orson Pratt and has adopted his

arguments and views as being right. However, in doing this it has

unknowingly admitted that Brigham was not an inspired prophet of God.

It is caught in the words of one of its own Apostles, George A. Smith:

If Brigham Young is the President of the Church he is

an inspired man. If we have not an inspired man, then

Orson Pratt is right.

The implications certainly are obvious. The claims of the Utah LDS

church utterly collapse when they claim to be the only true church

and the sole possessor of God's authority.

The Mormon, furthermore, faces the dilemma of being unable to be

certain that his present prophet is advancing in true doctrine.

Perhaps the present teachings of the living prophet will be

tomorrow's false teachings of a dead prophet. Perhaps the present

revelations which the modern President claims to have received will

be swept under the carpet as was the revelation concerning Adam that

Brigham Young claimed to have received from God.

Today's Mormon cannot hide behind a testimony that the living

prophet is advancing in correct doctrine. His testimony holds no

more weight than the strong testimonies which past members had

concerning the truth of Brigham's Adam-God teaching. In reality, no

Mormon can test assured and have confidence that his prophet is not

uttering the imaginations of his own heart. Even when he speaks as a

prophet and is sustained and defended by his fellow Apostles, he

still cannot be fully trusted.

This frightening dilemma in which the Mormon finds himself is not

peculiar to him or his people, but is the snare in which all men

find themselves when they put their trust in men. To trust the arm

of flesh is really to have no hope at all. One's faith can be only

as firm as the object upon which he places his trust. To place one's

confidence upon erring flesh is to lack firm footing and roots:

Thus says the Lord, Cursed is the man who trust in

mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose

heart turns away from the LORD. For he will be like

a bush in the desert and will not see when prosperity

comes, but will live in stony wastes in the

wilderness, a land of salt without inhabitant

(Jer. 17:5,6).

God invites all men today to place their trust in Him directly

through His Son, Jesus Christ. Unlike a false prophet who teaches

the people to follow a strange god, Jesus can be fully trusted to

lead us to His Father. By His death, Christ has secured a place in

the presence of God for all who place their trust in him. Those who

trust Him can be absolutely sure that He will never fail.

CHRIS ALEX VLACHOS

COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES

288 NORTH 100 WEST

PROVO, UTAH 84601

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Even as this article was being prepared for its publication, Mormon

Apostle Mark E. Peterson was busily revising his book. "Adam Who Is

He?" Because of previous exposure of the deception concerning

Peterson's statement on pages 16 and 17 of his book (quoted under

heading: Denial Adam-God Was Taught) they were forced to "correct"

what was apparently one of Peterson's strongest arguments alleging

that Brigham Young was "misquoted". As you recall, Peterson went to

great lengths about the "misquotation" and the proof of that being

a "signed statement" of C.C. Rich. But since it was clear that

neither assertion was factual, Peterson changed the paragraphs

in question to read as follows:

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 JD 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 out 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).

Some of the reporters at the Tabernacle in those days

were not so skilled as others, and admittedly made

mistakes, such as the misquotations of President Young

as above, which was corrected by Brother Rich and

which has caused some persons in the Church to go

astray.

On the face of it the mistake is obvious. We find in

Genesis 2:15-16 and 3:8-9 that God walked and talked

with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

Mark E. Peterson

Adam Who Is He? (1979 Edition)

page 16-17

It is quite interesting to compare this version with the one that

was quoted in this booklet because we see a complete turning

around of the facts, but an attempt to stay with the

argument!

The "strength" of Peterson's argument (such as it was) was based

on the "fact" that C.C. Rich was present at the delivery of the

sermon and thus able to "correct" the "misquotation". Since we

know, and Peterson admits that C.C. Rich was NOT present, the

whole basis of the argument is now totally missing. Who cares

what Ben E. Rich wrote in his copy of the Journal of Discourses

several decades later (remember he wasn't even born until 1855)

especially when we was quoting a man who was not even there?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

********FOOTNOTES********

(1) Calvin, in his exposition of the second commandment, explains

this beautifully: The Lord very frequently addresses us in the

character of a husband...As he performs all the offices of a

true and faithful husband, so he requires love and chastity

from us; that is, that we do not prostitute our souls to Satan.

As the purer and chaster a husband is, the more grievously he

is offended when he sees his wife inclining to a rival; so the

Lord, who has betrothed us to Himself in truth, declares that

he burns in the hottest jealousy whenever, neglecting the

purity of His holy marriage, we defile ourselves with

abominable lusts and especially when the worship of His deity,

which ought to have been most carefully kept unimpaired, is

transferred to another... since in this way we not only violate

our plighted troth, but defile the nuptial couch, by giving

access to adulterers (Institutes, II, viii, 18).

(2) The Doctrine and Covenants, on of Mormonism's scriptures,

states that the Mormon people are "the only true and living

Church upon the face of the whole earth". (D&C, 1:30).

(3) Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt wrote that all other churches are

entirely destitute of all authority to administer the

sacraments:

But who in this generation have authority to baptize?

None but those who have received authority in the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: all other

churches are entirely destitute of all authority from

God; and any person who receives Baptism or the Lord's

Supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he

looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people. Both

Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the

"whore of Babylon" whom the Lord denounces by the mouth

of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth

by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who

shall be so wicked as to receive holy ordinance of the

gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate

churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless

they repent of the unholy and impious act

(Orson Pratt, The Seer, Washington ed., p.255).

(4) Joseph Smith claimed that in the spring of 1820 Jesus Christ

appeared to him in a vision and instructed him to join none

of the Christian denominations, "for they were all wrong and

all their creeds were an abomination and their professors

were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2,

verse 19).

(5) Mormon Prophet Spencer W. Kimball was ordained an Apostle

under the hands of Heber J. Grant. Grant was likewise

ordained by George Q. Cannon. Cannon was ordained to his

apostolic office under the hands of Brigham Young.

Similarly, every one of the present Twelve Apostles of

the Mormon Church has received his ordination through

Brigham Young. If Brigham was false, then all those who

were ordained through him lack the very priesthood which

they believe Brigham had. A break in one link causes the

entire chain below it to fall to the ground; so a break

in the Mormon priesthood succession breaks off the

transfer of authority.

(6) "Misc. Minutes" unpublished ms., Brigham Young Collection,

Church Archives, Salt Lake City, p.1.

(7) Ibid., pp.6-7.

(8) Believing himself to be a prophet of God, Young declared

that it was his gift and calling to teach true doctrine

and to guard the members against heresy:

What man or woman on the earth, what spirit

in the spirit-world can say truthfully that

I have ever gave a wrong word of counsel,

or a word of advice that could not be

sanctioned by the heavens? (Journal of

Discourses, Vol. 12, p.127).

It is my duty to see that correct doctrine

is taught and to guard the Church from

error, it is my calling ("Misc. Minuets:,

unpublished ms., B.Y. Collection, Church

Archives).

(9) Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1 , p.50. According

to Mormon theology, Adam is Michael the archangel and the

Ancient of Days, Cf. Doctrine and Covenants, 27:11.

(10) Ibid., pp. 50-51.

(11) Diary of Hosea Stout. Copied from typed transcript. B.Y.U.

Library, Special Collections, Provo, Utah. The spelling,

grammar, and punctuation in this quotation as well as in

all others cited herein have not been changed from the

originals.

(12) Journal of Samuel H. Rogers, Vol. 1, p. 179. Copied from

the original located at B.Y.U. Library, Special Collections,

Provo, Utah.

(13) Mark E. Peterson, ADAM WHO WAS HE? (Deseret Book, 1976),

p.14.

(14) Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret News, October 9, 1976, Church

News Section, p.11).

(15) Leonard J. Arrington, Charles C. Rich (B.Y.U. Press, 1974),

p.173

(16) Copied from microfilm of original. B.Y.U. Library, Special

Collections, Prove, Utah.

(17) Copied from Deseret Weekly, microfilm, B.Y.U. Library.

(18) Copy of the original Journal of Discourses volume on which

statement was made is located in the Church Historian's

Office, Salt Lake City. For photo reproduction, see Bob

White, WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?, p.77.

(19) Faced with the fact that Brigham Young made no attempt to

correct his statements, Mormon scholar, Rodney Turner,

was forced to admit that Brigham was quoted correctly:

Was Brigham Young misquoted? It is the

writer's opinion that the answer to

this question is a categorical no.

There is not the slightest evidence

from Brigham Young, or any other

source, that either his original

remarks on April 9, 1852, or any

of his subsequent statements were

ever misquoted in the official

publications of the Church... In

light of Brigham Young's attitude

toward the errors of others, and in

view of the division created by his

remarks concerning Adam, it would be

stretching one's credibility to the

breaking point to believe that he

would have remained silent had he

been misquoted. (The Position of Adam

in Latter-day Saint Scripture and

Theology, M.A. thesis, B.Y.U., pp.45-46;

thesis is presently restricted from

viewing or reading).

(20) Joseph Fielding Smith, ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS, Vol.

5, p.123.

(21) Ibid., pp. 122-123.

(22) See Bruce R. McConkie, MORMON DOCTRINE (Bookcraft, 1966),

pp. 18-19.

(23) In his thesis, Rodney Turner similarly discounts the

possibility that Brigham was being misinterpreted:

It is true that the original discourse of

April 9, 1852, could be taken in more than

one way; and if he had never mentioned the

subject again, his actual meaning would be

a moot point. However, he did mention the

subject again, many times. Therefore the

likelihood of misunderstanding him, in view

of his subsequent statements through the

years, becomes more remote (The Position of

Adam, p.36).

(24) Brigham Young Papers, Feb. 19, 1854, call number Ms. F219

#81, Church Historian's Office, Salt Lake City.

(25) Copied from microfilm of journal located at B.Y.U. Library,

Special Collections, Provo, Utah.

(26) See Bruce R. McConkie, MORMON DOCTRINE, pp.516-517.

(27) Millenial Star, Vol. 16, No. 31, August 5, 1854, p.482.

(28) Ibid., p.483

(29) Ibid., Vol. 16, No. 34, August 26, 1854, p.530.

(30) Ibid., pp.534-535.

(31) See T. B. H. Stenhouse, THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN SAINTS, p.492.

Photo reproduction of original available through Modern

Microfilm Co., Box 1884, S.L.C., Utah 84110.

(32) Brigham Young Papers. Oct. 8, 1854, call number Ms. d 1234,

Church Historian's Office, Salt Lake City.

(33) Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p.54).

(34) Ibid., Vol. 6, p.275.

(35) Deseret News, Vol. 4, No. 31, October 12, 1854, p.2.

(36) Journal of Wilford Woodruff, October 6-8, 1854.

(37) Journal of the Southern Indian Mission, p.88.

(38) Joseph Lee Robinson Journal, copied from typed transcript

located at B.Y.U. Library, Special Collections, p.62.

(39) Eliza R. Snow was a plural wife of Joseph Smith and was

later married to Brigham Young.

(40) Millenial Star, Vol. 17, No. 20, p.320.

(41) Sacred Hymns for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints, 1856, 11th ed., p. 375. This hymn has been

deleted from present LDS hymnals. In the 20th ed. there

appeared a hymn titled, "Sons of Michael, He approaches."

In the second line Michael was described as the "eternal"

Father. In today's edition this has been changed to read

the "ancient" Father.

(42) Diary of Samuel Whitney Richards, copied from typed

transcript at B.Y.U. Library, Special Collections, Provo,

Utah, p.113.

(43) Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p.2.

(44) Wilford Woodruff Journal, December 29, 1856. Typed from

microfilm of original.

(45) Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p.331f.

(46) The minutes of this session are found in the Wilford

Woodruff Journal, under the date of January 27, 1860.

(47) The council minutes are located in the Brigham Young

Collection, Miscellaneous Papers, Church Historian's

Office.

(48) The entire Orson Pratt-Brigham Young affair cannot be

underestimated. The controversy which raged between the two

shows that Brigham was teaching that Adam was God. From the

charges that Pratt made it is clear what Brigham was

teaching. Furthermore, it is significant that Young made

no attempt to correct a misquotation or misinterpretation.

On the contrary, he defended his doctrine, and continued

to assert it. Importance should also be placed upon the

remarks of the other Apostles who rallied to their

Prophet's defense. They replied to Orson that a prophet

of God cannot advance false doctrine, therefore all

should accept the President's statements. They rightly

understood the biblical emphasis that a prophet of God

cannot advance false doctrine about God and that he

would be inspired to teach the truth. They also realized

the implications of Orson Pratt's statement. If Brigham

was advancing false doctrine, then he would be a false

prophet. Only a false prophet advances false doctrine.

To charge Mormonism's prophet with teaching false

doctrine would be to undermine Mormonism's claim to be a

divinely led people.

(49) The Reorganized Church at this time was known as the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Later they

attached to themselves the title of being the "Reorganized"

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon

factions has its headquarters in Independence, Missouri.

(50) A MORMON CHRONICLE: THE DIARIES OF JOHN D. LEE (The

Huntington Library, 1955), Vol. 1, p.293.

(51) Sacred History, Solomon F. Kimball Papers, Church Historian's

Office, Salt Lake City.

(52) Manuscript Sermon, "A FEW WORDS OF DOCTRINE", Brigham

Young Collection, Church Historian's Office, Salt Lake City.

(53) Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p.58.

(54) Ibid., Vol. 13, p.95.

(55) Ibid., p.264.

(56) L. John Nuttall Journal, pp.20-24, copied from original at

B.Y.U. Library, Special Collections, Provo, Utah.

(57) See Mark E. Peterson, ADAM WHO IS HE?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ (2) That Adam=God is a private theory, Williard Smith

From: wcsa@iwtdr.att.com

Date: 8 Mar 93 11:53:00 GMT

Subject: Re: Adam/God

Dr. Hedrick:

Adam/God is a controversial issue in Mormonism. Last month, Mr Rose dumped

an article on t.r.m on Adam/God. I pointed out a number of problems from his

article and posted a copyright-free article that was written by a well-known

Mormon apologist. I will append to this email message that article as well

as a few points which I made.

When BY said that his sermons were as good as scripture he was not intending

it to mean the same thing as inerrant scripture. BY made it quite clear on

several occasions that Adam/God was not official doctrine. If you have any

other questions I will try to do my best to answer them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My Remarks on Adam/God

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concerning the Pratt-Young Controversy of 1860: The fact is that I am not

being deceptive on this point. True, Adam-God was a major sticking point

between Pratt and Young, but to say that the issue under discussion in the

quorum of the twelve in 1860 was Adam-God is flatly wrong.

At first I wondered why Mr Rose thought this when he admitted that he had not

read the minutes in question. Only after I read the essay by Chris Ulachos,

which Mr Rose reproduced, did I understand why he directed this rather Cheap

Shot at me.

Under the section "OPPOSITION TO ADAM-GOD INTENSIFIES," Mr Ulachos quotes

portions of those minutes and leads one to believe that the discussion was on

Adam-God. You should note (as I noted) the lack of references to Adam-God in

the quoted sections. Why? Because the discussion was not about Adam-God.

Since I have read the minutes and because I am aware of the details of this

meeting, I can confidently accuse Mr Ulachos of blatantly misrepresenting the

facts. Unfortunately Mr Rose has fallen into the same ditch because he

uncritically accepts anything that another anti-Mormon will write.

Note that I said the discussion was NOT ABOUT Adam-God, however during the

meeting *Pratt* raised the issue of Adam-God. Orson Hyde and George A. Smith

told Pratt he was getting off track and refocused the discussion. Anyone

reading the minutes would not have missed this turn. I cannot imagine how Mr

Ulachos missed it unless he was intent on misrepresenting the theme of the

meeting to match his own agenda.

This meeting directly resulted in the issuing of a Statement of the First

Presidency which can be found in _Messages of the First Presidency_, Vol 2,

pp. 214-223. I ask, "Has Mr Rose read this statement, and if so how can he

claim that the controversy was CENTERED on Adam-God?"

While this statement is primarily a public confession by Pratt dealing with

doctrinal issues, the First Presidency added several comments at the end. In

the First Presidency section there is one small paragraph which commented on

one aspect of Adam-God (it addressed the issue which Pratt raised in the

above meeting). This is significant because it is the only place that I know

of where Brigham Young issued an OFFICIAL statement that touched on ANY part

of the theory. But for reasons that will become all too clear, Mr Ulachos

(who claims to know all about the theory and the 1860 controversy) overlooks

it. This statement reads:

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.

To any intelligent Mormon who could read between the lines, Brigham Young

essentially stated that a PRIMARY point relating to Adam-God was not to be

considered Official Doctrine nor was it to be binding upon the members of the

church. That Mr Ulachos ignores this is not too surprising.

Since Mr Rose has decided to FLIP FLOP to Adam-God, and since in the last

four and a half years I have contributed little to the net on the issue of

Adam-God, and since I am getting weary of the Net and will probably

unsubscribe for a while, I hope that Mr Rose will not grudge a few comments

and the reproduction of an essay on the subject that I feel comes closest to

describing most Mormons' (who have thoroughly investigated the matter) views.

When I read Mr Ulachos's essay (reprinted from _Journal of Pastoral

Practice_, Vol 3, No 2, pp 93-119), I thought here is "Bull in a China Shop"

and a rather ignorant bull at that. In the first place Mr Ulachos seems to

think that Adam-God is simply a question of identity: is the same person who

partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge the same person who is the

father of all our spirits. But Adam-God is not that simple and has never

been that simple.

Adam-God is a term applied to a collection of issues, some of them

compatable and some of them incompatable. Those issues ask such questions as:

- Is the account of the creation of man in Genesis literal or figurative?

- What was the creation process?

- Is the father of our spirits also the father of our physical bodies?

- What are the roles of Adam and God the Father?

- Is the garden account literal or figurative?

- How many Adams were there?

- Are Michael and Adam the same person or different persons? When are

they the same? When are they different?

- Is Adam subordinate to Christ?

- What does the name "Adam" signify?

This is only *scratching* the surface. Complicating the matter is that

Mormons do not accept prophetic infallibility or inerrancy. In short, I could

accept Brigham Young's answers to the above questions but still not accept

the theory that Mr Ulachos advances as the central issue of Adam-God. That is

why attempts by anti-Mormons to claim that Adam-God is official doctrine are

stupid.

