Tag: Adam-God

Another Inquiry About Adam-God

In response to several comments (actually complaints) about my mention of Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young. Rather than remaining silent and inviting further comment I’ll add this and then leave it alone.

Brigham Young is presumed by almost everyone to have been closer to Joseph than he was. He is presumed to have understood Joseph’s teachings better than he actually did. He was not with Joseph during most of the years of his Apostleship when Joseph was alive.

The question to me is not what Brigham Young taught. That does not clarify the matter to my understanding. The question is what is true? Whether Brigham Young understood it or not, or whether he was able to explain it or not, what is true?

The answer to that question is best solved by going to the scriptures. I’ve tried to address the question in the paper: The First Three Words Spoken in the Endowment. You can download it from the blog. In it I go through the scriptures showing that the group called “noble and great” were also called “the Gods” in Chapter 4 of the Book of Abraham. Also, that Joseph referred to this group as “sons of God, who exalted themselves to be gods, even from before the foundation of the world.” (TPJS, p. 375.) Joseph mentioned the word-name “Elohim” is plural. “El” is the singular, Elohim is the plural. The identities of the “Elohim” is best understood in Abraham Chapters 3 and 4.

Joseph was excited about this in the last sermons he gave in Nauvoo. That is why the paper focused on Joseph’s treatment of the Book of Abraham material.

The problem is not that I haven’t studied Brigham Young enough, but that I do not draw my conclusions from him. He is not consistent in his comments. Furthermore, he was trying to repeat what he thought Joseph was teaching. You can by-pass him and go to the scriptures and figure it out for yourself, without straining the truth through Brigham Young’s effort to explain something.

There is something to the doctrine. But I’m not persuaded that Brigham Young understood the matter as well as I do. Further, I am quite confident that Brigham Young did not understand Joseph Smith as well as most Latter-day Saints presume.

The question is answered using scripture.

Also, for those who think they are better read on some questions than I am, I’ve spent decades studying Mormon history and doctrine. Recently, I’ve been studying Brigham Young’s statements now available for the first time in a single comprehensive collection. This five volume collection has become the best single work on the words of Brigham Young. After reading thousands of pages of his talks, I have reached a number of conclusions about Brigham Young that I will eventually write about.

Brigham Young claimed there was only one “Father” of all mankind, both as the first man and again in the pre-existence. There is more to that story than this simple reduction. But the push by the church to be more like other “Christian” faiths, along with the criticism this doctrine has brought to Mormonism, has made it a matter the church would like to leave alone. Once President Kimball denounced the matter as a “false theory,” it was over as far as the church was concerned. The greatest interest in this question exists now only among fundamentalists. They have suffered greatly because of the credibility they have given to Brigham Young.

To the extent that I have felt any need to touch on this matter, it is in that paper. As to Brigham Young, however, I intend to write more about him, but not here.

Response to a Comment

In response to a comment, perhaps the most easily shown “mistake” is President Brigham Young’s claim of Adam as our God. This teaching was opposed by Orson Pratt from the time it was introduced. After hearing the doctrine advanced by President Young as a revelation from God, the following took place on March 11, 1856:

“A very serious conversation took place between President B. Young and Orson Pratt upon doctrine. O.P. was directly opposed to the President’s views and 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 President’s word in the name of the Lord was not the word of the Lord to him.” The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Volume 2, p. 1061.

President Brigham Young was opposed by Orson Pratt. Brigham Young was the church president at the time, and for decades after. Later his “doctrine” that he claimed God revealed to him was denounced by President Spencer Kimball in general conference.

President Kimball in October 1976 general conference stated the following: “We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.” Our Own Liahona, Ensign, November 1976.

This “doctrine” was taught by President Young, opposed when taught by one of the Twelve, and later denounced by President Kimball. This is the same as the church’s teachings on priesthood being abandoned, and earlier teachings, when taught by earlier church leaders, were claimed to have been made “in the absence of revelation.”

This is not a problem for me, and should not be a problem for you. The errors of men and the doctrinal mistakes which get advanced cannot, do not, and will not alter the truth. Orson Pratt was ultimately vindicated for disbelieving in “Adam-God.” Anyone who today holds correct views will ultimately be vindicated. It is the prerogative of the church leaders to claim priority in teaching. When they are mistaken or wrong, that will eventually be discovered, abandoned, and their errors will be made known. In the meantime, it is your right to search for and believe in truth, even if the church does not presently recognize it. As long as you do not make it a practice of publicly opposing the church leaders, there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with them. It is your duty to study and find the truth, and that duty exists independent of faithfully supporting the leaders.

Notice that Orson Pratt did not leave the church. He disagreed, but served in the Twelve. He did not start a splinter group, nor attempt to unseat President Young. They disagreed and they worked together. This is what believers do.

You do not need to surrender your own independent search for truth, even when you disagree with others who are also Mormon. We share far more in common, even with doctrinal differences, than we will ever share with Historic Christianity. You belong in the church, even if you are not in complete agreement with some of its current teachings.