Jump to content

OH NO! The Adam/God Theory Returns!


Recommended Posts

I know that I am opening up a can of worms with this question. I also understand that it has been discussed previously in this forum. In fact, this topic has been beat to death like a dead horse for over a century. But I am curious what everyone

Link to post


I think it was taught but we hardly understand it's significance and/or not all of it is true.

I wrote a paper on it a while ago that I tried to get FAIR to post in their topical guide. I never got a response. It's found here:

http://www.geocities.com/Drewm777/Adam-God.doc It is a word document.

EDIT: I have since revised my paper on the topic. It's a little longer. Although, I don't have it posted yet. If you'd like to see it you can get it from me. I can email it to you. The essence is pretty much the same in the two, however.

Link to post

Why or why start another thread on this!

Heresy 13: Adam is our father and our god and the only god with whom we have to do; he is the father of our eternal spirits and our mortal bodies, and as such he presides over and is superior to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Commentary: This so-called Adam-God theory is false. We are bound by the truths set forth in the Standard Works, and the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price sets forth the true and proper relationship between Elohim (the Father), Jehovah (the Son), and Michael, who is Adam. Truly, "the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, . . . hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life." (D&C 78:15-16.)

(Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985], 103.)

Also I remember seeing this link from W. John Walsh (I hope it is ok that I site it here)


I don

Link to post

I think it's kind of a crazy issue. It doesn't make any sense at all. He obviously believed that they [Adam and God] were seperate individuals. But yet, taught in a few cases that they were the same. I think the evidence is there that it was taught. There are plenty of journal entries recounting what is said in JD. But, he totally contradicts himself. So, I believe that there has to be more to the story. I'm kinda leaning towards the title Adam theory. Christ is called the second Adam in Corinthians. Which could be a title, not necessarily the person Adam. If Christ is given this title, could God also be given this title? Christ is also called the Son of Man. Man in Aramaic is translated literally as "Adam". So Christ would be the Son of Adam, a title for God.

Interesting theory, but I'm not 100% convinced. I think that there are many similarities between the two..

God Adam

The Father of our Spirits Father of human earthly race

created the world Helped create the world

sinless born into this world sinless

delegates judgment is a judge

all glory and dominion will be given will give glory, dominion, and kingdom to

Christ at Adam-Ondi-Ahman [Dan. 7:13- 14

Is a God could possibly be referred to as a God

I think that there are many similarities, and when reading BY discourses, they should be read with caution, and not taken at face value.

Link to post

No discusson on this topic is complete without McConkie's letter to Eugene England.


I think it says it all, except for one tidbit.

This is third or fourth hand information:

An elderly woman in a nursing home said that BY told her father (a local leader of the church in southern Utah) that he was going to play a great joke on the members of the church. It was shortly after this remark that BY first gave the Adam-God teaching.

If true, it would give some explanation on the origin of this doctrine. He often admonished the Saints not to accept everything that the leaders of the church taught, and he was involved with JS's joke on Daniel Wells in Nauvoo where JS pretended to be drunk. When BY pretended to complain abt the prophet's so-called drunkeness, Bro Wells replied "Well, a drunken prophet is better than no prophet at all."

BY could have considered the Adam-God theory an excellent test for the saints. Just my theory on the subject.

Link to post

An elderly woman in a nursing home said that BY told her father (a local leader of the church in southern Utah) that he was going to play a great joke on the members of the church. It was shortly after this remark that BY first gave the Adam-God teaching.

If true, it would give some explanation on the origin of this doctrine. ...

BY could have considered the Adam-God theory an excellent test for the saints. Just my theory on the subject.

It seems like a strange joke indeed, especially when you consider the number of times he talked about it, the seriousness of the words he used when addressing the topic, and the fact that he included Adam-God Teachings in the lecture at the vail in the temple (1877) that was removed sometime around 1901.

Link to post
Why or why start another thread on this! 

The controversy surrounding it clearly isn't over, just because some people think the issue is resolved. Though maybe every possible angle has already been covered. I have a few (highly speculative) thougths about it, but I haven't really spent that much time grazing over the issue.

The bottom line is: Joseph Smith repeatedly expressed, implicitly or otherwise, the notion that there was alot of things that the saints or the general public weren't ready for. The stuff at the King Follet Discourse was given at a time when Smith knew he was going to die soon -- who knows what was revealed to him that he couldn't or didn't reveal. It shouldn't be any suprise that some doctines don't make sense early in the dispensation.

Link to post

In Abraham 4:1 it says:

1 AND then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Since we know that Adam helped form the earth, that would mean he is considered one of the Gods according to this scripture. Could that be what Brigham Young was referring to?

Link to post

I think there is plenty of evidence that it was taught on many occasions. We can find Adam-God teachings in Brigham's lectures, Conference Talks, and published in the Deseret News. We also know it's Temple relationship after 1877.

What is equally important is the controversy it seemed to involve from the beginning. Orson Pratt and Brigham had some strong arguments over this issue. When given the opportunity to elaborate on this teaching Brigham declines. After Brigham's death we see a gradual remove of this subject matter from church teachings and the temple.


Link to post
maxrep12 said: I am puzzled, Demmick, what semantics are critics using? Brigham gets straight to the point!

I was referring to critics that publish articles about the Adam-God Theory and try to make the teaching sound as horrible and satanic as possible through their description. Those who are familiar with LDS theology understand that God and Father has multiple meanings, but many critics will not state this in their publications because it wouldn't create the same effect.