Apart from the fact that that Brigham Young indicated more than once that

Adam-God was not binding upon members of the church, noone that I know of

(Especially Anti-Mormons) can even tell you how all the pieces fit together

in the first place. The anti-Mormon argument boils down to a classic example

of strawmen. First they tell you what THEY think is the doctrine (despite

the problems in their reconstruction) and then they tell you why it is all

wrong.

Since Mr Rose has seen fit to inflict upon us an lengthy essay on Adam-God, I

would like to return the favor by reproducing an essay by Van Hale which I

think addresses and puts the limited arguments of Mr Ulachos and Mr Rose in

their proper place.

****************************************************************

Van Hale's "WHAT ABOUT THE ADAM-GOD THEORY?"

Sandy, Utah: Mormon Miscellaneous, July 1983.

****************************************************************

At the age of twenty, as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints, I first came in contact with the so- called Adam-God

theory in an anti-Mormon tract. I had read such literature before and knew

that it frequently twisted and misinterpreted LDS sources. I therefore felt

certain that the purported quotation from Brigham Young's April 9, 1852

discourse - that Adam is our father and our God - either was taken from

context or was an outright fabrication.

After examining the evidence, however, I soon became convinced that on at

least two occasions Brigham Young had taught a concept which generally has

not been accepted by Mormons - namely, that God the Father, the Father of our

spirits and the Father of Jesus (of both his body and his spirit), came to

this earth, took upon himself mortality, and was known as Adam, the

progenitor the of human family. Simply stated, according to President Young,

God the Father became Adam. (Journal of Discourses [JD] 1:50; Deseret News,

June 18, 1873). Later I found several other references in which President

Young hinted at this belief. (JD 4:216-218, 271; 5:331; 6:274; 7:290;

11:41,42).

Over the past fifteen years I have found many additional sources which

confirm that this idea was taught for a period of time in the past century.

They include sermon reports, private diary entries, minutes of meetings,

letters, articles, and statements. Many of these are unpublished and have

only come to light in the last several years.

I have encountered strong and varied opinions on this subject. Opponents of

Mormonism have taken a particular interest in it. Two positions are most

prevalent: (1) Non-Mormon Christians committed to evangelizing Mormons seek

to establish that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory, that it is

contrary to Biblical teaching, and that Brigham Young could therefore not

have been a true prophet. (2) So-called fundamentalist Mormons seek to

establish that Brigham Young taught it, that recent prophets have rejected

it, and that some prophets since Brigham Young could therefore not be true

prophets. Both groups have taken advantage of two facts: First, most Mormons

are unaware that Brigham Young ever taught the Adam- God theory; and second,

most Mormons are uncomfortable with the position that prophets may have

differed in their concept of God.

My purpose here is not to present evidence to show that Brigham Young taught

the Adam-God theory. Rather, as one who is convinced that he did teach it, I

wish to state briefly some of my reasons for rejecting the conclusions of

these two groups of Mormonism's opponents.

The non-Mormon Christian Argument

I am not persuaded by the non-Mormon Christian argument for several reasons,

two of which I will discuss. First, in their zeal to refute Mormonism they

have misstated, ignored, or distorted many points of Mormon history. Second,

and perhaps more important, they demand qualifications of a prophet which are

both un-Biblical and unreasonable. I will present my response by answering

two questions.

Was the Adam-God theory official Mormon doctrine?

My answer to this question is an emphatic "No." After presenting evidence

that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory, critics usually go on to

claim:

that is was official doctrine for 50 years;

that it was widely taught and received;

that Brigham Young claimed he had received it by revelation;

that it was accepted as the inerrant word of God because Brigham Young

said his sermons were scripture; and

that those rejecting it were excommunicated from the church.

The effort of opponents to establish this point is evidence that they

consider it important. Their purpose is to make Mormons feel uncomfortable

with Mormonism. To present the Adam-God theory as a concept expressed by

Brigham Young on several occasions but which was never accepted officially as

doctrine does not serve their purpose nearly as well. They therefore resort

to considerable distortion to maintain this erroneous position.

My reasons for rejecting this anti-Mormon caricature are based on the

following six points.

1. The Adam-God theory has never been a part of the Mormon canon of

scripture. The Church has always had an official canon. During

Brigham's Young's lifetime it was the Bible, Book of Mormon, and a

somewhat smaller Doctrine and Covenants. President Young never

attempted to incorporate any statement of the Adam-God theory into this

canon.

Opponents frequently quote Brigham Young's statement that he had "never

yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they

may not call Scripture" (JD 13:95), or that his sermons "when they are

copied and approved by [him] they are as good Scripture as is couched

in this Bible," (JD 13:264). They contend that President Young in

calling his sermons scripture and comparing them to the Bible was

declaring his to be the inerrant word of God, but this is their

definition of scripture and not Brigham Young's. His definition of

scripture and thus the only one appropriately applied here did not

define scripture as being word for word the word of God. Rather, he

said:

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within

the lids of the Bible was the word of God ... I believe that the

Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good angels and

the words of bad angels and the words of the devil; and also the

words uttered by the ass when he rebuked the prophet in his

madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are

(JD 13:175,235).

Brigham Young did not claim inerrancy for his sermons. In fact quite

the contrary is true, as will be seen.

2. The theory was never advocated in any official statement. In addition

to the canon, official statements were occasionally issued by the First

Presidency and by the Quorum of the Twelve. The only one in which

Brigham Young ever referred to the Adam-God theory was a statement

issued in 1860 entitled "Instructions to the Saints." Signed by the

First Presidency and published in the Deseret News, it stated several

conclusions of councils held to consider some doctrinal differences

between Apostle Orson Pratt and President Young. One of these was the

Adam-God theory. But rather than declaring the theory to be Church

doctrine, the statement says, "It is deemed wisest to let that subject

remain without further explanation at present" (Messages of the First

Presidency 2:222).

3. No revelation was ever presented by Brigham Young on the Adam-God

theory. Nor does it appear that he ever claimed to have received a

direct revelation on the subject. Opponents would challenge my claim

with this quotation from President Young:

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

(Deseret News, June 18, 1873).

It is not all certain that Brigham Young intended this to be an

announcement of a direct revelation. It was his belief that God is the

source of all truth in every field. To him, every truth known to any

man has come by revelation from God, sometimes directly but usually

indirectly upon such natural principles as observation, study, inquiry,

and meditation. Since he believed that the Adam- God theory was true,

no matter how he arrived at that conclusion, to him it was revealed by

God. (He presented this thought at some length in JD 3:209; see also

12:207; 12:148).

But even if this is to be accepted as a claim of direct revelation, the

extent of it seems to be "namely that Adam is our father and God." The

more specific idea that God the Father became Adam may be Brigham

Young's own expansion or interpretation. There is, however, another

possible interpretation - that, as the Lord mad Moses a god to Pharaoh

(Exodus 7:1) and as Paul was "as Christ Jesus" to the Galatians (4:14),

Adam, our great progenitor, will preside over the human family as

"father and God." This was the interpretation of Brigham Young's

statement advocated in 1853 by Samuel W. Richards, who, as editor of

the Millennial Star and President of the Church in the British Isles,

first published President Young's initial sermon on the subject

(Millennial Star, December 10, 1853). Richards' successor, Apostle

Franklin D. Richards, also advanced this interpretation (MS, March 31,

1855), as have most of Brigham Young's successors.

The fact remains that there is no revelation from Brigham Young

specifically stating the idea that God the Father became Adam.

4. Brigham Young himself did not consider the Adam-God theory official

Church doctrine. Again opponents would challenge my assertion by

quoting the bold language he used in his first mention of the

subject:"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile,

Saint and sinner!" and "Every man upon the earth, professing Christian

or non-professing, must know it sooner or later." From this they insist

that President Young considered the Adam-God theory official Church

doctrine. However, he expressed his attitude toward it on several other

occasions making it very clear that he considered belief in the subject

non-essential. Opponents, to maintain their argument, chose to ignore

these quotations:

[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, Historical Department of the Church [HDC]).

... it is one that should not trouble us at all ... I do not tell

it because that I wish it to be established in the minds of others

(April 25, 1855, HDC).

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 of 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 (JD 4:217; see also JD

4:271; 7:238; 7:285; 11:43, 268).

I cannot believe that President Young would speak this way of an

official Church doctrine.

Opponents give the impression that for many years President Young

frequently and forcefully advocated the Adam-God theory, but this is

another distortion. I have not found a single sermon devoted to a full

exposition of the theory. Rather, it must be pieced together from

several of his sermons and comments. Also, he delivered some 1500

sermons as President, and not more than half a dozen, only two of which

appeared in print, contain explicit statements of central Adam-God

theory concepts.

5. The Adam-God theory was not considered Church doctrine by other General

Authorities. Tens of thousands of hours of sermons by some twenty

leading authorities of Brigham Young's era have been recorded and

preserved. Yet we have only several brief comments on the subject by

only one of them - Brigham Young's counselor Heber C. Kimball, and

these can be read in less than two minutes. The same is true of their

writings. Of thousands of printed pages by these authorities there are

less than a dozen on the subject, and most of these argue that Adam, as

patriarch, will be our God in a certain sense, not that God the Father

became Adam. At least a hundred other topics were more frequently

addressed in sermons and in print.

6. The Adam-God theory was not a test of faith. That is, acceptance of it

was not required to become a member or to remain a member.

Opponents frequently claim that it was Church practice to excommunicate

those who did not accept it. This is simply false. The only reference

they present in support of their claim is from a conference talk in

Great Britain by Apostle Amasa Lyman. However, this very reference, if

read in its entirety refutes their argument. Lyman said, "I have heard

of a man who was cut off because he would not believe that Adam was our

Father and God." They stop here, but Elder Lyman did not. He

continued, disapproving strongly of excommunicating a man on those

grounds (MS 24:99, 100).

Those familiar with LDS history and practice are well aware that official

doctrine must meet certain requirements which were not met by the Adam-God

theory. The fact is it was never a part of the LDS canon, never presented in

an official statement, never the subject of any known revelation, and never

declared church doctrine by any recognized Church authority. The status of

the Adam-God theory was summed up in 1897 in a private letter outlined by

President Wilford Woodruff and written by Apostle Joseph F. Smith. Both had

been Apostles under Brigham Young:

Prest. Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the

subject. What he said was not given as 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.

Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence

and authority being given of its truth." Only the scripture, the

"accepted word of God," is the Church's standard (Letter to A. Saxey,

January 7, 1897, HDC).

It seems appropriate at this point to state briefly what has been the

prevailing LDS belief. The idea most readily found in the LDS scriptures, the

teaching of all of Brigham Young's successors is that Adam and all of the

human family have a common Father and God, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

In fact, this very concept was stated in public sermons on several occasions

by Brigham Young himself. An example is found in his April 17, 1870 sermon:

The world may in vain ask the question: "Who are we?" But the Gospel

tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God who we serve.

Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are

the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and

Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens,

the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge

of (JD 13:311. See also JD 1:238; 10:231; 13:309).

So, with the exception of several sermons that fell far short of official

pronouncements, Mormon belief has been consistent in stating that the Father

and God of Moses, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, and all the rest

of mankind is the same being who is the Father and God of Adam. Although

never official doctrine, some still wonder how President Young could have

held such views. This leads to the next question.

Can Prophets Differ in Their Views?

As one who believes that God has called prophets at various times, I think

that the only possible answer to this question is "Yes."

Most opponents who have made an issue of the Adam-God theory insist that true

prophets have been infallible, at least in matters of faith and doctrine, and

therefore there could be no doctrinal difference or disharmony among them.

They demand that LDS prophets either meet this standard or be denounced as

false prophets. They assume that Biblical prophets were in such perfect union

with God as to be free from all error and personal opinion and that their

every word and thought were not their own, but God's. This claim has much

appeal, but many devoted Christians who have examined this point have

declared that the Bible in no way support this assumption. Commentators who

have studied the Bible in chronological order have found numerous differences

when comparing earlier writings to later, and when comparing author to

author. This basic idea has been widely discussed and abundantly

demonstrated in such major Biblical works as the Interpreter's Bible, and the

Interpreter's Bible Dictionary.

Several subjects on which the authors of the Bible diverge include: the

nature of God, Jesus, and the Messiah; salvation, resurrection, the second

coming, and the observance of the law of Moses. Our opponents must be able to

deny the differences demonstrated by Bible scholars on these several

important points and show a perfect agreement among Bible authors before I

could see any validity in their demanding perfect consistency among LDS

prophets.

Non-Mormon Christians who acknowledge these differences within the Bible have

not felt obligated to reject the Biblical prophets because of their

differences. Rather, they have proposed what they feel are valid explanations

of them. As far as I am concerned, the same explanations apply with equal

validity to LDS prophets.

The two primary points of their explanations are: a) Prophets are not

infallible, and b) Their knowledge was fragmentary and incomplete. Rev. J.R.

Dummelow, in his widely received work stated:

We must not regard the Bible as an absolutely perfect book in which God

is Himself the author using human hands and brains only as a man might

use a typewriter. God used men, not machines - men with like weakness and

prejudice and passion as ourselves ... in the Bible we do not expect the

actors to be real and natural. Because of our false theory of Verbal

Inspiration we are puzzled when the divine is mingled with the human. We

must learn that the divine is mingled with the human ... It is a mine of

precious ore where the gold is mingled with the rock and clay - the ore

is richer in one part than another, but all parts in some degree are

glittering with gold (p. cxxxv).

The Apostle Paul said that that "which is perfect" would come in the future.

For the present, he claimed that he only "knew in part and prophesied in

part." He compared his present imperfect knowledge to the distorted,

imperfect image reflected in the poor grade of mirrors of his day. He did not

consider his knowledge either complete or perfect. The renowned New Testament

interpreter William Barclay has commented on this passage from 1 Corinthians

13:9-12:

The Corinthian mirror was made of highly polished metal and, even at its

best, gave but an imperfect reflection ... In this life Paul feels we see

only the reflections of God and are left with much that is mystery and

riddle ... Even if in Christ we have the perfect revelation, our seeking

minds can grasp it only in part, for the finite can never grasp the

infinite. Our knowledge is still like the knowledge of a child, But the

way of love will lead us in the end to the day when the veil is drawn

aside and we see face to face and know even as we are known. (The Letters

to the Corinthians, p. 125).

I believe that the only reasonable position is that the Biblical prophets

were a mixture of the divine and the human. They received revelation

progressively. God revealed Himself to them "line upon line." The prophets

increased in their knowledge and understanding, as did those who followed

them. The result is that in different ages different prophets have held some

different views. Even the same prophet grew in insight and understanding.

>From their writings and sermons it seems to me that both Joseph Smith and

Brigham Young would have concurred with these conclusions of recent Bible

commentators. Both maintained that God had not perfectly nor fully revealed

Himself to past prophets nor to themselves. There were, like Paul, looking to

the future for God's perfect revelation of Himself and for their own perfect

understanding of His revelations. Neither one claimed to be infallible, but

rather frequently admitted to his own imperfections (D&C 42:61; 50:24, 40;

78:18; 88:49; 121:28; 124:41; 128:18; JD 2:314; 1:115). Brigham Young once

stated as his opinion that:

even the best of the Latter-day Saints have but a faint idea of the

attributes of the Deity.

Were the former and Latter-day Saints, with their Apostles, Prophets,

Seers, and Revelator collected together to discuss this matter, I am led

to think there would be found a great variety in their views and feelings

upon this subject, without direct revelation from the Lord. It is as much

my right to differ from other men, as it is theirs to differ from me, in

points of doctrine and principle, when our minds cannot at once arrive at

the same conclusion (JD 2:123).

Many non-Mormon Christians, while admitting that differences exist in the

prophetic writings, are not willing to reject the prophets. Neither am I. I

am not willing to discard Paul's claims because some of his imperfections and

lack of harmony with other prophets and apostles have been pointed out.

Neither am I willing to discard Mormonism because opponents can point to a

difference between Brigham Young and a Bible prophet, or between him and a

succeeding LDS prophet.

I believe those who insist that prophets must be infallible are either

uninformed or unreasonable. Either they will find themselves disappointed, or

will find themselves constantly refusing an objective examination of the

subject. I think it only fair that opponents of Mormonism either relinquish

this point, or be prepared to refute the massive evidence of prophetic

differences and variations presented by objective Christian Bible scholars.

It is common for Mormons who have examined the Adam-God issue to reject this

concept of Brigham Young but not reject him as a prophet believing that both

the Bible and Mormon history have revealed that all who have been prophets

were yet fallible and susceptible to error. When the evidence against the

infallibility of prophets is acknowledged, I believe this position is

reasonable. However, there is something more which needs to be said. I also

know some Mormons who believe the Adam-God theory is true, and others who,

after considerable exposure, have not yet formed an opinion. In order to

understand these other two positions two additional points need attention.

In their zeal to portray Mormonism as negatively as possible it is very

common for opponents to charge that the Adam-God theory is absurd and

blasphemous, but this greatly exaggerates the issue. This is a charge made

in the spirit of ridicule rather than reasoned examination.

The claim is frequently made that Brigham Young believed in a different God,

that he did not believe in the God of the Bible. However, in his sermons,

when he spoke of God, he clearly had reference to the God of the Bible, the

Being who:

formed the earth (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 117, 352),

made promises to Abraham (p. 342),

delivered the children of Israel from Egypt (p. 342),

gave the Law to Moses (p. 104, 348),

and is the Father of Christ (p. 26, 119).

He did not believe in a different God. He believe that the God of the Bible,

He who performed these and many other acts described therein, also came to

this earth as Adam. If in error on this point, his error was in believing God

performed an act which He did not perform. The point of difference is not who

is God, but rather what has God done.

I have frequently heard our opponents respond to the claim that God the

Father experienced mortality by crying absurd, or blasphemous. However, they

believe, as do Mormons, that:

the "man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5),

who "grew and waxed strong" (Luke 2:40),

"increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke

2:52),

"learned obedience by the things which he suffered" (Heb 5:8),

"was in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb 4:15),

who experienced birth, pain, joy, sorrow, anger, and death.

that this man was in fact God the Son passing through mortality. By

comparison, Brigham Young believed that:

God the Father took upon Himself mortality to begin the human race.

God the Son took upon Himself mortality to redeem the human race.

I can understand how someone who believes the second statement could

disbelieve the first one, but I am surprised that those who believe the

second one do not hesitate to declare the first one absurd and blasphemous.

