Years ago, someone had forwarded this article to alt.religion.mormon. I don't know who wrote it, and I haven't been able to find it anywhere else on the web. So I'm posting it here for posterity.

Most TBMs over the years have asserted that Brigham Young misspoke, or was misquoted in his remarks on this subject. This article refutes those assertions, lays out how the doctrine was taught for a quarter of a century, and shows how it was included in the lecture at the veil during the endowment ceremony.

The Adam-God Paradox

There has scarcely been a topic in LDS history which has produced
more controversy, denials, misrepresentations, and outright deception
than the so-called Adam-God doctrine. Just what is the Adam-God
doctrine?

Briefly, it was a teaching promulgated by Brigham Young, which
included the following: Adam and Eve, before coming to earth, were
beings who had passed through mortality on another planet and earned
celestial exaltation. In other words, they had become gods. Under the
direction of his patriarchal head Elohim, Adam, then known as Michael,
came to organize the earth along with Jehovah. Before organizing gross
matter into the physical earth, Michael fathered the spirits of of
everyone who would come to the planet, including Jesus' spirit.

Adam and Eve then came to earth in their celestial bodies of flesh
and bone (no blood). By eating of the fruits of the earth, their bodies
became charged with mortality, and a "veil of forgetfulness" fell over
them, preventing them from recalling their previous existence as
deities. The Fall was a planned and necessary step to begin making the
physical tabernacles of humanity and bringing pre-existent spirits to
earth to start their journeys toward exaltation. With this task
completed, Adam and Eve returned to their previous place of glory in the
Celestial Kingdom. When the time came, Father Adam came to the Virgin
Mary and Jesus was conceived in the flesh in the same manner that all
men are begotten. Prior to the millennium, Adam will increase Christ's
stewardship to include the entire world, giving Christ power and
authority to reign for a thousand years. At the end of the world, Christ
then renders his kingdom to Father Adam, who in turn renders his kingdom
to his father, and so on and so on. Faithful Mormons who have kept the
celestial laws will also have the opportunity of such eternal increase
by becoming Adams and Eves to other worlds.

The foregoing sounds quite peculiar to most Mormons who hear it for
the first time. Most other Christians find it ludicrous, and it is easy
to see why the teaching became such a target when outsiders became aware
of it in the latter half of the 19th century. LDS explanations of this
unusual teaching have varied with the passage of time. Though it was
taught by Brigham Young over a course of more than 30 years, and
accepted by all the General Authorities of the Church at the time (with
the notable exception of Orson Pratt), outside attacks were generally
ignored--or denials were issued by local authorities who were unaware of
the full extent of the teachings. As the Church passed into the 20th
century, the General Authorities, without denying the doctrine, simply
felt it was better not to discuss it and let it pass into obscurity.

Still, outsiders continually pressed the issue, gleefully providing
the quotations from Brigham Young that specifically related to the
doctrine. In recent years, the Church met the challenge by providing
disinformation, such as this statement by Mormon Apostle Bruce R.
McConkie in in a speech he gave at the BYU Marriot Center in 1980:

" . . .There are those who believe, or say they believe, that Adam
is our father and our God, that he is the father of our spirits and our
bodies, and that he is the one we worship. The devil keeps this heresy
alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the
whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures. Anyone who has read
the Book of Moses and anyone who has received the temple endowment and
yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved."

Harsh words, for they are a stinging condemnation of both the
teachings and the person of the Church's second "prophet, seer and
revelator." As we shall see, Brigham Young 1) Taught the doctrine openly
2) Taught it over a great number of years 3) Taught it in spite of the
heated opposition of Orson Pratt and others within the Church 4) Claimed
that Joseph Smith himself taught the doctrine 5) Confirmed that God
revealed it to him 6) Most significantly, had the doctrine incorporated
in the Church's most sacred rituals, the temple endowment, where it
remained under three more presidents of the Church.

One thing has changed markedly in recent years-- most LDS
apologists who have examined the matter now openly admit that Brigham
Young believed this doctrine. However, to protect his prophetic status,
as well as the authority of the Church itself, the following line of
reasoning is used: It was not a doctrine, only a personal opinion he
held. Amazingly, Brigham Young espoused this "personal view" in the
following forums: The School of the Prophets, semiannual general
conferences, semiannual priesthood conferences, in the temple, as well
as in private. There is little doubt that Brigham Young disseminated the
doctrine within what he felt was his purview as prophet for the Church.
He intended the doctrine to become an expansion on the LDS concept of
God and to be an integral part of every Saint's belief in deity.