Link to post

I'm sure a simple google search will turn up much evidence for it. However, I'm more of a book kinda guy, and by the time I type up the quotes, many will have already provided a link. Just flippin through my fanatical Mormon books, I found about 6 different journal entries that say he taught it. But, I do not know the context. Adam can rightly be called our father [that is, the father of the human race], which, someone with a quick edit button, can make to mean something completely different than the original context. I believe that there is more to it that meets the eye. He said on NUMEROUS occasions that they were different people. It wouldn't make sense for him to flip-flop like he did. Sometimes within seconds of saying that they are VERY different people. He was a very smart man, who was able to Govern a state, lead a Church, find refuge and food for thousands, send out missionaries and frontiersman, build extravagent buildings, and many more things. It doesn't make sense that he would slip up on the fact that Adam was a man, and the Father God, especially in the same sermon!

Link to post

If you want a good source for the topic, read President Young's October 8, 1854 General Conference address. It states it very clearly. I'll see if I can find a link online. I only have it in a book.

EDIT: I changed the date. It's October 8, 1854

Link to post

He said that they were not the same in a discourse in the Salt

Lake Tabernacle on April 17, 1870, President Young said this: "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 whom we serve.

Some say, `We are the children of Adam and Eve.' So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly

Father." (Journal of Discourses [JD], 13:311.)

In remarks also in Salt Lake City on July 8, 1863, President Young said: "We believe in God the Father

and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. We believe that God is a person of tabernacle, possessing in an

infinitely higher degree all the perfections and qualifications of his mortal children. We believe that he

made Adam after his own image and likeness, as Moses testified. . . ." (JD, 10:230-31.)

"Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon the earth as we are conversant with our

earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and

the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him. . . ." (JD, 9:148.)

On April 9, 1852, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct

characters, namely Elohim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum. . . ." (JD, 1:50.)

On November 6, 1864, President Young said: "Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called

Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all High Priests, with the

residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed

upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and

called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel." (JD, 10:355.)

He also says pretty much the same thing in Journal of Discourses 1:38, 13:309, 13:311, 14:71, 14:111

Link to post
maxrep12 said: I am puzzled, Demmick, what semantics are critics using? Brigham gets straight to the point!

I was referring to critics that publish articles about the Adam-God Theory and try to make the teaching sound as horrible and satanic as possible through their description.

Any reasonable critic of the church may see this as an instance of a prophet of God repeatedly teaching false doctrine, leading the church astray, or a matter of lds prophetic pronouncements(not just speaking as a man) changing with time. Take your pick, but I don't think it is necessary at all bring Satan into the picture :P .

Each individual can interpret this scenario however they wish!

Link to post

In case you didn't read that sermon of President Young's, here are a few quotes for you.

"I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor 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."

"Many inquire who is this Savior? I will tell you what I think about it, and as the Northerns say I reckon, and as the Yankees say I guess; but I will tell you what I reckon. I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial kingdom they were crowed 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, but you shall add kingdom to kingdom, and throne to throne; and still behold that vast eternity of unorganized matter. Adam then, was a resurrected being; and I reckon, our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve.

"'How are we going to know this?' I reckon it.

And I reckon that Adam came into the Garden of Eden, and did actually eat of the fruit that he, himself planted; and I reckon there was a previous understanding, and the whole plan was previously calculated, before the Garden of Eden was made, that he would reduce his posterity to sin, misery, darkness, wickedness, wretchedness, and to the power of the devil, that they might be prepared, for an exaltation, for without this they could not receive one."

"Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he, with his wife Eve, partook of the fruit of this earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of earth, and then they could beget bodies, for their spiritual children. If the spirit does not enter into the embryo man that is forming in the womb of the woman, the result will be false conception. A living intelligent being cannot produced. Adam and Eve begot the first mortal bodies on this earth, and from that commencement every spirit that was ever begotten in eternity for this earth will enter bodies thus prepared for them here, until the winding up scene, and that will not be until the last of these spirits enters an earthly tabernacle."

Did Brigham Young teach it? What does it look like? What does it mean? I don't know exactly. Is it true doctrine? Well, that's hard to say seeing as it's not entirely clear as to what it means. Anyway, I don't think it can be dodged by only stating that Brigham Young was "misquoted" or "misunderstood." What does it look like to you?

PS I do recognize that it appears Brigham Young contradicts himself. I'm not an advocate of the so called Adam-God Theory. I'm just stating that it's a more complex issue than many would believe.

Link to post
For those that feel Brigham Young did teach it, can you please support that with quotes and sources?

Here are some links to Adam-God early church quotations:

archive of spires.com list

(notice links at top of page to more pages with A/G quotations)

another long list of AG quotes

Wikipedia article about Adam-God

Adam-God Yahoo group

My own faith is that more revelation was needed, and the church did correctly by laying it aside. However, I also believe the church was incorrect for trying to deny it was taught by President Young-- that only helped the fundamentalists who used it to discredit the church.

I also believe more revelation has now been given about the matter, and the church is incorrect in denying it.

2BC revelation on Adam-God


Link to post

Would the "two former members of the local Provo, Utah School of the Prophets were involved in a high-profile homicide, scrutiny, rumors and fear that circulated at this time reduced desire to attend" be the Lafferty brothers?

Link to post

I have a similar book called "Joseph Smith Jr. My Life Story". Oddly enough, it sounds much like the story you have given on you website. Someone began to recieve revelations from God, they told the Church to repent, were excommunicated, and now have a small gathering. This "Prophetess" is named Lynae, and in the book that I have, Joseph Smith talks through her about, not only his life, but new revelations that are given through her.

How do you regard people like this who have similar stories?

Link to post


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...