Why is it any more absurd or blasphemous to believe that God the Father

experienced mortality than it is to believe that God the Son did?

I suppose that ultimately whatever is false is also absurd. My point is that

until the ultimate truth is revealed what seems absurd or blasphemous is

usually that which contradicts a cherished religious tradition. For 2000

years many Jews, upon their understanding of the Old Testament, have

condemned the Christian view of Jesus as absurd and blasphemous. I see this

approach as an appeal to tradition, not as a worthwhile argument.

The primary argument of those who do not accept the Adam-God theory is that

it is not scriptural. I concur with this. I do not believe that it can be

supported from the Bible. To me the Biblical message is that Adam's God is

our God; his Father is our Father (Genesis, and Luke 3:38). This also seems

to be the message of LDS scripture (Moses 2-5, and D&C 78:15-22).

However, it does not necessarily prove that an idea is false to show that it

is not supported by previous scripture, or even that it apparently

contradicts previous scripture. If otherwise, then those who rejected the New

Testament message were justified. Many rejected Jesus because he came with

not only a new message, but sometimes a different message. Several times in

the sermon on the mount Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said ...

But I say unto you ..." (Matthew 5, see also 19:3-12). The Old Testament had

one message, but Jesus had another. In Acts 15, when Peter, by authority of

the Holy Spirit, announced that circumcision would no longer be required of

God's people, he announced a different message than that of the Old

Testament, which spoke of it as an everlasting covenant for all generations

(Genesis 17).

The New Testament Christians rejected the current Jewish belief that God's

message was complete in the Old Testament, and of course Mormonism has

rejected the common Catholic and Protestant belief that God's message was

completed in the New Testament. We believe that God will yet reveal many

great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God (Article of

Faith, 9). One Bible commentator has characterized the "true prophet" as "a

progressive, who continually advanced in knowledge and grace." The false

prophet "harped continually on the same old string, merely repeating what

former prophets had said ... instead of waiting upon Jehovah himself, and

from his never-failing treasury bringing forth 'things new and old'"

(Abingdon Commentary, p. 151).

Neither the Bible nor Mormonism has ever claimed that truth is to be found

only in the official canon. It must be remembered that every new revelation

ever given has always been outside of the official canon initially. To reject

an idea simply because it sounds new or different is to reject one of the

most fundamental principles of the Judeo-Christian religion epitomized in the

statement of Jesus, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt 11:15,

etc). He clearly had a deeper message which those who remain on the surface

will never grasp.

As a result of this line of thought, some Mormons believe the Adam-God theory

even though it was never official doctrine, never canonized, and not

supported from previous scripture. Personally, I do not find this conclusion

unreasonable. There are, however, those who are extreme in their acceptance

of the Adam-God theory, are known as fundamentalist Mormons, or just

fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist Mormon Argument

On several points the fundamentalist position is identical to that of the

non-Mormon Christian - namely, that the Adam-God theory was official Mormon

doctrine, and that prophets cannot disagree. Where they differ is in that

they believe it is true and scriptural. Non-Mormon Christians believe

Mormonism is faults because early leaders taught the Adam-God theory.

Fundamentalists believe current Mormonism is false because recent leaders

have not taught it.

They frequently resort to considerable twisting of the scriptures and the

teachings of Joseph Smith in order to force them to harmonize with the Adam-

God theory. I have stated what I believe to be the doctrine of the

scriptures. As for Joseph Smith, he clearly taught that Adam holds a position

of authority superior to any of the prophets, that he stands at the head of

his posterity, and presides over the spirits of mankind; that it is by Adam's

authority that they keys are revealed; and that he will judge the saints.

However, the most central issue of the Adam-God theory - that God the Father

became Adam - has not been found among Joseph Smith's teachings; it has not

been shown that he believed that Adam was the Father of our spirits; and he

clearly taught that Adam's high position of authority is yet subordinate to

that of Jesus Christ (Words of Joseph Smith, p. 9-12, 38-44).

Most of the points previously discussed also apply to the fundamentalist

argument. There is one point I wish to discuss further. They claim to be

disciples of Brigham Young. Yet I believe they have misunderstood him to a

greater degree than even the non- Mormon Christians have. I believe Brigham

Young himself would denounce their position in the strongest of terms. By

declaring that Church leaders are in apostasy they have created a division

over a subject he said "does not immediately concern yours or my welfare,"

one which he said "should not trouble us at all." They have lost sight of

what he believed was most important:

We must be one. Our faith must be concentrated in one great work - the

building up of the Kingdom of God on earth, and our works must aim at the

accomplishment of that great purpose (JD 7:280).

Even when a leader is in error he emphasized maintaining unity:

... it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is

superior to them but to 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. Let your faith be for that man but do not oppose and get up a

division between them (Thomas Bullock minutes, May 8, 1854, HDC).

On another occasion he stated:

Let the kingdom alone, the Lord steadies the ark; and if it does jostle,

and appear to need steadying, if the way is a little sideling sometimes,

and to all appearance threatens its overthrow, be careful how you stretch

forth your hands to steady it; let us not be too officious in meddling

with that which does not concern us; let it alone, it is the Lord's work

(JD 11:252).

Since fundamentalists believe that Brigham Young was a true prophet, I do not

feel they can justify hindering one of his major goals by their unbalanced

preoccupation with one of his more obscure doctrinal beliefs.

There are three additional attitudes which I have heard expressed by Mormons

which I wish to mention.

1. Some are totally disinterested in anything except the teachings of the

present leaders. These are working in the present and looking to the

future without ever looking back. There is no spark of concern for past

issues. There are those most critical of this attitude. Although I am

one who must look back, I find myself unable to criticize those not so

inclined.

2. Some have insisted that Brigham Young never taught the Adam-God theory;

that he has been misquoted, inaccurately reported, or misinterpreted.

This was a reasonable view for many years when the entire argument was

founded only upon Brigham Young's April 9, 1852 discourse. As

additional sources have been discovered this position has become less

and less tenable until now I believe it should be totally discarded.

3. Finally, some Mormons believe that after a fair examination of all

relevant points several reasonable conclusions could be reached.

Convinced that Mormonism does not stand or fall upon the issue of the

Adam-God theory, they are satisfied to suspend final judgement on the

matter until further light is shed.

Although many individuals have an will resolve the matter for themselves, I

am certain that their conclusions will continue to be varied because of the

several seemingly reasonable approaches to the issue.

In conclusion I include what I consider to be the most reasonably stated

position on the issue. It is extracted from an unpublished letter of

President Joseph F. Smith to Bishop Edward Bunker, February 27, 1902:

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 mystery of

the kingdom, it is never-the less my wish and my advice, in which

Presidents Winder and Lund, my counselors, heartily join, that the Elders

should not make a practice 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 my 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 ...

Let us be content with what is plainly revealed on this 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.

I have attempted to present as fairly as I could in so brief a work the

various attitudes I have encountered on this interesting subject. Whatever

conclusion most appeals, I am confident that Brigham Young, if he were here,

would be dismayed that his few statements on this one subject have prevented

some people from giving a fair examination to the restored gospel and church

that inspired and motivated him. A man of remarkable common sense, Brigham

Young did not think that the existence of sun spots should lead one to turn

away from the sun's warmth and light.

****************************************************************

Willard C. Smith

Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa

Because I Might have to Eat all of Them. | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ (3) Implications for revelation, Willard Smith

From: wcsa@iwtdx.att.com

Subject: Re: authority of LDS leadership

Our Fearless Moderator has posed several key questions to Mormons which I

think are justified.

1. Why do you accept some revelations and not others?

2. Is there some process beyond just a endorsement by the church as a

whole before a view becomes canonical, or is it a more informal thing

like "common consent?"

I am assuming that when OFM says "accept some revelations and not others" he

is saying "that some revelations are binding upon the members of the church

and some are not binding." In that case, the answer is easy. Revelations

considered binding are those contained in the LDS Canon.

What about the many revelations that are not contained in the canon and thus

not binding. There are several responses. There are some documents which

claim to be revelations, but which have not be authenticated. Off the top of

my head there was a "revelation" which was copied down in Wilford Woodruff's

journal which for a long time was thought to be a revelation given to Wilford

Woodruff which describes the effects of a serious plague spreading thru North

America which essentially depopulates the country. The problem is that while

many individuals thought that this was a revelation given to Wilford

Woodruff, some current investigation suggests that it was something that

Woodruff copied down in his journal and that he was trying to determine the

source. Apparently he left several blank areas in the document where he

intended to go back and fill in the name of the person who had receieved this

"revelation."

In this kind of case, it is clear that this kind of "revelation" is not going

to be accepted by members of the Church as binding although some Mormons

think that they are "neat" and copy, cite, and distribute them heavily. There

was an amusing collection of these revelations published about 10 years ago

entitled _Unpublished Revelataions_.

Then there are the cases of revelations that the content is unclear. That is

that there are ideas that are strange to us and don't seem to jive with the

current canon. In those cases, you might say "the jury is still out

considering the case." Who is the jury: the members of the church and the

church general authorities.

Then there are cases in which we are not really sure whether a revelation was

received, what it said, or what its contents were. The classic case is

Adam/God. BY said he received revelation, OK, let's see it! That's what the

GAs said during the time of BY and even now. Let's see the revelation! There

isn't any. If BY received such a revelation he didn't record it and all we

have are bits and pieces of what he said. Some of what he says jives, and

some of what he said doesn't jive.

It is possible to have a non-recorded revelation binding upon members of the

church. In those very extra-ordinary cases, An Official Statement is added to

the _Doctrine and Covenants_. Two such statements exist.

There has also been a method of presenting to the church a revelation without

making it binding upon members of the church, but making it clear that

members of the church ought to take it seriously. That is when members of the

First Presidency issue a "Statement of the First Presidency." Before D&C 138

was officially added to the canon, it was treated in exactly this manner.

Concerning Adam/God a Mormon is going to ask:

1. Is it contained in the canon?

2. Is there a recorded revelation?

3. Did BY ever attempt to add an Official Statement to the Canon?

4. Did BY ever make a First Presidency statement touching on Adam/God?

To all the above, except the last, the answer is negative!! BY did make an

offical statement of the First Presidency which touched on Adam/God. You will

find it in _Messages of the First Presidency_ 2:222. This statement reads:

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.

In short, BY is expliciting stating that a PRIMARY point relating to Adam/God

is NOT BINDING upon members of the church. My point is that if BY really

intended, as Our Fearless Moderator suggests, his teaching on this matter to

be authoritative, then why didn't he exercise his right to do so? The bare

facts of the matter suggest to me that BY certainly DID NOT intend this

particular teaching to be authoritative!

What I am concerned about is the tendency for people to think that since BY

believed in something then I am suppose to believe in the same. Joseph Smith

and other Mormons expressed the view that they had every right to believe in

some thing even if it differed from everyone else's views. They even felt

that they had the right to be wrong. BY expressed the belief that faithful

members of God's Church down through the ages would disagree about things:

even the best of the Latter-day Saints have but a faint idea of the

attributes of the Deity. Were the former and Latter-day Saints, with

their Apostles, Prophets, Seers, and Revelator collected together to

discuss this matter, I am led to think there would be found a great

variety in their views and feelings upon this subject, without direct

revelation from the Lord. It is as much my right to differ from other men,

as it is theirs to differ from me, in points of doctrine and principle,

when our minds cannot at once arrive at the same conclusion (JD 2:123).

In short, there is not an offical theological lock-step mentality in the LDS

Church. That is not to say that there are some individuals who would like to

change that or that there are those who (for reasons of their own) would like

to portray that, but at the moment the reality is that there is really very

little "Official Mormon Doctrine." In this case one would say that church

doctrine is based on a broad pattern of interrelated scriptural passages that

substantiate and clarify each other? Without this broad pattern, an item

cannot be considered doctrine in and of itself.

OFM also asks:

Also, I'd be curious for your assessment of whether the rather liberal

view on authority that we see here is typical of LDS believers. The

typical view we see here and in talk.religion.misc seems to be that not

everything taught by the major LDS leaders as revelation is necessarily

true.

I think that the far more conservative LDS are going to ask, where does the

revelation end and where does the personal commentary begin? In the case of

Adam/God I might ask, in addition to "where is the revelation?" is how much

of BY's remarks are God's thoughts on the matter and how much are BY's

thoughts on the matter. Especially in the Adam/God theory, where Anti-Mormons

are all to eager to assume that they understand the issue very well (and they

usually don't understand any of the issues at all), some individuals are

ready to blur the distinction between revelation and personal opinion.

The result is that those who want someone else to tell them what to believe

or who want a "cut and dried" series of doctrines, the situation among

Mormons is going to seem more like walking a tight rope rather than standing

on firm ground. "We believe that the Lord will yet reveal many great and

important things pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven." Personally, I don't

mind the tight rope, despite the risks you can see farther.

--

Willard C. Smith

Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa

Because I Might have to Eat all of Them. | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ (3) Implications for revelation, Dale Stevenson

From: steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)

Subject: Re: authority of LDS leadership

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 00:49:51 GMT

In <Mar.8.03.28.11.1993.542@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes:

[asking about LDS views on authority and revelation]

[...I'm ignoring the question on Brigham Young and Adam-God. I have my own

views which won't help explain it at all -- for the standard "orthodox"

LDS apology of Adam/God see John A. Widstoe's "Evidences and Reconcilitions".

It basically boils down to:

1) Brigham did teach Adam was a God.

2) Brigham did not consider Adam the first personage of the Godhead (i.e. God

the father.)

3) But of course, Adam is the father of us all, and our sealing (parent to

child) does link all of us directly back to Adam.

In essence, Adam is God, our Father, but not God *the* Father.]

>Second, my more serious question. Documents quoted in a number of

>sources strongly suggest that Young intended his teaching on this matter

>to be authoritative. While Young seems to have acknowledged that he was

>not in a position to compel people to believe it, a number of his

>statements suggest that he regarded it as a revelation from God, and

>that he taught it with the intention of having the church as a whole

>accept it.

Well, the most famous of his discourses on the subject seems more of a

digression than anything else. Young started out disagreeing with the

popular view of Adam (which is not positive), and set out his own view,

which was. Paraphrasing, If Adam were to walk in here right now, I'd shake

his hand. The main focus of the talk was on the importance of the fall.

I'm inclined to believe that this was the definitive Adam-God talk, since

it's the one that is *always* quoted in the anti-Mormon literature.

>Now I understand that the LDS who post here do not regard either their

>canonical documents or their leaders' statements as inerrant. Given my

>own views on the inerrancy of Scripture and Papal infallibility, I

>certainly do not want to suggest that they should. But the problem is

>that LDS hold a number of views that at least from my point of view look

>rather peculiar, and appear to contradict the teachings of the Bible and

>the invariable teaching of those within Judaism and Christianity who I

>believe understood the mind of God. This includes concepts such as the

>qualitative difference between God and man. I had always understood

>that these characteristic LDS views came as revelations to their

>leaders. By and large they do not seem to be very explicit within the

>Book of Mormon itself. (What I've read of it seems basically innocuous

>-- the characteristic LDS views seem to be primarily in the Doctrines

>and Covenants. If I understand correctly, those are based on

>revelations to LDS leaders.) So the question is, why do you accept some

>revelations and not others? Or is there some process beyond just a

>leader teaching it as revealed? Is there some sort of formal

>endorsement by the church as a whole before a view becomes canonical?

>Or is it a more informal thing like "common consent"? On what does this

>acceptance rest? (E.g. is the assumption that God inspires the church

>as a whole to be able to judge the revelations given to the leaders.)

There's sort of a heirarchy to things --

"Canon" -- officially proposed to the church membership, accepted by them.

In this category, we have the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and

Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Brigham Young's only contribution

to the canon is D&C 136, given to the Saints at Winter Quarters. (And lest

you wonder, it does not mention Adam :->). Canon is accepted by the chuch

membership is being valid and binding, but not to the extent of some

protestant's "every word of the bible is as it was dictated by God himself."

Most LDS will take a clear, authoritative scripture as being clear and

authoritative, although there are a few exceptions. The leaders of the

church quote incessantly from scripture.

"Official church proclamations" -- Statements by the first presidency, messages

from the President of the Church reprinted by the Church. Generally, these

are things that show up in the Ensign from the First Presidency. Conference

addresses (which are reprinted by the Ensign) are more or less on a heirarchy,

with the Prophet's address being considered very important, and a message from

a lowly member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy being considered nice.

Liberal Mormons probably drop this a notch in authoritativeness, but the

orthodox view is that "The conference report should be kept next to your

scriptures for the next six months." Official Declarations 1&2 have additional

status, since they are reprinted in the Doctrine and Covenants, though

technically not canon.

"Opinion of the prophets" -- statements by prophets, not published by the

church. This would include "Jesus the Christ", everything in the Journal

of Discourses, possibly the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, definitely

most books published by Deseret Book. These are frequently quoted, but they're

only quasi-official. Of these "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" is

probably most authoritative, especially since much of it is great background

material for the Doctrine and Covenants. But nothing in this category is

binding.

"Church policy" -- appears in handbooks and communiques, with no real

indication of who in the church it came from. Opinion varies as to how binding

this is, it varies from "the voice of the prophets says it" to "just a

suggestion". I think the church would like an attitude somewhere in

between.

"Hearsay" -- also known as false doctrine, :->. These take the forms of

prophecies circulating orally, with no real way to check on authenticity.

This takes the form of "Brigham Young once prophesied that..." or "I heard

an apostle [which one?] say in General Conference" or "Bruce R. McConkie

came to my brother's mission conference, and he said...." *Not* very

authoritative, except to the person repeating it.

>Also, I'd be curious for your assessment of whether the rather liberal

>view on authority that we see here is typical of LDS believers. The

>typical view we see here and in talk.religion.misc seems to be that not

>everything taught by the major LDS leaders as revelation is necessarily

>true. Given that the LDS religion is largely based on revelation, this

>seems to place you in a position analogous to Protestants whose views on

>Biblical authority are fairly liberal. Since that's my viewpoint, this

>isn't necessarily a criticism. But is this typical of the membership?

>If not, how do more conservative members handle things like the Adam/God

>teaching?

Joseph Smith said [really, I have proof :->] "A prophet is only a prophet

when he speaks as a prophet." So all Mormons are agreed that President

Benson is free to offer up his opinion on the BYU game without it being

taken as the will of the Lord :->. The real question is "When *does*

a prophet speak as a prophet?" This varies from those who believe that

it must be the President of the Church saying "thus says the Lord", to

those who accept any apostle speaking in any official capacity. (Or even

privately published books by the apostle.) Most lie in between, and accept

positions more on a heirarchy level -- for instance, in Adam/God we have

President Young's statement in a privately published book, and we have

a definitive statement on the matter from the First Presidency. Go with

the definitive statement. Take what you hear in conference over what you

hear from your neighbor, etc. There's only one little element in this

process I'm leaving out --

Personal Revelation. There is one thing Brigham Young repeatedly taught

(albeit in the Journal of Discourses :->), and that is the ability and

even necessity to receive personal revelation. Brigham admonished the

people *not* to take his word as a prophet, but to pray and get their own

testimony of the things he taught. In the church, whether liberal or

orthodox, the statements of the prophets are considered in light of the

revelation we receive. Basically, it's along the lines of John 7:17.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be

of God, or whether I speak of myself." We aren't required to take anything

on blind faith. That's another reason I don't worry about Adam/God. I have

my own personal theory on "what Brigham was talking about", but I haven't

received any personal confirmation of it. I have received confirmation of

my relationship to God and Christ, so I take that as authoritative.

--

Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

"It is considered good to look wise, especially when not

overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************http://www.enol.com/~quantumtraveller/Gospel/Adam.html

I take no credit or expect any make any martial gain from placing this article on the web. I have not

changed the wording or format other than placing it into html format and placing the footnotes at

the end for ease of formatting. My only wish is that people will get to read enjoy the knowledge

that they learn. I have spent much time in trying to type the contents just as the author has typed

it, not to make any grammar or spelling correction as not to taint the contents of this thesis.

THE POSITION OF ADAM

IN LATTER-DAY SAINTS SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGY

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the division of religion of Brigham Young University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the master of arts

by Rodney Turner

August, 1953

This thesis by Rodney Turner is accepted in its present form by the Division of Religion of Brigham

Young University as satisfying the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Dated July

17, 1953

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am especially indebted to certain members of the faculty of the Division of Religion, Brigham

Young University, for their critical examination of the manuscript. I thank them in the name of Dr.

Sidney B. Sperry, director of the division, and chairman of the thesis committee.

I also wish to express my gratitude to my wife for her willing efforts in transcribing my notes, and for

sustaining me throughout the venture. And I greatly appreciate the invaluable assistance given me by

the staff of the Brigham Young University library and the Church Historian's office in the locating the

many sources from which the material used in this study was obtained, and for the use of their

microfilms.

There are others who here go unnamed, but who have every right to feel that they have had a real,

through invisible hand, in the accomplishment of this work.

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

The Problem and Its Justification

Basic Questions Involved

The Method of Study

Limitations of the Study

II THE DISCOURSE OF APRIL, 9, 1852

The Discourse Itself

Analysis of the Discourse

Early Reactions to the Discourse, 1852-56

III THE LATER TEACHINGS OF BRIGHAM YOUNG

1852-1859

1860-1869

1870-1876

1877

A Few Conclusions

Were Brigham Young's Remarks Misinterpreted?

Was Brigham Young Misquoted?

What Was the Source of Brigham Young's Views?

What Did Brigham Young Believe?

IV THE VIEWS OF OTHERS

1852-1899

1900-Present

V JOSEPH SMITH AND THE STANDARD WORKS

Early Publications of the Church

What Did Joseph Smith Teach?

The Standard Works

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem and Its Justification

The purpose of this study is to determine, in so far as is possible, the views held by various leaders

of the Latter-day Saints relative to Adam; and more especially, the official doctrine of the Church as

to his place in its theology.

The problem is based, in part, on the divergent, and oft times bitter, claims and counter-claims of

members, ex-members, and non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over

"Mormon" teachings concerning Adam in the light of a certain address given by President Brigham

Young in 1852. Indeed, this address, and the man who gave it, remain the focal point of much

discussion to this day.

From time to time, articles, anti-Mormon in spirit and purpose, appear attacking the Latter-Day

Saints and citing the aforementioned address as irrefutable evidence of the "blasphemous beliefs" of

Mormonism in general, and its concept of God and man's relationship to him in particular. It is hoped

that this study will prove of some value in establishing the actual doctrines of the Church, thus

revealing the truth-- whatever that truth may be. It is in that spirit that this thesis has been written; the

writer trusts that it will be received in a like one.

The Basic Question Involved

There are eight basic questions for which this thesis seeks answers. Because of the almost universal

prominence given his views, and because he is the "focal point" of the over-all problem, four of these

questions relate to the teaching of Brigham Young. The eight question are:

1. Were Brigham Young's remarks relative to Adam misinterpreted?

2. Were his remarks misquoted in official church publications?

3. Where did he obtain his views concerning Adam?

4. What were his views concerning Adam?

5. What have been the views of other church authorities?

6. What did Joseph Smith teach?

7. What do the "standard works" reveal concerning Adam's identity?

8. What is the official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints today?

The Method of Study

The nature of the problem demands that the writer divorce himself from any doctrinal expressions or

opinions; he has limited himself to the evaluation and analysis of the quoted material alone. The

doctrinal correctness of any given view or interpretation--in terms of ultimate truth--is something

which could not enter into any objective study of this kind. The writer does not pretend to know of

any means for ascertaining such theological truth in keeping with the prescribed methodology of

thesis research. The business of this study is the collection and correlation of manifest fact, not the

substantiation of theological doctrine.

The writer has relied heavily upon the direct statements of those concerned as much as possible. This

will decrease the likelihood of errors in analysis on the writer's part, and dubiety on the reader's. It

will also permit the quotes to be introduced directly into the body of the thesis rather than have them

relegated to the oft unfingered isolation of an appendix.

Much of the material is presented in its chronological sequence. For example, the remarks of

President Young appear in essentially the same order in which he uttered them.

The writer has attempted to select those statements which are the most pertinent, the least

ambiguous, and therefore, best able to stand alone and unsullied by needless commentary, The

following arbitrary rules of procedure have guided that actual wring of this study:

1. Be objective

2. Select those statements which most clearly and completely reveal a given person's views.

3. Avoid the use of isolated, ambiguous references.

4. Accept all statements literally, unless they are obviously meant to be understood otherwise.

5. In general, base all conclusions on what is actually said; not on what is supposedly left unsaid.

6. Look for an overall pattern of thought in a given person's pronouncements.

7. Differentiate between a principle and a fact.

8. Be honest in the use of the material, and in your conclusions.

Limitations of the Study

This study does not pretend to include all facets of the Latter-day Saint doctrine as it relates to

Adam. Such areas as Adam's pre-existent life, his "fall," mortal life, etc., comprise another study in

themselves; to have introduced them herein would have been to pass beyond the outermost limits

which define, and confine, a thesis. Therefore, this study is a limited to an examination of certain

material relevant to Adam's identity and accepted position in Latter-day Saint theology.

CHAPTER II

THE DISCOURSE OF APRIL 9, 1852

Background of the discourse.--The old tabernacle was filled to overflowing as President Young

arose to address the evening session of conference. He spoke to the "mysteries" and said that many

of the "Elders of Israel" desired to know of them; but he warned his listeners that:

Here is the place for you to teach great mysteries to your brethren, because here are

those who can correct you. This fault the Elders of Israel do not fall into this

Tabernacle, although they may in private house (sic) and neighborhoods. When a man

is capable of correcting you, and of giving you light, and true doctrine, do not get up an

altercation, but submit to be taught like little children, and strive with all your might to

understand. The privileges of those who dwell abroad. When your duties call you into

foreign lands, and you there exhaust your stock of knowledge and wisdom, and you

are not in possession of the keys to obtain that instruction which you desire, it is

because you are far from the right fountain--far from the body, where all the members

are in lively operation-- . . . . When your face is turned from the body, let mysteries

alone, for this is the only place for you to be corrected if wrong.1

Following this admonition to the membership, President Young briefly discussed amusements and

tithing after which he said: "I will close this sermon, as I intend to preach another before I present the

subject I more particularly wish to speak upon." These words introduced Brigham Young's

controversial so-called "Adam-God" address, now quoted in its entirety.

The Discourse Itself

My next sermon will be to both Saint and sinner. One thing has remained a mystery in

this kingdom up to this day. It is in regard to the character of the well-beloved Son of

God, upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views. Our God and

Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle, or, in other words, He has a body, with parts

the same as you and I have; and is capable of showing forth His works to organized

beings, as, for instance, in the world in which we live, it is the result of the knowledge

and infinite wisdom that dwell in His organized body. His son Jesus Christ has become

a personage of tabernacle, and has a body like his father. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit

of the Lord, and issues forth from Himself, and properly be called God's minister to

execute His will in immensity; being called to govern by His influence and power; but

He is not a person of tabernacle as we are, and as our Father in Heaven and Jesus

Christ are. The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of

the Virgin Mary. The infidel world has concluded that if that the Apostles wrote about

his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by

Christendom be correct, then Christians must believe that God is the father of an

illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their

disciples. I will tell you how it is. 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. We

were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.

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. They came here, organized the raw

material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, trees, the apples, the peach,

the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; The seed

was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the

brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When

Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its

effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the

child Jesus the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He 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, Able, 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. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you

the whole truth, blaspheme would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitions

and over righteous of mankind. However I have told you the truth as far as I have

gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom

they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered

exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in

every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to

conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim,

Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in

organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and

exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing

the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!' What a learned idea! 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. How, 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.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject but a great deal more remains to

be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not

begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a

certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea--"if the Son was

begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm

females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed

upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."

Treasure up these things in your hearts. In the Bible you have read the things I have told

you to-night; but have not know what you did read. I have told you no more that you

are conversant with; but what do the people in Christendom, with the Bible in their

hands, know about this subject? Comparatively nothing.2

Analysis of the Discourse

President Young begins by stating that the "character" or nature of Christ has been a "mystery"

among the saints and a source of "conflicting views" among the "Elders of Israel" to that time. He

then briefly describes the individuals in the godhead saying that" our God and Father in Heave" and

His son, Jesus Christ, were personages of tabernacle comparable to mortal men, but that the Holy

Ghost was not so endowed.

He then states that the question as to the identity of the actual father of Christ's mortal body is "often

asked," and that some people would brand Christ "an illegitimate son" of God if the account by the

apostles is true concerning Jesus' parentage. With this introduction Brigham Young gives his view of

the matter briefly as follows:

1. God the Father begat the spirits of all those born on this earth.

2. God the "organized " man's physical body.

3. Adam entered Eden with a "celestial" body.

4. Eve, "one of " Adam's wives came with him.

5. Adam assisted in the organization of this earth.

6. Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days.

7. Adam is "our Father and our God, and the only God with whom WE have to do."

8. Seed for earth's vegetation was "brought from another sphere."

9. The mortality of Adam and Eve resulted from eating forbidden fruit.

10. Christ is the literal son of the Father, not of the Holy Ghost.

11. God the Father is " the first of the human family."

12. God the father's body was begotten in turn by his Father.

13. God the Father "originated" the first earthly bodies on this planet from the "fruits of the earth."

14. This process of origination has continued "on in succession."

15. The earth was organized by three distinct persons, Elohim, Yahovah, and Michael.

16. The physical body of Christ was begotten " by the same character that was in the garden of

Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."

A mystery has been spoken of.--It is evident that Brigham Young felt he had revealed something of a

mystery; something that was possibly new and shocking to at least a portion of his audience. That it

was new would appear from his statement that Christ's character "has remained a mystery in this

kingdom up to this day." That it was possibly shocking is seen in such expressions as "were I to tell

you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over

righteous of mankind." and "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."

Why it was spoken of.--It is not know for certain why President Young discussed the subject at all;

he himself never said. Earlier that night he had stated: "here is the place for you to teach great my

mysteries to your brethren"; that may have had something to do with prompting his line of thought;

that, and a desire to put an end to the "conflicting views" of the elders. Then too, it should be recalled

that the Saints had been in Utah something less that five years. They numbered but a few thousand

there; and in that period before the railroad spanned the continent, they enjoyed a rather isolated

condition. This tended to draw them together; thus permitting a public exchange of ideas and

expressions that many came to consider indiscreet and ill-advised under later circumstances.

The question.--The parentage of Christ is the problem which commanded the attention of President

Young. But in his explanation of it, he created a new, and more enduring controversy in regards to

Adam's identity. Although we have listed eight questions with which we are concerned in our overall

study, there is in reality but one fundamental, all-embracing question in connection with Brigham

Young; what did he believe the relationship to be between Adam and God the Father, the Father of

all those born upon this earth? This question must not be lost sight of in the mass of material with

which we will now deal.

Early Reactions to the Discourse. 1852-56

The Dessert News.--One looks in vain in America for any published reaction to the discourse. This,

however, is understandable in view of the times, the isolated condition of the Saints, and the fact that

the only newspaper in the territory in 1852 confined its comments on the conference sermons to brief

resumes'. Those which were printed, were published without editorializing, unless it involved civic

matters, on the newspapers part, The particular session of the 1852 conference with which we are

concerned was reported as follows:

The elders and brethren assembled in the tabernacle which was completely crowded.

After the usual introductory exercises, Pres. Young preached several sermons on

various subjects, (the Holy Ghost resting upon him in great power, while he revealed

some of the precious things of the kingdom.)3

The Millennial Star.--In November, 1853 the Millennial Star, organ of the British Mission of the

Church, published the full text of Brigham Young's sermon. In doing so, it stated:

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.4

It may be will to mention here that the accounts of the address in the Journal of Discourses and in the

Millennial Star are identical. In December, 1853 an unsigned articles entitled "Adam, the Father and

God of the Human Family" appeared in the Millennial Star giving a lengthy treatment to the subject.

It said in part:

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 ....

Then Adam is rally 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? Did he not

prove himself as worthy of that high appellation as may other being that ever lived upon

the Earth? Certainly he did, so far as history informs us, unless we can except the Son

of God.6

Although the article acknowledges Adam as a god in the patriarchal sense, nowhere does it actually

affirm that he is also the spiritual begettor of mankind. The tone and direction of the writing is well

expressed in this excerpt:

In the Patriarchal order of government, each and every ruler is independent in his

sphere, his rule extending to those below, and not to those above him, in the same

order, While the God of unnumbered worlds is acknowledged to be his God and

Father, Adam still maintains his exalted position at the head of all those who are saved

from among the whole family of man; and he will be God over all those who are made

Gods from among men .... As the great Elohim is supreme and Almighty over all His

children and kingdoms, so is Adam as great a ruler, or God, in his sphere, over his

children, and the kingdom which they possess. The earth and all things upon it were

created for Adam, and it was given to him of his Father to have dominion over it.7

Fear bringeth torment.-- Regardless of the connotation put upon Brigham Young's remarks

concerning Adam, it is apparent that the doctrine was upsetting the theological equilibrium of some of

the membership in England; that it was having a similar effect in America is also true. Under the

caption, "Fear Bringeth Torment," the "Star" again made reference to Adam a week after the

previous reference was published:

It has been said that Adam is the God and Father of the human family, and persons are

perhaps in fear and great trouble of mind, lest they have to acknowledge him as such in

some future day. For our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our

Father, that hunt for another, and take up with the devil. . . . If these things have power

to disturb the pure mind, we apprehend that even greater troubles that these may arise

before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ's incarnation--how and by whom he

was begotten; the character of the relationships formed by that act; the number of

wives and children he had, and all other circumstances with which he was connected,

and by which he was tried and tempted in all things like unto man. Whatever may prove

to be the facts in the case, it certainly would exhibit a great degree of weakness on the

part of any one to indulge in fears and anxieties about that which he has no power to

control. Facts still remain facts, whether kept or revealed.8

The true meaning of President Young's discourse was an unsettled question; nothing that may be

taken as official was forthcoming from one of the general authorities of the Church until some six

months later when Franklin D. Richards, a member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, arrived in

England to assume leadership of the Brithiah Mission.

The London general conference.--In June, 1854, a special conference was held in London attended

by most of those involved in the missionary labors of the Church in Great Britain, The primary

purpose of the conference was apparently to introduce the new mission president to those with

whom he would be working, and to bid the retiring president, S. W. Richards, farewell. In the

course of the conference, various missionaries were called upon to report the status of their

individual "conference districts." Three of the reports made reference to Adam:

They (the members of his conference district) are lacking faith on one principle-- the

last "cat that was let out of the bag." 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 to Liverpool upon it.9

Relative to the principles recently revealed, we have not the slightest difficulty. If

Adam's being our Father and God cannot be proved by the Bible, it is all right.10

I believe in the principle of obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our

God, I just believe it.11

In a memorial to S. W. Richards, who had been president of the British Mission from May, 1852 to

June, 1854, the missionaries paid him tribute, saying in part:

It has fallen to your lot to preside over the Bristish Saints at a time and under

circumstances unparalleled in the history of the work in this country. The introduction of

the Law of Celestial Marriage, which, in its operations, will revolutionize all our

political, religious, and domestic arrangements; and the announcement of the position

which Adam, our great progenitor, occupies among the Gods; have marked your

Presidency as a special epoch in the history of the British Mission.12

Apostle Franklin D. Richards, who was presiding over this special three day conference, took up the

question of Adam before the assembled missionaries. He told them that they should not let the new

doctrine trouble them, and he released them from "all obligation to prove this from the old Scriptures,

for you cannot, if you try.":

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 word of the Lord. That is vastly stronger proof that

Christendom can give for much that they profess to believe. Tell the Saints that if this

stone does not seem to fit into the great building of their faith just now, to roll it aside.

You can help them to roll it aside out of their way, so that they will not stumble against

it while at their daily duties , and it will be but a very short time till they will find a place

in their building where no other stone will fit, then it will be on hand all right, and will

come into its place in the building without the sound of hammer or chisel.13

The foregoing comment by Franklin D. Richards indicates his loyalty to President Young, and his

acceptance of the doctrine taught by him. But again, in just what sense he accepted or understood

the doctrine he does not say. However, the failure on the part of F. D. Richards and the missionaries

to qualify their acceptance of Adam as "our Father and God," in some way, is noteworthy.

Less than a year later, the Millennial Star carried an article entitled, "Priesthood from Adam to

Joseph." It was unsigned, but since Franklin D. Richards was the editor of the "Star" at the time, it is

quite likely that he wrote or at least approved it for publication. It said in part:

If the Lord God has ever withdrawn from Father Adam the authority here bestowed

upon him (Genesis 1:), He has not seen fit to make it know to the world. While there is

nothing to refute, the whole tenor of revelation substantiates, the supposition, that

Adam has continued to bear rule over the earth, and control the destines of his

never-ending posterity. From the time he received his commission in the Garden of

Eden, he has been laboring diligently to fulfill the instructions there given him by The

Lord God concerning his dominions, and to bring them under subjection to his will. This

will be fully accomplished when every knee shall bow, and very tongue confess that he

is the God of the whole earth. Then will the word so the Prophet Brigham, when

speaking of Adam, be full realized-- He is our Father and our God. and the only God

with whom WE have to do." Having now observed how Adam the first man became a

God, we inquire why may not millions of his children receive the same Godlike

knowledge and power?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thus we have a succession of Gods from Adam down to Christ and his Apostles as

least. All men being in the image of their father Adam, even as he is in the image of his

father, and possessing a similar knowledge of good and evil, when they receive the

keys and powers of the same Priesthood, and by their works attain to its blessings,

they will, like Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, bear rule and dominion over their

own posterity, and have power to redeem, purify, and exalt them, also, to like power

and glory. 14

In 1856 there appeared in the Latter-day Saint hymnal, published in England , a new song written by

John Jaques, an English convert to the Church. The hymn was entitled, "We Believe In Our God."

The first two stanzas are as follows:

We believe in our God, the great Prince of His race,

The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days,

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord, as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for his children again.

We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who, in love

To his brethren and sisters, came down from above

To die to redeem them from death, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the Gospel we preach.15

It was not include in later editions of the hymnal in England. Nor was the writer able to find it in any

hymnal published by the Church in America. Franklin D. Richards must have approved it for

publication, since he edited the particular edition in which it is found.

There is a lapse of a number of years between the earliest available reactions to Brigham Young's

April, 1852, address and those which next appear. Seemingly, nothing more, dealing specifically with

it, was published until after President Young's death in 1877.

CHAPTER III

THE LATER TEACHINGS OF BRIGHAM YOUNG

As was stated in the introduction, the views of Brigham Young concerning the identity of Adam will

be treated almost entirely in the chronological order in which he expressed them.

1852-1859

In discussing the process by which men gain their exaltation, President Young said in part:

But I expect, if I am faithful with yourselves, that I shall see the time with yourselves

that we shall know ho to prepare to organize an earth like this--know how to people

that earth, how to redeem it, how to sanctify it, and how to glorify it, with those who

live upon it who hearken to our counsels.

The Father and the Son have attained to this point already; I am on the way, and so are

you, and every faithful servant of God.

After men have got their exaltation and their crowns--have become Gods, even the

sons of God--are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of

propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to

organizing a world. Power is then give to them to organize the elements, and then

commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that

earth? Yes, and 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

established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This is a key for you, The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this

does not overthrow the idea that we have a father . Adam is my father; (this I will

explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I

become a god: it does not prove that I have not a father.16

These remarks, and those made by him in his April address, are quite alike. In April he had stated

that Adam and Eve became mortal by partaking of the forbidden fruit "and therefore their offspring

were mortal." This parallels the above quote to the effect that those exalted become "an Adam" or

"Eve" to a new world whereon they partake of the "corporeal" food until "their celestial bodies" can

produce "mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children." His qualification that godhood does not

obviate the fact that he has a father and that "Adam is my father" bears comparison with his earlier

reference to Adam as "our Father and Our God." Also of interest is his use of the expression

"celestial bodies." He had used the same term in April in stating that Adam and Eve entered the

garden with "celestial bodies." Twenty-four years later, in 1876, he is quoted as saying that the

"spirits were begotten, born and educated in the celestial world, and were brought forth by celestial

bodies."17

In advancing the celestial body concept for Adam and Eve, Brigham Young was obliged to reject

the "dust of the earth" account of Adam's creation as given in Genesis. This he did as follows:

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.18

In describing Adam as the "chief manager" in the creation of this earth he said:

He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this

world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what

you pleased as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of

an earth, but not from the dust of this earth,. He was made as you and I are made and

no person was ever made upon any other principle.19

Apparently President Young means that Adam was provided with a physical body through the

normal pattern of conception, embryonic development, and birth, since that is method by which "you

and I are made."

God the Father of Our Spirits and Bodies.--This was the caption of one of the most far-reaching

sermons in implication ever given by Brigham Young. Speaking of the "Father or our spirits" he says:

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,20 or

His Grandfather, for in either case we are one species--of one family--and Jesus Christ

is also of our species.

Now to the facts in the case; all the difference between Jesus Christ and any other man

that ever lived on the earth from the days of Adam until now, is simple this, the Father,

after He had once been in the flesh, and lived as we live, obtained His exaltation,

attained to thrones, gained the ascendancy over principalities and powers, and had the

knowledge and power to create--to bring forth and organize the elements upon natural

principles. This He did after His ascension, of His glory, or His eternity, and was

actually classed with the Gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept

the celestial law while in the fresh, and again obtained their bodies. Then He was

prepared to commence the work of creation, as the Scriptures teach--It is all here in

the Bible; I am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book.

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were

brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of the creating earthly

tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh Himself, by partaking of the

course (sic) material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was

charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the

coarse materials of this earth.

When the time came that His first-born, the Savior, should come into the world and

take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favored that spirit with a tabernacle

instead of letting any other man do it. The Savior was begotten by the Father of His

Spirit, by the same being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic

difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.

Whether you receive these things or not, I tell you them in simplicity. I lay them before

you like a child, because they are perfectly simple. If you see and understand these

things, it will be by the Spirit of God; you will receive them by no other spirit, no matter

whether they are told to you like the thundering of the Almighty, or by simple

conversation; if you enjoy the Spirit of the Lord, it will tell you whether they are right or

not.21

Heber C. Kimball, a counselor to President Young in the first presidency, made direct reference to

the above address the same day it was given:

Brother Brigham has talked here to-day so plain a little child cannot misunderstand it.

He spoke about our Father and our God; I believe what he has said ; in fact I know it.

Often when I have been in the presence of brother Brigham, we would feel such a

buoyant spirit that when we began to talk we could not express our feelings, and so,

"Hallelujah," says Brigham, "Glory to God," say I. I feel it and I say it.

Some of the brethren kind of turn their notes on one side at me when I make such

expressions, but they would not do it if they knew God. Such once do not even know

brothers Brigham and Heber; if they did they would not turn a way face at us.22

Heber C. Kimball's remarks are not only indicative of his own views concerning God, but they also

reveal something of a division of opinion, or at least of attitude, among the membership. That

Brigham Young was also aware of this division will be shown further along in this study.

One month later to the day, President Young remarked: "Suppose that one of us had been Adam,

and had people and filled the world with our children, they, although they might be great

grandchildren & C. still, I say, had I been Adam, they would be my flesh, blood, and bones, and

have the same kind of a spirit put into them that is in me."23 He then goes on to say that "pertaining to

the flesh" they would all be his children and be required to give an account of their lives to him. He

repeats the thought that God "has had a body and been on an earth" saying that this would be

necessary if God was to "judge men righteously." He suggest that, "If I can pass brother Joseph, I

shall stand a good chance of passing Peter, Jesus, the Prophets, Moses, Abraham, and all back to

Father Adam, and be pretty sure of receiving his approbation.24

A reaffirmation of his belief that Adam was "our God" was expressed by President Young in

October of that year:

Some have grumbled because I believe our God 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 by 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 awhile 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, "Hear, 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. but

those are ideas which do not concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible

--"This is eternal life, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has

sent."25

We have already seen that Brigham Young believed that life was "transplanted" to his earth from

other worlds and that man was the result of natural procreation, This thought is repeated by him:

Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When (sic) you tell

me that father Adam was made as we made adobies from the earth, you tell me what I

deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in the at

manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all

the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring

of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them

to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiple and replenish the

earth.26

Further along in the course of this same address Brigham Young said: "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."27

1860-1869

President Young made this remark in addressing some words of consolation to the childless women

and the Church:

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.28

If he is using the term "Eve" in the same sense that he used it in his April, 1852, discourse, then these

childless women would be resurrected "Eves" when becoming "Eves to earths like this." Therefore,

their husband would be resurrected "Adams" to those "millions of earths." Such an Adam could

hardly be mortal; for the "Adam" of this earth fell for precisely the fact that his wife had become

mortal, thus necessitating his own "fall."29

President Young made his statement in discussing the dissemination of theological truth:

How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because

God was once know on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know on

another.

Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are

conversant with out 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 Grand father; and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as

familiar among mankind, in the first ages of their existence of the earth, as these

mountains are to our mountain boys. ....30

Here Brigham Young implicitly identifies Adam as the spiritual progenitor of his mortal offspring.

More than that, he implies that Adam, like Christ , was spiritually and physically begotten by on

Father, on God. For in describing that God as the "Grandfather" and "Great Grandfather" of Adam's

children and grandchildren respectively, he must intend a physical relationship between that

personage and his son Adam as well.31 Latter-day Saint doctrine affirms that spirits do not beget

offspring; therefore, Adam's Father could not be the spiritual "Great Grandfather" of Adam's

progeny; but physically, he would be the "Great Grandfather" of Adam's mortal grandchildren. A

purely spiritual interpretation would make the president's use of the terms "Grandfather" and "Great

Grandfather" meaningless and misleading. The statement is an apparent allusion to his earlier remark:

"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."

On January 8, 1865, President Young told an audience that should God appear without glory, they

would not recognize him from any other man. And yet: "He is the father of all is above all, through all,

and in you all; He knoweth all things pertaining to this earth, and he knows all things pertaining to

millions of earths like this."32 Likewise, if Christ should "veil His glory" he would appear as any other

man. The President then asked his audience if they would accept Christ should he declare himself to

them under those conditions. Continuing this line of thought Brigham Young again asked:

And if you believed His words, would you not wonder exceedingly to hear that our

Father and God is an organized being after the fashion of man's organization in every

respect? Such, however, the case.

One of the prophets describes the Father of us all, saying, "I beheld till the thrones

were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow,

and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame," etc. The

prophet further says, "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times

ten thousand stood before him," etc. Again "and, behold, one like the Son of Man

came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him

near before him." Now, who is the Ancient of days? You may answer this question at

your pleasure, I have already told the people. But the Savior would answer the

question as to the appearance of the Father of us all, by saying, "Look at me, for I am

the very express image of my Father."33

In citing both Daniel's vision of the Ancient of days,34 and Jesus' characterization of his Father, as

being descriptions of the "Gather of us all," no other conclusion seems possible but that President

Young has identified the Gather and the Ancient of days as on and the same person. There is

absolutely nothing in the way of a change in the continuity of though or of subject matter anywhere in

the entire address to give one a valid reason to believe otherwise. In Latter-day Saint theology the

Ancient of days and Adam are but two names or titles for the same individual.35 If Brigham Young

did not intend for such an identification to be assumed, what possible reason did he have for using a

well-know description of Adam, as he is to appear in the latter-days, to describe God the Father? If

his actual meaning was devious and complex., the writer is unable to understand why, at a later point

in the same discourse he remarked:

It is as easy to understand these principles when the mind is opened by the Spirit of the

Almighty, as it is to understand one of the simple lessons in the child's first reader.

Here are some of the twelve Apostles listening to what I have to say; they have heard

me speak at length upon these doctrines, and they have been taught from time to time

for years past. The speaker this morning possessed a sweet, loving spirit, and give us a

lovely discourse, but did not think of these things which have been told him time and

time again, I would exhort my brethren to read the Scriptures, and seek earnestly for

the Spirit of the Almighty to understand them; and this great subject, at which I have

merely glanced, will appear to them in all it simplicity and grandeur.36

Another statement, not unlike the proceeding one, was made by president Young two years later on

February 10, 1867, when, in speaking of the final gathering of Israel, he said:

They will come up tribe by tribe, and the Ancient of Days, He who led Abraham, and

talked to Noah, Enoch, Isaac, and Jacob. that very Being will come and judge the

twelve tribes of Israel. He will say, "You rebelled, and you have been left to the

mercies of the wicked."37

Just when the Ancient of days, Adam, is supposed to have "led Abraham, and talked to .... Isaac,

Jacob" is not revealed by the speaker. There is no scriptural account of Adam having done so at any

time. President Young's use of Daniel 7:9-14 as being descriptive of God the Father would provide

a solution as to his meaning, since it would establish the Ancient of days, or Adam, as the one who

"led Abraham," etc.38

1870-1876

There are two discourses in this period, both given in 1873, worthy of especial reference. The first of

these is undoubtedly one of the most specific, plain spoken sermons on the identity of Adam ever

given by President Young. It is the more important because it came in the twilight of his life.

Speaking of the reticence of the membership of the Church to accept new truth he said:

How pleased we would be to place these thing before the people if they would receive

them! How much unbelief exists in the mind of the Latter-Day Saints in regard to one

particular doctrine which I revealed unto them, and which God revealed to me--namely

that Adam is our father and God--I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about

it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and

after it was made he and his companions came here, He brought one of his wives with

him, and she was Called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our

Father Adam is the man who stand at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and

salvation to all his children who have or whoever will come upon the earth. I have been

found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant.

But I could not find any man on the earth who cold tell me this, although it is one of the

simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.39

In clarifying certain remarks made by his brother, Joseph Young, the President said:

My brother said that God is as we are. He did not mean those words to be literally

understood. He meant simply, that in our organization we have all the properties in

embryo in our bodies that our Father has in his , and that literally, morally, socially, by

the spirit and by the flesh we are his children, Do you think that God, who holds the

eternities in his hands and can do all things at his pleasure, is not capable of sending

forth his own children, and forming this flesh for his own offspring? Where is the

mystery in this? 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 Elohim, "Go ye and

make an earth." What is the great mystery about it? He came and formed the earth.

Geologists tell us that it was here millions of years ago. How do thy know? They know

nothing about it but suppose it was here, what of it? Adam found it in a state of chaos,

unorganized and incomplete .... Adam came here, and 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, and where is the mystery?

Now for mother Eve. The evil principle always has and always will exist. Well, a

certain character came along, and said to Mother Eve, "The Lord has told you that you

must not do so and so, for if you do you shall surely die. But I tell you that if you do not

do this you will never know good from evil, your eyes will never be opened, and you

may live on the earth forever and ever, and you will never know what the Gods know."

The evil told the truth, what is the mystery about it? He is doing it today. He is telling

one or two truths and mixing them with a thousand errors to get the people to swallow

them. I do not blame Mother Eve, I would not have had her miss eating the forbidden

fruit for any thing in the world. I would not give a groat it I could not understand light

from darkness.40

President Young adds that man must know good and evil as the Gods have learned it, and he speaks

of the reluctance of many people to accept the Gospel because of a prejudice which "debars them of

that liberty I have in my heart." Of the sources of his knowledge he says:

I do not want to be found fault with, but if I am it is All the same to me. There is no

mystery to me in what God has revealed to me, or in what I have learned, whether it

has been through Joseph, an angel, the voice of the Spirit, the Holy Ghost or the Spirit

of the Lord; no matter no I have learned a thing, if I understand it perfectly it is no

mystery to me41

This address has been quoted at length to establish the complete context of his remarks, and to

better reveal the overall pattern of Brigham Young's thinking, not only in relationship to Adam as a

god, but also in regards to the fall of Adam from the divine status. In the mind of President Young,

there was apparently nothing contradictory nor "mysterious" in his claim that two heavenly being,

endowed with the glory of the Gods, could, under certain circumstances, and for a pre-arranged

purpose, assume an inferior, and in the eyes of many, an almost degraded position. It's as though he

locked upon them as players in some great, and infinitely vital, stage production. Players who had

assumed major "roles" for a time; roles which naturally cloaked their identities, but which in no way

altered, or deprived them of those identities. Yet these roles, unlike those assumed in an actual play,

were not sheer make-believe; they involved a definite sacrifice, a sacrifice mad in behalf of hose who

had been "born" to Adam and Eve in the " spirit world." For President Young, it was perfectly

simple; there was no "mystery" about it.

The second of the two discourses was given about three months later. In it is the suggestion of a

plurality of wives for Adam, just as there was in President Young's discourse of April, 1852, in

which he spoke of Eve as "one his wives."42

When Father Adam came to assist in organizing the earth out of the crude material that

was found, an earth was made upon which the children of man could live. After the

earth was prepared Father Adam came and stayed here, and there was a woman

brought to him. Now I am telling you something that many of know, it has been told

you, and the brethren and sisters should understand it. There was a certain woman

brought to Father Adam whose name was Eve, because she was the first woman, and

she was give to him to be his wife; I am not disposed to give any further knowledge

concerning her at present. There is no doubt but that he left may companions. The great

and glorious doctrine that pertains to this I have not time to dwell upon; neither should I

at present if I had time. He understood this whole machinery or system before he came

to this earth; and I hope my brethren and sisters will profit by what I have told them. 43

1877

It was in 1877 that President Brigham Young died. Although there is nothing pertinent in his public

remarks of that year, there is on noteworthy reference to be found in the private journal of one of the

members of the Church living at the time. His name is L. John Nuttall, and his account is in

connection with the dedication of the St. George temple, the first temple to be completed by the

Church subsequent to the expulsion of the saints from Nauvoo, Illinois in 1846. Nuttall speaks of

meeting with President Young and other leaders of the Church in the President's winter home in St.

George, Utah. The new temple, and the work performed therein, being uppermost in the minds of

the assembled men, President Young narrated certain facts in connection with the introduction of the

certain facts in connection with the introduction of the endowment ordinance by the Prophet Joseph

Smith. Brigham Young then went on to say:

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming the earth and putting

Michael or Adam upon it. there (sic) 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 only

true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent. We were once acquainted with the

Gods & lived with them but we had the privilege to taking upon us flesh that 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 (sic) they were formed & some think he was made like an

adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou

art and unto dust shall thou return (sic) Well he was made to 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 (sic) he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had

been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned

with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he

became through his faithfulness. and he had begotten all the spirits that was (sic) 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 (sic) & Michael who is Adam our common father. (sic) Adam & Eve had the

privilege to continue this work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and

commenced the great work of forming tabernacles fro those spirits to dwell in. and

when Adam and those that assisted 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 Mose's

dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam & Eve when placed on this earth were

immortal beings with flesh. bones and sinues (sic). but upon partaking of the fruits of the

earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed fro

immortal to mortal beings with 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-- (sic) Now in the law of Sacrifice 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 showing that Jesus would come

and shed his flood. (Four lines with nothing written on them). Father Adam's oldest son

(Jesus the Savior) who is the heir of the family is father Adam's first begotten in the

spirit World. who (sic) 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 from when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in the earth, they

did not lay their bodies down in the dust but returned to the spirit World from whence

they came.

I felt my self much blessed in being pereitted (sic). (permitted) to Associate with such

men and hear such instructions as they savored the life to me.44

There is no legitimate reason to question the general accuracy of this account of Brigham Young's

remarks as it appears in the Nuttal Journal. The journal itself is a small one showing the wear of

many years. The failure of Nuttall to properly punctuate, etc., may be due to an understandable haste

on his part in making the entry at the time President Young was speaking. Yet, it is quite possible

that the entry was made later, possibly from notes. Nuttall's personal comment at the conclusion of

the entry seems to support his latter possibility since it appears to be an after though, or an

impression entered in retrospect. As for Nuttall's integrity, the writer can think of no reasonable

motive by he would deliberately write something in his private diary, one that has but recently come

to public light, which was untrue! For morally, there doesn't seem to be the slightest blemish on

Nuttall's character. He held the offices of bishop, stake president, and temple recorder. He acted as

private secretary to President John Taylor (1879-1887) and President Wilford Woodruff

(1887-1892). Andrew Jenson, and assistant church Historian, wrote of him: "Elder Nuttall is one of

the busiest men in the church, and has discharged every duty imposed upon him that zeal and fidelity

which characterizes God's faithful servants."45 Nuttall also held numerous public offices, including

chief clerk of the state legislature, city recorder, etc. he occasionally acted as a clerk in the general

conferences of the Church;46 and in taking of formal notes was considered "extremely reliable." In

fact, he was acting as a special secretary to President Young at the time the journal entry in question

was made.

Then too, Nuttall quotes nothing as coming from Brigham Young that is contrary to what he had

already publicly said. In comparing the Nuttall entry with the June, 1873, discourse, we are obliged

to admit a definite similarity. The private remarks of President Young to other Church authorities, as

Nuttall has recorded them, are, to be sure, somewhat in advance, as to particulars, of his public

statements, but they are not out of harmony with them.

There is one though expressed in the Nuttall journal which merits analysis. It is the explanation of

how Adam, who in a state of mortality had many direct offspring, could still be the Father of Christ,

who is spoken of as the "only begotten" Son of God. Brigham Young implies that Christ is the "only

begotten" of Adam "in his divinity." In other words, when Adam begat physical offspring, he did so in

a fallen state of mortality which precluded the transfer of "divinity " or immortality to that offspring.

but in the case of the Savior, such a transfer of divinity could take place because Adam and Eve,

without actually suffering a physical death, had "returned to the spirit world from whence they came"

and reassumed their former glory and divinity.47 Thus, Adam, having regained his divinity and

immortality, could, in begetting Christ, declare him to be the "Only Begotten Son" of it.

Some two years later, under the dateline of Thursday, March 6, 1879, Nuttall made another

reference to Brigham Young's teachings:

Attended fast day Meeting (sic). serveral (sic) spoke and the question as to Adam

being our Father & God was presented. I explained this matter as I got it from Prest B

(sic) Young and as I understand it--this question has been on the minds of serveral of

the brethren since Bro. Wandel Mace spoke on it about a Month (sic) ago and gave a

wrong impression (sic) I spoke to correct him & set the people right--which correction

he accepted (sic)48

A Few Conclusions

Having come to the end of the less ambiguous statements by Brigham Young concerning Adam, we

now turn to the always dangerous, and equally thankless task of summarizing the evidence and

drawing a few conclusions. This, before going on to the views of Joseph Smith and other prominent

leaders of the Church. At this point we are concerned only with the four basic questions relative to

President Young's view.

Were Brigham Young's Remarks Misinterpreted?

The answer to this question would, of course, depend upon what he actually meant to say.

Undoubtedly they have been misinterpreted by some persons; the very fact that there exits

differences of opinion as to his meaning proves that, for certainly not all of these conflicting

interpretations are correct. It is true that the original discourse of April 9, 1852, could be taken in

more than one way; and if he had never mentioned the subject again his actual meaning would be a

moot point. However, he did mention the subject again, many times. Therefore, the likelihood of

misunderstanding him, in view of his subsequent statements through the years, becomes more

remote. This is borne out in the comments of others, friends and enemies alike, giving expression to

President Young's opinions, as for instance, Nuttall did. The writer was unable to find any reprimand

forthcoming from Brigham Young for ascribing such opinions to himself; the significance of this will

be manifest presently.

But perhaps it was not so much a mater of misinterpretation as it was of opposition; sometimes

opposition assumes the guise of misunderstanding. The concern expressed by the English

missionaries in their special conference of 1853, the reassurances of Franklin D. Richards, and the

editorials and articles in the Millennial Star defending the doctrine--all these indicate the recognition

of an opposition of sorts. The members were puzzled, even alarmed by this shocking new concept.

It was contrary to much that they had accepted as truth all their lives. And it was for that very reason

that F. D. Richards had counseled the missionaries to help the membership "roll it aside" until it could

be incorporated into their faith "without the sound of hammer of chisel."

That Brigham Young was aware of a certain amount of opposition to his ideas among the saints in

Utah can be seen from such remarks as: "Some have grumbled because I believe our God so near to

us as Father Adam."49 On other occasions he is quoted as saying:

I am hated for teaching the people the way of life and salvation--for teaching them

principles that pertain to eternity, by which the Gods were and are, and by which they

gain influence and power.50

President Kimball remarked that he had been told that some did not believe all that he

said, or all that I say. I care not one groat whether they believe all that I say or not, . . .

if they believe what the Almighty say, (and build up the kingdom) that will content me . .

. 51

How much unbelief exist in the minds of the Latter-Day Saints in regard to one

particular doctrine which I revealed unto them, and which God revealed to me--namely

that Adam is our father and God--I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about

it.52

Like Brigham Young, we "do not know" how much opposition his views met with indirectly or

otherwise. Being president of the Church, it is doubtful that he had much, it any, give him publicly by

the members themselves; not would, there be much likelihood of negative expressions finding there

way into any of the Church publications. To be sure there was opposition to President Young and

the Church as such by non-Mormons and bitter apostates; but this was of a rather general

nature--an opposition to everything "Mormon."

However, according to T. B. H. Stenhouse53 in his book, The Rocky Mountain Saints, there was

one man who did publicly oppose Brigham Young in his views. That man was Orson Pratt, one of

the more brilliant and erudite members of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Of him Stenhouse

writes: "The mass of the Mormon people do not believe in the Adam-deity, but of them all, one only,

Orson Pratt, has dared to make public protest against the at doctrine."54 Stenhouse goes on to say:

Orson Pratt, for presuming to teach a deity contrary to Brigham's Adam, was for years

upon the point of being severed from the Church; at last, ten years ago, he was tried for

rebellion. On that occasion--the Author well remembers it--Orson Pratt showed a

manliness and Christian determination to cling to the truth, that earned for him the

admiration of very soul that dared to think and love the God-given liberty of an

untrammeled mind . . . As the apostle stood in Brigham's little office, surrounded by the

other apostles of his quorum, not a voice was heard in his support, not a word was

whispered either to encourage him or relieve his racked and harrowed soul as he

keenly realized the fact that he risked his apostleship and fellowship with the Church.

When he had expressed his thorough comprehension of the responsibility of his

position, he told, in works of unmistakable earnestness, that when the teachings of the

Bible, together with the revelations of the Prophet Joseph, came into collision with the

teachings of Brigham Young, it was the decision of his soul that whatever the cost might

be, he "would cling to the former."55

In reply to this President Young is supposed to have "branded him with natural stubbornness and

told him that he had always be ungovernable, and had give trouble to Joseph in his day." finally,

some thirty-six hours later, Pratt, to protect his family, and to avoid the stigma of an apostate,

publicly confessed his error in opposing Brigham Young. Stenhouse adds:

Orson's submission was painful to his friends, but the thoughtful hoped for the growth

and development of his soul outside the iron cast of infallible priesthood. From the hour

of that trial he was silently accounted an "Apostate," and for years there was

considered to be no temerity in "digging" at him from the pulpit. He was sent to Europe

on mission, and treated with marked neglect by the ruling authorities--men far beneath

him in moral and intellectual qualities. He bore it all in silence, and returned to Utah

determined to stand by his convictions of truth against the Adam deity. His associate

apostles tried to shake him out of their Quorum, and in their councils they did

everything to bring his "stubbornness" to the point of disfellowship. After two weeks of

nightly councils--while Brigham and his twelve were journeying through the northern

settlements in 1868--the point was reached. Orson would not, however, recant, even

before the threat of disfellowship, but Brigham, at the last moment, entered the council,

and arrested the final action, Brigham needs Orson's sermons of the Book of Mormon,

Polygamy, and the prophecies, and he fears his influence with the people.57

The writer has been unable to verify the Stenhouse account to any appreciable degree, especially in

the particulars which are probably very much colored by the prejudices of Stenhouse himself. and in

view of the fact that Stenhouse had been excommunicated from the Church some four years prior to

the publishing of The Rocky Mountain Saints, and that he was an open and admitted enemy of

Brigham Young, his narrative must be viewed with dubiety.

In his thesis, "Orson Prat, Early Mormon Leader," T. Edgar Lyon expresses the opinion that the

"Adam-God" theory of Brigham Young probably played but a minor part in the controversy cited by

Stenhouse:

Pratt's stand was robbing the supreme God, not Adam, of Glory and Omnipotence.

Most of the parts which he was persuaded to repudiate have not any bearing whatever

upon God, but deal with pre-existence doctrines of men, plants and animals.58

His point is well taken; and in view of his more detailed study of Orson Pratt's life and teachings, the

writer is inclined to accept it. Still, there were some views of Orson Pratt which, to be maintained,

necessitated the rejection of Brigham Young's explanation of the pre-existent character of Adam,

and the manner of origination of his physical body. This will be shown hereafter.

The Stenhouse reference to an interview between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young in the latter's

"little office" is apparently based on fact. According to S.W. Richards, former president of British

Mission, such a meeting did take place on at least one occasion. However, the Richard's statement

gives the year as 1856, and not 1863 as Stenhouse indicates. Possibly more than one such meeting

took place: in which event there is no real conflict between the two accounts. In the diary of Samuel

Whitney Richards we read:

Tues. March 11, 1856

Evening with the Regency in the Upper Room of the President's Office, examing (sic)

the spelling for the New Books in the D. Alphabet. A very serious conversation took

place between Prest. B. Young and Orson Pratt upon doctrine. O. P. was directly

opposed to the Prest views and very freely expressed his entire disbelief in them after

being told by the President that things were so and so in the name of the Lord. He was

firm in the Position that the Prest's word in the name of the Lord was not the word of

the Lord to him. The Prest did not believe that Orson would ever be Adam, to learn by

experience the facts discussed, but every other person in the room would if they lived

faithful. J. M. Grant, Amasa Lyman, W. Woodruff, Albert Carrington, Elias Smith, &

Robt L. Cambell were present.59

The context of the above entry gives us good reason to believe that the doctrine in some way

concerning Adam was the cause of the disagreement between president Young and Orson Pratt.

The president's remark that he did not believe "that Orson would ever be "Adam," obviously " and

Adam, " would indicate this.

President Young's public comments on the views of Pratt would indicate that more than one "very

serious conversation" was held between the two men. In 1857, Brigham Young denounced the view

of "our philosopher brother " to the effect that God's "fountain of spirit" fills universal space, and that

"every particle of it is a Holy Spirit, and that Spirit is all powerful and all wise, full of intelligence and

possessing all the attributes of all the Gods in eternity."60 President Young added that Orson Hyde

had advanced much the same theory to Joseph Smith and that the Prophet had told him: "it is not

true." The president then went on to reprimand the absent Pratt rather severely:

With all the knowledge and wisdom that are combined in the person of brother Orson

Pratt, still he does not yet know enough to keep his foot out of it, but drowns himself in

his own philosophy, everytime that he undertakes to treat upon the principles that he

does not understand. When he was about to leave here for his present mission (Pratt

had been sent to Washington D. C. to publish The Seer), he made a solemn promise

that he wound not meddle with principles which he did not fully understand, but would

confine himself to the first principles of the doctrine of salvation, such as were preached

by brother Joseph Smith and the Apostles. But the first thing that we see in his writings

he is dabbling with things that he does not understand; his vain philosophy is no

criterion of guide for the Saints in doctrine.61

In this same discourse, President Young spoke of the future time when the Saints would "have the

privilege of commencing the work that Adam commenced on this earth" and of being "an Adam on

earth."

In 1860, Orson Pratt did make a public recantation of certain of his views. This quote is from an

account revised by him, and the "council":

At the time I expressed these views, I did most sincerely believe that they were in

accordance with the word of God. I did most sincerely suppose that I was justifying the

truth. But I have since learned from my brethren, that some of the doctrines I had

advanced in the "Seer," at Washington were incorrect. naturally being of a stubborn

disposition and having a kind of self will about me: and moreover supposing really and

sincerely that I did understand what true doctrine as in relation to those points, I did not

feel to yield to the judgment of my brethren, but believed they were in error.62

He further says that none have the right to go contrary to the views of the "living oracles," and that

God requires the Saints to sustain all the authorities in their various callings. Pratt's closing thought

reveals something of the tremendous effort his renunciation had required:

I do not know that I shall be able to carry out these views; but these are my present

determinations. I pray that I may have the grace and strength to perform this. I feel

exceedingly weak in regard to these matter.63

Under the published account of Orson Pratt's recantation is a statement by the First Presidency in

which they cite some of Pratt's ideas considered by them to be false or questionable. Among those

delineated we find:

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.64

Why the First presidency made the above statement appears obvious in the light of President

Young's belief that God "created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of

creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that

were, or that ever will be."65

Five years later, Orson Pratt was again under fire from the president of the Church:

We have persons in this Church who have preached and published doctrines on the

subject to Deity which are not true. Elder Orson Pratt has written extensively on the

doctrine. When he writes and speaks upon subjects with which he is acquainted and

understands, he is a very sound reasoner; but when he has written upon matters of

which he knows nothing-- his own philosophy, which I call vain philosophy -- is wild,

uncertain and contradictory. In all my public ministration as a minister of truth, I have

never yet been under the necessity of preaching, believing or practicing doctrines that

are not fully and clearly set forth in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Doctrine

and Covenants and the Book of Mormon.65

The same issue of the Deseret News from which the above quotation was taken also carried a

lengthy statement, signed by the First Presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles, reproving

Orson Pratt for. among other things, publishing a book, Joseph Smith the Prophet, in England. They

declared it to be full of errors, saying that Pratt had not informed them of his intentions before

publishing it. They then quoted from various other writings of Pratt branding them undoctrinal.

Among the many things which they said, we find this:

We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to prosperity

under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as

authentic and reliable, creating labor and difficulties for our successors to perform and

contend with, which we ought not to transmit to them, The interests of posterity are, to

a certain extent, in our hands. Errors in history and in doctrine, if left uncorrected by us

who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or

falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and

endorsed them. Such a construction could very easily be put upon our silence

respecting them, and would tend to perplex and mislead posterity, and make the labor

of correction and exceedingly difficulty one for them. We know what sanctity there is

always attached to the writings of men who have passed away, especially to the

writings of Apostles, when none of their contemporaries are left, and we, therefore, fell

the necessity of being watchful upon these points. Personal feelings and friendships and

associations ought to sink into comparative insignificance, and have no weight in view

of consequences so momentous to the people and kingdom of God as these.66

The article requoted the statement of the First Presidency in regards to Adam being made of "the

dust of the earth" exactly as it had appeared in the Deseret News five years previously.67 The Seer,

the "Great First Cause," and certain articles by Orson Pratt on the Holy Spirit were disowned by the

Church. All doctrinal ideas were to be submitted to the First Presidency before being published, or

the loss of the Priesthood might possible follow; for only one man was authorized to receive

revelation for the Church--Brigham Young. Orson Pratt accepted the decision of the authorities and

asked the people to destroy his questionable writings as suggested by the first Presidency.67

Was Brigham Young Misquoted?

It is the writer's opinion that the answer to this question is a categorical no. There is not the slightest

evidence from Brigham Young, or any other source, that either his original remarks on April 9, 1852,

or any of his subsequent statements were ever misquoted in the official publications of the Church.

The Orson Pratt affair makes it eminently clear that president Young was very much concerned that

nothing which he considered to be incorrect doctrine should be promulgated by any of the Church

authorities. Nor was Orson Pratt the only one whose "errors" were attacked; there were other also:

We have foolish Elders, and I have had to contend, time after time, against their foolish

doctrines. One of our most intelligent Apostles in one of his discourses left the people

entirely in the dark with retard to Jacob and Esau, and he never understood the

difference between fore-know-ledge and fore-ordination. Fore-knowledge and

fore-ordination are two distinct principles. And again, I have had to contend against

what is called the "baby resurrection" doctrine, which, as has been taught and indulged

by some, is one of the most absurd doctrines that can be thought of. Having had these

foolish doctrines to combat, I am not willing that the idea should possess your minds

that the body is neither here nor there, and that the work of salvation is entirely

spiritual.68

In the light of Brigham Young's attitude toward the errors of others, and in view of the division

created by his remarks concerning Adam, it would be stretching one's credulity to the breaking point

to believe that he would have remained silent had he been misquoted. To the contrary, we could

expect him to be rather watchful of the manner in which his addresses were published in the official

organs of the Church. That he was, may be gleaned from these comments by him concerning his

discourses:

I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is

couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation, read the sayings of him who

knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to

another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go an settled here or there.69

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they

may not call it scripture. Let me have the privilege of correction a sermon, and it is as

good as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually . . . Let this go

to the people with "Thus saith the Lord", and if they do not obey it, you will see the

chastening hand of the Lord upon them.70

President Young did not hesitate to cite what he considered to be the false ideas of Orson Pratt by

chapter and verse; had erroneous teaching concerning Adam been advanced due to the misquoting

of his addresses, Brigham Young would surely have referred to those misquotations at sometime or

other-he never did. The attitude of the president and his associates concerning doctrinal errors has

been previously quoted.71 Briefly, they affirmed that they "did not wish incorrect and unsound

doctrines to be handed down to prosperity under the sanction of great names . . . . Errors in history

and in doctrine, if left uncorrected by us . . . would go the our children as though we had sanctioned

and endorsed them. Such a construction could very easily be put upon our silence respecting them . .

. we, there-fore, feel the necessity of being watchful upon these points." The complete absence of

any real evidence to the contrary obliges the writer to conclude that Brigham Young has not been

misquoted in the official publications of the Church.

What Was the Source of Brigham Young's Views?

The two quotations on page forty-six, along with others, make it evident from his own remarks that

President Young sincerely believed that he was receiving revelation for the Church:

If we do not speak to you by the Spirit of revelation and the power of God, we do not

magnify our calling. I think that I tell you the words of the Lord Almighty everytime I

rise here to speak to you. I may blunder in the use of the English language; but suppose

I should use language that would grate on the ears of some of the learned, what of that?

God can understand it, and so could you, if you had the Spirit of the Lord . . . . If I do

not speak here by the power of God, if it is not revelation to you everytime I speak to

you here, I do not magnify my calling.72

I wish to ask you a question: Do this people know whether they have receive any

revelation since the death of Joseph, as a people? I can tell you that you receive them

continually.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If it was necessary to write them, we would write all the time. We would rather the

people, however, would live so as to have revelations for themselves, and then do the

work we are called to do: that is enough for us. Can any of you think of any revelations

you have received that are not written? You can.74

It has been observed that the people want revelation. This is a revelation; and were it

written, it would then be a written revelation, as truly as the revelations which are

contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants. I could give you a revelation upon

the subject of paying your tithing and building a temple to the name of the Lord; for the

light is in me.75

In a sense, there were two sources for the revelations which Brigham Young claimed to receive; one

of these was the Prophet Joseph Smith, the martyred first president of the Church. The year Brigham

Young died he said:

From the first time I saw the prophet Joseph I never lost a word that came from him

concerning the kingdom. And this is the key of knowledge that I have to-day, that I did

hearken to the words of Joseph, and treasured them up in my heart, laid them away,

asking my Father in the name of his Son Jesus to bring them to my mind when needed.

I reassured up the things of God, and this is the key that I hold to-day. I was anxious to

learn from Joseph and the spirit of God.76

On the same occasion he said that he had taught many things not found in any of the standard works

of the Church but that when he had spoken "by the power of God and the Holy Ghost, it is the truth,

it is scripture, and I have no fears but that it will agree with all that has been revealed in every

particular." Twenty years earlier, President Young told an audience: "What I have received from the

Lord, I have received by Joseph Smith: he was the instrument made use of. If I drop him, I must

drop these principles: they have not been revealed, declared, or explained by any other man since

the days of the Apostles."77

The second source of Brigham Young's revelations is , of course, God himself. That is likewise

manifest in the foregoing quotations from his addresses. In so far as the source of his views on Adam

are concerned, it might be argued that these also came from the same two sources: Joseph Smith,

and God. At least it was to these sources that Brigham Young ascribed his knowledge of the

subject. And that he felt that he had revealed more than had previously been know, information that

went beyond what was then understood regarding Adam, can also be gathered from various

statements on his part of which the following is an example:

And I will say, as I have said before, if guilt before my God and my brethren rest 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 who God is, how he lives,

the nature of his providence's and designs in creating the world, in bringing 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.78

In spite of the above sentiment by him in 1860, he continued to discuss "who God is" from time to

time for the rest of his life. Perhaps the one best statement by Brigham Young indicating the dual

source of his views was made by him in 1873. It has been previously quoted at length in this thesis.79

In it he says" "How much unbelief exist in the minds of the Latter-Day Saints in regard to one

particular doctrine which I revealed unto them and which God revealed to me--namely the at Adam

is our father and God--I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it." He goes on to speak

of Adam coming to this earth with "one of his wives" and of Adam's pre-ominence over his children,

etc., after which he says: "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." It is doubtful if we

could prove objectively and conclusively, to the satisfaction of all, where Brigham Young obtained

his views regarding Adam. T. B. H. Stenhouse said that he got them from Heber C. Kimball, an

extremely questionable, and in some respects, even ludicrous suggestion. Others have offered other

possibilities, equally lacking verification. The writer does not pretend to know. All that can be said is

that Brigham Young claims Joseph Smith and God, as his revelators. If one is inclined to accept the

work of President Young, then the problem is solved. If, on the other hand , one is inclined to doubt

his claims, a search fro an answer to the problem must be made elsewhere. The results will probably

be disappointing.

What Did Brigham Young Believe

Before summarizing the beliefs of Brigham Young, as the writer sees them, it will be well to cover a

few preliminary, but important details. First, it should be recognized that the innermost workings of a

man's mind are, to a detree, sacro sanct, being so, they are largely hidden from the probing eyes

(and these) of others unless the man himself chooses to reveal them. Because of this, we must

assume, though sometimes erroneously, that a man believes what he most clearly and most often

says. The writer has done this in the case of Brigham Young. Not because it is the simplest way to

handle the matter, but because the writer believes that it is the only way to do so. To attempt to deal

with President Young's statements subjectively, using a certain amount of long-distance

psychoanalysis in an effort to discover what he really meant to say, would not only be foolhardy for

one who is sometimes none too certain what he himself means to say, but would be a violation of the

accepted procedures involve in a study of this kind. The more subjective one becomes, or the more

subjective the material one is dealing with, the more precarious and indefensible are the conclusions

arrived at. The writer has attempted to be as objective as possible.

In an effort to gain the immediate proximity of the truth, certain arbitrary rules of procedure were set

up to guide the writing of this thesis.80 They should be referred to again at the time, since the

conclusions arrived at by the writer are based upon their application.

In the introduction, the writer said that he had attempted to select that material which was the most

pertinent and the least ambiguous, this has been done. However, it may be argued that many

so-called "ambiguous statements" are not as ambiguous as the writer has claimed; and that,

consequently, only one side of the story has been told. Therefore, it is deemed proper to quote a few

representative remarks by Brigham Young illustrative of the ambiguity which has made their value, in

so far as this study is concerned, debatable. For example: "we should do all we can to reclaim the

lost sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, and bring them back to be saved in the presence of our

Father and God."81 So far as identifies are concerned, the statement reveals nothing conclusively.

Another example:

Do you not all know that you are the sons and daughters of the Almighty? If you do not

I will inform you this morning that there is not a man or woman on the earth that is not a

son or daughter of Adam and Eve. We all belong to the races which have sprung from

father Adam and mother Eve; and every son and daughter of Adam and Eve is a son

and daughter of that God we serve, who organized this earth and millions of others, and

who holds them in existence by law.82

Brigham Young does not actually say that Adam and the "Almighty" are one and the same, but

neither does he say they are not; we are left in doubt. The following is an example of many of

Brigham Young's statements which tell us what God did, but not who he is:

He is our Father; He is our God, the Father of our spirits; He is the framer of our

bodies, and set the machine is successful operation to bring forth these tabernacles . . .

.83

In what sense is God 'the framer of our bodies'? How did He 'set the machine in successful

operation'? Herewith is an example of the type of statement which can lead to fruitless controversy

over the meaning of terms.

God notices this world. He organized it, and brought forth the inhabitants upon it. We

are his children, literally, spiritually, naturally, and in ever respect.84

What does he mean by "literally, spiritually, naturally"? The failure to relate them to something more

concrete leaves them open to as many definitions as there are people to define them.

Another confusing practice sometimes indulged in by Brigham Young and others is that of using

names and titles in a rather loose fashion, as in this quotation: "We obey the Lord, Him who is called

Jehovah, the Great I Am, I am a man of war, Elohim, etc. We are under many obligations to obey

Him."85 and again: "he is the Father, God, Savior, Maker, Preserver, and Redeemer of man."86 Both

statements refer to God the Father, as the overall context of the sermon shows, and yet if taken

literally, they might be interpreted as speaking of Christ; since such titles as Jehovah, Savior,

Redeemer, I Am, etc., are usually associated with him in Latter-day Saint writings. The writer feels

that this seemingly indiscriminate use of the names, titles, and epithets ascribed to various divine

beings is a major cause of the differences of opinion as to Brigham Young's true beliefs concerning

Adam. President Young always makes it clear that he is speaking of God as such; but any, he has in

mind; hence, the confusion over identities. For unless a definite distinction is made between what

may be termed the principle of Godhood (which seemingly includes not only the laws and powers by

which godhood is gained and maintained but also the aggregate of those individuals abiding that

principle) and the particular being who has become associated with that principle through the

acquisition of Godhood, the identification of any give personality becomes virtually impossible. a

differentiation between on particular God, and all the other Gods who combine with him to make up

the "one God" in principle, is essential.

There are many instances where Brigham Young speaks of Adam on the one hand, and God on the

other; as, for instance, when he said: "We believe that he made Adam after his own image and

likeness, as Moses testifies. . . . our God possesses a body and parts, and was heard by Adam and

Eve "walking in the garden in the cool of the day.""87 And:

The world may in vain as the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we

are the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of

our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are

the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells

anywhere that we have knowledge of.88

Those quotations bring us to grips with the apparent contradiction in his statements; for how can he

claim that Adam is " our Father and our God, and the only God with whom We have to do" at one

time, and yet assert that Adam and Eve heard "our God" walking in the garden, and that they are the

"children of our Heavenly Father," at other times? We must either assume that he has contradicted

himself, or that he has not. If he has, then one or the other, if not both, of his statements must be

discarded as being false. If, however, he has not contradicted himself, then we are faced with the of

harmonizing seemingly opposing views. Basing the decision on an application of the rules of

procedure previously set up, the writer has accepted the second hypothesis as being the more

likely--the contradiction is more apparent than real. The general pattern of Brigham Young's views

on the status of the Gods, and the future divinity possible to man, as related to the general concept of

Latter-day Saint cosmology, seems to support this decision.

Brigham Young, like the church today, was polytheistic in his beliefs. He recognized not only three

Gods pertaining to this earth89 --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--but an endless line of

Gods pertaining to other worlds and universes as well:

Refuse evil, choose good, hat iniquity, love truth. all this our fathers have done before

us; I do not particularly mean father Adam, or his father; I do not particularly mean

Abraham, or Moses, the prophets, or apostles, but I mean our fathers who have been

exalted for millions of years previous to Adam's time. They have all passed through the

same ordeals we are now passing through, and have searched all things, even to the

depths of hell.90

He also believe that these Gods were of one patriarchal lineage, or "species", as he expresses it here:

"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 and 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 on species--of one family--and Jesus Christ is also or our species."91 Thus Brigham

Young implies that to recognize one, is to recognize all; but even so, he makes it clear in other

statements that there is but "one God to us,"92 and he is "our Father who made us; for he is the only

wise God, and to him we owe allegiance; to him we owe our lives. He has brought us forth and

taught us all we know. We are not indebted to any other power or God for all our great blessings."93

An article in the Millennial Star, probably written by S. W. Richards, the British Mission president at

the time, gives a rather lucid picture of the relationship of the gods to one another and to their own

offspring;94 it merits comparison with these statements by Brigham Young on the same topic:

Then will they become gods, even the sons of God; they will they become eternal

fathers, eternal mothers, eternal sons and eternal daughters; being eternal in their

organization, they go from glory to glory, from power to power; they will never cease

to increase and to multiply worlds without end. When they receive their crown, their

dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earths like unto ours and to people them

in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and

God.95

The kingdoms he possesses and rules over are his own progeny. Every man who is

faithful and gets a salvation and glory, and becomes a King of kings and Lord of lords,

or a Father of fathers; it will be by the increase of his own progeny, Our Father and

God rules over his own children. Wherever there is a God in all the eternities

possessing a kingdom and glory and power it is by means of his own progeny.96

These statements should also be compared with Brigham Young's concept of the modus operandi of

godhood as expressed by him and quoted on page eighteen.

Therefore, when Brigham Young says that both Adam and Eve, and all the rest of mankind, are the

children of the "highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have knowledge of," it is the

writer's opinion that he is speaking in terms of an ultimate God, or an ultimate source, to which "our

fathers who have been exalted for millions of years" owe their rule and existence; and by which the

present race of man on this earth has also come into being as children--by virtue of the patriarchal

relationship of the "species"--of that "highest Intelligence."97 Again, this differentiation between the

principle of godhood and the individual personages comprising and subscribing to that principle will,

the writer feels, resolve the seeming conflict in President Young's pronouncements concerning Adam.

A careful, detached study of his available statements, as found in the official publications of the

Church, will admit of no other conclusion than that the identification of Adam with God the Father by

President Brigham Young is an irrefutable fact. While there are a great many of his expressions

which may appear to contradict this, they fail to reveal his views on this particular subject with the

clarity, objectivity, and absence of equivocation which would permit them equal weight with his other

pronouncements. At best, it may be said that they becloud his more direct statements; but in all

honesty, it must be admitted that they fail to actually deny them. We cannot ignore or subvert those

of his ideas which were expressed in undeniable specific terms, in order to justify and sustain

uncertain interpretations of his intent in general ones. The evidence upon which the writer has intent in

general ones. The evidence upon which the writer has based his conclusions is twofold: external and

internal. This division is for convenience in presenting the material, and is admittedly an arbitrary one.

External evidences. --

1. The complete absence of denials, retractions, or corrected versions by Brigham Young of the

April 9, 1852, address, as well as of this subsequent discourses on the subject, in the light of his

expressed attitude toward the dissemination of incorrect doctrine.

2. The absence of evidence, from Brigham Young or any other source, to support the possibility of

his having been misquoted in the official Church organs.

3. The absence of any statement on the part of Brigham Young suggesting that he had been

misunderstood in his views, in light of his remarks to the effect that he had been doubted and

disbelieved in them.

4. President Young's specific statements which he apparently intended to be taken literally, since he

failed to modify them, or to indicate that they should be understood any other way.

5. The statements of others, both before and after his death, indicating that he was taken literally by

friends and enemies alike.

6. The consistent pattern of his views, not only in regards to Adam, but in the acquisition and nature

of godhead in general.

The internal evidence deals exclusively with the comments of Brigham Young relative to Adam and

man's ultimate possible destiny. In indication what he felt Adam did, President Young revealed

whom he thought Adam was; the activities of Adam and the identity of Adam being inseparable

connected. A comparison of the April 9, 1852, sermon, or its summation on page eight, with the

following summation of Brigham Young's major ideas as expressed in subsequent discourses in

invited.99

Internal evidences. --

1. After the faithful have become gods, they will prepare both spiritual and physical bodies for their

offspring; the latter being done by having them go to an earth and eat of "corporeal" food until it is

"diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them . . .to produce mortal tabernacles

for their spiritual children".100

2. God the Father, after gaining his godhood and begetting his spiritual children, "commenced the

work of creating earthly tabernacles. . ." by partaking of the earth's coarse material "until his system

was charged with it;" thus His children's physical bodies were made of the earth's materials.101

3. Adam was a resurrected man who had obtained his exaltation, and who desired that those

"children that were born to me in the spirit world" should have the opportunity to obtain physical

bodies.102

4. Brigham Young's use of Daniel's description of the Ancient of days to describe "the Father of us

all."103

5. Brigham Young's statement to the effect that "Some have grumbled because I believe our God to

be so near to us as Father Adam.104

6. Adam was born as any other person is born, but on another world.105

7. Eve was one of Adam's wives.106

8. Brigham Young's claim that God had revealed to him that "Adam is our father and God."107

CHAPTER IV

THE VIEWS OF OTHERS

With the passing of Brigham Young, the subject of Adam's identity, beyond that revealed in the

standard works of the church, was seldom discussed. To be sure, there were some who commented

upon it; but for the most part their remarks tended to skirt the matter, only indirectly supporting or

challenging the views of President Young. Indeed, it had been much the same before his death with

both his opponents and supporters largely remaining silent, at least publicly. So silent were they, that

with the exception of Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, and a few others among the authorities, we are

uncertain of their true convictions. However, with the turn of the century, the Church came under fire

from various protestant ministers and "Mormon haters" for, among other things, its belief in the

"Adam deity" of Brigham Young. It is then that we find such leaders as Charles W Penrose speaking

forth in defense of the official doctrine of the Church. With this much said, the views of others, who

spoke with sufficient directness pro and con, will be considered. Again, as in the case of Brigham

Young, effort has been made to avoid the use of debatable and inconclusive material.

1852-1899

Heber C. Kimball.--Heber C. Kimball was a counselor to Brigham Young in the First Presidency

and seems to have been very close to him, both in spirit and viewpoints.108 In his book, The Rocky

Mountain Saints, Stenhouse goes so far as to suggest that Kimball was the source of Brigham

Young's ideas concerning Adam:

Brother Heber had considerable pride in relating to his intimate friends that he was the

source of Brigham's revelation on the "Adam-deity." In a moment of reverie Heber

said: "Brother Brigham, I have an idea that Adam is not only our father, but our God."

That was enough: Brigham snapped at the novelty, and announced it with all flourish of

a new revelation.109

Stenhouse could safely make such a claim; Heber C. Kimball was dead, and, therefore, unable to

refute what the writer believes to be a completely false accusation.

In 1852, Heber C. Kimball was quoted as saying:

When we escape form this earth, we suppose we are going to heaven? Do you

suppose that you are going to the earth that Adam came from? That Elohim came

from? Where Jehovah the Lord came from? No. When you have learned to become

obedient to the Father that dwells upon this earth, to the Father and God of this earth,

and obedient to the messengers he sends-when you have done all that, remember you

are not going to leave this earth. You will never leave it until you become qualified, and

capable, and capacitated to become a father in an earth yourselves.110

Here again, is revealed the concept of a patriarchal lineage of gods presiding over the many worlds

and universes of eternity.

The following statement by Heber C. Kimball provides another example of the confusion which can

result from the loose application of the names, titles, and epithets ascribed to the Gods:

We have been taught that our Father and God, from whom we spring, called and

appointed his servants to go and organize an earth, and, among the rest, he said to

Adam, "You go along also and help all you can, you are going to inhabit it when it is

organized, therefore go and assist in the good work." It reads in the Scriptures that the

Lord did it, but the true rendering is, that the Almighty sent Jehovah and Michael to do

the work.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

God the Father made Adam the Lord of this creation in the beginning.111

One might conclude from this that "our Father and God," the "Lord," the "Almighty," and "God the

Father" are all one and the same; and yet he hasn't actually said so. President Kimball speaks of the

people having been "taught" thus and so, adding that the "true rendering" is otherwise. Certainly "God

the Father" and "Adam" are not meant to be synonymous in this comment, for two distinct beings are

referred to. Yet from other remarks made by him, it is apparent that he did not always use the terms

"our Father and God" and "God the Father" synonymously either. Speaking on one occasion he said:

"We often sing, ' This earth was once a garden place'112 where God our father dwelt, and took

possession and a stand that mankind will take who attain to that honor."113 Here he implies the

identification of Adam with "God our Father," This identification is also manifest in these statements

by him:

I have learned that by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people,

and he is the God that pertains to this earth--the first man. That first man sent His own

Son to redeem the world, to redeem His brethren; his life was taken; his blood shed;

that our sins might be remitted. That Son called twelve men and ordained them to be

Apostles, and when he departed, the keys of the kingdom were deposited with three of

those Twelve, via. Peter, James, and John.114

The following year, November 8, 1857, he said:

Now brethren, you have got a spirit in you, and that spirit was created and

organized--was born and begotten by our Father and God before we ever took these

bodies; and of Him, just as much as the spirit was; for I will tell you He commenced

and brought forth spirits; and then when he completed that work, He commenced and

brought forth tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. I came through Him, both spirit

and body. God made the elements that they are made of, just as much as he made

anything.115

Such were the view of Heber C. Kimball as to Adam's identity; their similarity to those of President

Young is manifest.

W. W. Phelps.-- This early Church leader said nothing conclusive in any public addresses of which

the writer is aware. However, the following extract from a poem entitled "The Spirit," which he

wrote and recited at the thirty-fifth semi-annual conference of the Church in 1865, may be indicative

to his views

O may the Saints be perfect

As God our Father was,

When he go back to Eden

By he celestial laws.116

Eliza R. Snow.-- Another who use the poetic medium to give expression to her feeling and beliefs

was Eliza R. Snow, an outstanding early Mormon writer, and one of Joseph Smith's plural wives.

There are two poems written by he which are of particular interests since they reveal he concept of

Adam's position, and strongly suggest that she shared the views of President Young. Here with is an

extract for the first of these entitled, "To Mrs.--"

Adam our father-- Eve, our mother,

And Jesus Christ, our elder brother,

Are to my understanding shown:

My heart responds, they are my own.117

The second, "The Ultimatum of Human Life," reads:

Adam your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation he arose to be

Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And what to him in his probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, priest, of Seer?

Whate'er his offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By his obedience he obtain'd the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all her daughters on the earth, who will

All my requirements sacredly fulfill.

And what to Eve, though in her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or forthieth wife?

What did she care, when in her lowest state,

Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great?

'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth--

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth.

"Life's ultimatum, unto those that live

As saints of God, and all my pow'rs receive;

Is still the onward, upward course to tread--

To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head

Of an inheritance, a new-form'd earth,

And to their spirit-race, give mortal birth--

Give them experience in a world like this;

Then lead them forth to everlasting bliss,

Crown'd with salvation and eternal joy

Where full perfection dwells without alloy."118

The inference that the poetess regarded Adam and Eve as resurrected beings who had gained their

exaltation and parented off spring prior to coming to this earth and "falling" is quite unmistakable. She

will be referred to again.

Orson Pratt.--The writing of Orson Pratt do not fully support the poetic claims of Eliza R. Snow, nor

the expressions of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball. Pratt's difficulties with President Young

and others of the authorities have been previously discussed. Yet, it should be under stood that

Orson Pratt and Brigham Young were in agreement of many doctrinal items. Pratt, like President

Young, believed that there have always been divine Fathers and Sons;119 that there are countless

millions of persons who will gain godhood, "each one being a personal God, as much so as the God

of this creation,"120 and that God was once mortal.121 They were also united in the commonly

accepted doctrine that spirits do not marry or beget children;122 that those who gain exaltation will

beget spiritual offspring and send them to other "mortal" worlds;123 and that Adam and Eve were

immortal being having bodies of flesh and bones, prior to their fall.124 As for Adam, who is identified

as Michael, the Archangel in the Doctrine and Covenants, being a God, Pratt agrees that he now is,

explaining: "Some angels are Gods, and still possess the lower office called angels. Adam is called an

Archangel, yet he is a God."125

But there did exist definite differences of opine between the two leaders, as we have seen,126 which

led to a doctrinal parting of the ways in certain areas. There were opinions expressed by Pratt which

were incompatible with Brigham Young's views on Adam. For example, Pratt's belief, affirmed both

before and after President Young's death that Adam was not "our God," but a pre-existent spirit

child of that God;127 that Adam was made literally from the dust of the ground;128 and that Adam and

Eve died, and were resurrected following the resurrection of Christ.129 One idea which is apparently

unique with Pratt requarding Adam and Eve, is his belief that they had the power to beget immortal

offspring prior to their fall.130 In what sense he meant this is not made clear by him.

Miscellaneous comments.-- Brigham Young's successor, John Taylor, has left no clear cut evidence

as to his views one way or the other. He did refer to God as "our Father, and the organizer of these

bodies,"131 but in what sense He is the "organizer," President Taylor did not say. There are but a few

comments on the subject to be found in the publications of the Church in the late 1870's and 1860's.

Elder Erastus Snow, an apostles, spoke to the effect that Adam was born a son of God and not

literally created as a thing apart from God.132 This same viewpoint was expressed in a public lecture

by Elder John H Kelsen some eight years later in England.133 The Contributor, the forerunner of The

Improvement Era, carried two articles of interest in this period. One, entitled "Our Father and God,"

by a J. F. Gibbs, expressed the idea that hose who become gods are the ones "most entitled to

furnish mortal bodies for their spiritual offspring."134 The other, written by a Thomas W. Brookbank,

commented: "Before Adam fell he was a resurrected man, that is, his physical body had been

disorganized and then reorganized."135 The Deseret News printed the full text of a lecture given by

Joseph E. Taylor in the Logan Temple in June, 1888. In this address, Taylor also affirmed that Adam

was a resurrected man, and the Father of Christ. He used the April 9, 1852, discourse of Brigham

Young, and the so--called "King Follett" funeral sermon given by Joseph Smith in April, 1844, in

support of his contentions.136 It is apparent from these and other sources that the problem of the

origin of the immortal body of Adam continued to be a matter of much speculation. Later references

will further substantiate this condition.

George Q. Cannon.-- Apostle Cannon was editor of the Millenial Star in 1861 when it published a

front page article entitled the "Origin of Man." The article quoted a series of statements by President

Young, including some from his April 9, 1852 address, and a subsequent one given in August of that

year.137 It then went on to say:

President Young, in the foregoing passages, while substantiating the fact of union of

man's preexisting spirit with a bodily product of the "dust of the ground," enters more

particularly into the modus operandi of that union. He unmistakably declares man's

origin to be altogether of a celestial character--that not only is his spirit of heavenly

descent, but his organization too,--that the latter is not taken from the lower animals,

but from the originally celestial body of the great Father of humanity . . . . Look on this

picture--Man, the offspring of an ape! And on this--Man the image of God, his

Father!138

Some twenty-eight years later, he told a general conference audience that: "There are two

personages, the Father and the Son. God is the being who walked in the Garden of Eden, and who

talked with the prophets. This revelation came to us in certainty."139 With the passage of the years

Elder Cannon tended to more or less avoid the issue, as is indicated by this comment before the first

Sunday school convention of the Church:

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

worshiped, 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.140

Wiford Woodruff.--The fourth president of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, give similar advice to the

membership when he spoke before the general conference of April, 1895. Judging from the

preceding statement of George Q. Cannon, made three years later, not everyone heeded this

admonition of President Woodruff:

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 thing alone. Why trouble yourselves about

those things? God has revealed Himself, and when the 121st section of the Doctrine

and Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be one God of many gods they will be

revealed to the children of men. . . . 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

anymore, 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,

who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this. . . . We have had letter after letter

from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man, He

was placed in the garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the

Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, to-day , and forever. That

should be sufficient for us to know.141

Neither the Cannon statement, nor that made by President Woodruff is an actual refutation of

anyone's opinions as to Adam's identity; both are primarily concerned with putting an end to further

speculation on the matter. In that regards, what was not said appears to be perhaps more significant

than what was said; later statements by certain Church leaders are far more definite as to what is and

what is not doctrinal.

"Lucifer's Lantern."--In a notoriously anti-Mormon publication, Zion-Lucifer's Lantern, edited by A.

T. Schroeder, there appeared an attack on the Church typical of that period:

The theologically bedizened sensualist of mormondom finds further manifestation in its

conception of heaven. If I can get any intelligent idea of the after life of mormons by the

study of there inane sermons it is something like this: There are two resurrection one of

the spirit, the other of the flesh (This is an error, for the Church teaches that the spirit

never die. After the second resurrection the spirit and the body are united and

transplanted to some place in the universe where they gather up enough raw planetary

material out of which to "organize a world."

To this world the resurrected man now hies himself and by virtue of the "sealing power"

of the Mormon priesthood all the women who have been "sealed" to him for eternity

are attracted or transplanted to this same planet. Here they set up housekeeping as

Adam did in the Garden of Eden, and they will live eternal lives unless some walking or

talking snake should put up a jot on them as it did on Eve.

To this world of his own creation the man will be the God, even as Adam in Mormon

theology is the God of this world. He is the King and his wives queens. Their kingdom

will consist of their own "eternal progeny." Hence polygamy is essential because the

extent and glory of every man's kingdom in the hereafter must depend on the number of

wives sealed to him for eternity.

Such a conception of heaven is debasing because its highest pleasure consists only in

the voluptuousness furnished by the Grecian hetaera, its only rewards are sensual, and

the greatest means of exaltation is a fecundity that would make a jack-rabbit envious.142

Such were the views of an "active" non-Mormon in 1899.

1900-Present

Ministerial views.--There were those of the clergy who also found occasion to attack "Mormonism'

for some of its tenets which they considered incompatible with the truth as they saw it. The Rev. W.

M. Paden of the Presbyterian church was such a one. Under the caption, "Presbyterians and

Mormons God," The Deseret News carried a front page account of an address by him in which he

said:

. . . I have not looked into the Adam God idea very much and there is more in the

writing of Apostle F. D. Richards on the matter than in any of the other I have seen, but

I think the church is ashamed of the idea. I find nothing about it in Dr. Talmage's book,

or in any of the B. H. Roberts' later writing. He whom we worship is no magnified man

and we who worship are not minimized Gods.143

The next day the Deseret News published a long editorial defending the Church's doctrine on God.

The remarks of Rev. Paden were also referred to by B. H. Roberts, of the first council of Seventy,

when he spoke before the Mutual Improvement Association conference a few days later.144

In 1907, the ministerial association prepared a review of a general statement of doctrine which the

Church had published as a "Mormon Address to the World." The Salt Lake Herald quoted their

review as follows:

As to the doctrine of Deity, the "Address" declares: "We believe in the God-head,

comprising the three individual personages, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." As this

declaration stands here, it will not perhaps suggest Tritheism or Materialism to

Christians unfamiliar with Mormon theological terms. But when the full doctrine of the

Deity, as taught in Mormon congregations is know, it will at once be seen that no

Christian can accept it. In fact, the Mormon Church teaches: That God the Father has a

material body of flesh and bones; that Adam is the God of the human race; that this

Adam-God was physically begotten by another God; that the Gods were once at we

are now; that there is a great multiplicity of Gods; that Jesus Christ was physically

begotten by the Heavenly Father of Mary, His wife; that, at we have a Heavenly

Father, so also we have a Heavenly Mother; that Jesus Himself was married, and was

probably a polygamist--at least so it has been printed in their publication and taught

among their people; and that the Holy Spirit is of material substance, capable of actual

transmission from one person to another.145

The ministerial association went on to quote from various Church works and sermons, among them

the "Adam-God" sermon of Brigham Young, The Seer, etc. B. H. Roberts, again speaking in the

annual M. I. A. conference of that year, denied their assertions relative to the identity of God,

Christ's marriage, etc., stating that such were the views of individual men and not the official

doctrines of the Church.

As late as 1929, Paden was still concerning himself with Adam and the Mormon church. Under a

sub-heading entitled "Father Adam" he wrote:

It was one of Brigham Young's teachings that "Adam is our father and our God, the

only God with whom we have to do." For years I have imagined that the Mormon

authorities were ashamed of this doctrine or, at least, were inclined to consider it as an

outburst of Brighamism rather than an inspired tenet of Mormonism. I was, therefore,

surprised to find the old hymn to Adam and Eve in the new hymnal. It is under the title

Sons of Michael. If you knew the secrets of the Mormon temple you would know that

at a certain point of (sic) the Mormon endowment service temple workers or officials

representing Elohim and Jehovah enter the Creation Room with the Archangel Michael,

and that, Michael being put to sleep, Elohim makes passes over him, breathes upon

him, and he wakens up as Adam. A little later a woman is made for him whom he calls

Eve. In case your credentials will not get you through the temple, as is more than likely,

you will find the light needed as regards to identification of Adam as Michael, in section

27 oft he Doctrine and Covenants, where Joseph the Seer declares that "Michael is

Adam , the father of all, the prince of all, the Ancient of Days." Here are three stanzas

fro the Mormon hymn of praise and loyalty to Adam and Eve. Remember that Joseph

the Prophet says, "Michael is Adam."

Sons of Michael, He approaches!

Rise; the Ancient Father great;

Bow, ye thousand, low before Him;

Minister before His feet.

Mother of our generations,

Glorious by great Michael's side,

Take thy children's adoration;

Raise a chorus, sons of Michael,

Like old Ocean's roaring swell,

Till the mighty acclamation

Thro' resounding space doth tell

That the Ancient One doth reign

In His paradise again! (Hymn 334)146

This particular hymn is still to be found in the latest hymn books used by the Church. However, the

writer does not recall hearing it; in fact, he was unaware of its existence until Paden referred to it.

Paden concludes his article on "Mormonism" by predicting: "The church will shed or cease to

magnify its polytheistic teaching and its peculiar conceptions on personality, and it will unload the old

Adam, whom it has accepted in times past as the God of the human race."147

B. H. Roberts.--Like Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts was a prolific writer and a brilliant thinker. His

views on the identity and nature of the Gods are perhaps nowhere better expressed than in his book,

Mormon Doctrine of Deity, a writing which came out of the Roberts-Van Der Donekt discussions of

1902. In so far as Adam himself is concerned, Roberts has little, if anything, to say beyond that

which is generally taught and understood in the Church. In his aforementioned book he does quote

one of the most advanced of all of Brigham Young's sermons148 with apparent tacit approval of its

doctrines, although without comment.149 He also acknowledges Adam as the "Grand Patriarch of our

race" and the one who will eventually attain to the "governorship" of this earth. Referring to Paden's

idea that the Church was "ashamed" of Brigham Young's teachings he says:

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 learn 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.150

More miscellaneous views.--The Improvement Era carried the views of two Church writers who

gave it as their opinion, based upon logic, that Adam was born of parents and not created in some

independent manner. One of these writers was John Attewall Wootton,151 and the other, William

Halls.152 Thus the matter continued to provoke debate, prompting this reply from the editors of the

Improvement Era to a question concerning it:

Priesthood Quorum's Table

Origin of Man.--"In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come

into existence on this earth?" This question comes from several High Priest's quorums.

Of course all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:7; also in the book

of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2:27; and in the Book of Abraham 5:7 . . . .

These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best

to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject. Whether

the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through

the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, 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.153

Orson F. Whitney.--Another of the poets of the Church was Apostle Orson Ferguson Whitney. In

his work Elias, An Epic of the Ages, which saw its first edition in 1204, he writes of the glory of

Adam and speaks of those who are called to be the "Eve and Adam of some world":

One are the human twain, as sheath and sword--

Woman and man, the lady and the lord;

Each pair the Eve and Adam of some world

Perchance unborn, or into space unhurled.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chosen, omniscient, children of the Sun,

Offspring of Adam, Michael, Ancient One

Who comes anon his fiery throne to rear,

His council summoning from far and near.

Ten thousand times ten thousand bow the knee

And "Father" hail him, "King," eternally.154

Charles W. Penrose.--Prior to becoming an apostle in 1904, Charles W. Penrose was editor of the

Deseret News. In that capacity he wrote an editorial, entitled "A Piece of Impertinence," dealing with

the "unwarranted liberty" taken by the Lamoni Herald155 in publishing a private letter he had written

to a Mr. Anderson in reply to a query from him regarding Brigham Young's teaching as to Adam.156

The editor then quoted the aforementioned latter as follows:

Salt Lake City, Utah

Feb. 17, 1900

"Mr. Quincy Anderson, Ozark, Mo.:

"Dear Sir-- In reply to your letter of inquiry. I have to say that President Brigham

Young, in the discourse of which you speak, did not say that 'the Virgin Mary was not

over-shadowed by the Holy Ghost.' He did not say that it was 'Adam.' He did not say

that 'Adam was our only God.' What he did say, on this subject, was that Jesus was

not 'begotten' by the Holy Ghost. He taught that Jesus was the 'first begotten' of God in

the spirit, and the 'only begotten' of God in the flesh. As to Adam, he taught that he was

God in the sense of being at the head of the human family. That he was Michael, the

Ancient of Days, and in the resurrection would be at the head. In that way the whole

human family will the whole human family will be related to him as his children, and in

the Patriarchal order he will be the personage with whom they will have to do, and the

only one in that capacity. President Young taught faith in that Eternal Being to whom

Adam and all of his race should bow in humble reverence, who is our Eternal Father

and the Father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ, and is the Great Elohim. The Journal

of Discourses is not now in print and I do not know of any volume now on sale;

however, I have given you the substance of President Young's teaching as to Adam.

Hoping that this will be satisfactory, I am,

"Yours truly,

"O. W. Penrose

"Editor, News.157

The editor's letter to Anderson is followed by a statement which says in part:

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