It was not taught by Brigham Young alone, but was introduced into
every avenue of gospel and doctrinal teachings. Within the temple, it
was literally taught through the "lecture before the veil." It is found
in the sermons and writings of Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and
other church authorities. Church publications such as the Deseret News
and the Elders' Journal became avenues for the introduction of the
doctrine. It was also taught in missionary publications and is reflected
in LDS writings and hymns of the time. There are strong hints that
Joseph Smith himself was planning to introduce the doctrine into the
Church, and Brigham Young made just that claim.

Let us begin by looking at just a few of the quotes from Brigham Young
himself, as well as the sources, and the years they were made:

He is the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, both body and
spirit: and he is the father of our spirits, and the father of our flesh
in the beginning. You will not dispute the words of an Apostle, that he
is actually the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the father
of our spirits . . . I tell you simply he is our father; the God and
father of our Lords Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits . . . I
say he was not made of the dust of the ground of this earth, but he was
made of the dust of the earth where he lived, where he honored his
calling, believed in his Savior, or elder brother, and by his
faithfulness, was redeemed and got a glorious resurrection . . . Our
spirits and the spirts of all the human family were begotten by Adam and
born of Eve . . . I tell you, when you see your Father in heaven, you
will see Adam; when you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will
see mother Eve. (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854)

Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth. He had lived
on an earth similar to ours. He had received the priesthood and the keys
thereof, and had been faithful in all things, and had 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. (Brigham Young quoted in the Journal of L.
John Nuttall, Feb 7, 1887)

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 . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten
of 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 of 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 . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the
flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Ede, 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. (Journal of Discourses,
1:50-51 1854)

Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the
father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael:
The Ancient of Days. (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young Feb 19,
1854)

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. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of
heaven. Yet the world holds it in derision. (Manuscript Addresses of
Brigham Young, Oct 8, `1861)

There is but one living and true god, the father of our spirits.
Well now, who is the father of our spirits? . . . I did take the liberty
to tell this once, and I told it in a way that did not get to their
understanding, and suppose I take the same course this evening, and you
do not understand, but you have the spirit of the Almighty with you to
eneable you to appreciate it . . . It is a subject I am aware that does
not appear so close to our understandings at present as we could wish it
or as it will be some day, and it is one that should not trouble us at
all, all such things will become more clear to your minds bye and bye.
I tell you this as my belief about that personage who is called the
Ancient of Days, the Prince and so on, but I do not tell it because that
I wish it established in the minds of other; though to me this is as
clear as the sun, it is as plain as my alphabet. I understand it as I do
the path to go home. I did not understand so until my mind became
enlightened with the spirit and by the revelations of God; neither will
you understand until our Father in Heaven reveals all things unto you.
To my minds and to my feelings those matters are all plain and easy to
understand. (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, April 25, 1855)

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...Our Father
Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting
life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come
upon the earth . . . We say that Father Adam came here and helped to
make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was
said to him by Eloheim, "go ye and make an earth." . . . Father adam
came here, and then they brought his wife . . . 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. (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

Certainly those who heard Brigham Young were fully aware of this
doctrine, as demonstrated by the following:

Friday 9th April 1852 . . . Another meeting this evening. President
B. Young taught that adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to
us. That he came to this world in a resurrected boy &c more hereafter.
(Hosea Stout, Private Journal)

April 16, 1852 . . . We had the best Conference that I ever
attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said
that our spirits were begotten before Adam came to the Earth, and that
Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial boddy when he
came to the Earth, and that he brought he wife or one of his wives with
him, and that Eave was allso a Celestial being, that they eat of the
fruit of the grond untill they begat children from the Earth, he said
that Adam was onley God we would have, and that Christ was not begotten
of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam. (Samuel Roger, Private
Journal MSS)

President Young followed & made many good remarks . . . He said
that our God was Father Adam. He was thewas Father Adam. He was the
Father of the Savior Jesus Christ--Our God was no more or less than Adam
.(Wilford Woodruff Private Journal, Feb 19. 1854)

I have learned by experience that there is but one God that
pertains to this people, and He is the Lord that pertains this
earth--the first man. That first man sent his own son to redeem the
world. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 4:1:)

Prior to 1900, the Mormon temple ceremony taught in explicit terms
the Adam-God doctrine. If the endowment recipient had not received this
knowledge in symbolic form by the time he reached the veil, it was given
him in the "lecture before the veil." That lecture was introduced by
Brigham Young on February 1, 1877, in the St. George temple and was
intended to be the pattern for all lectures before the veil. L. John
Nuttall, acting as the temple recorder under Brigham Young's direction,
recorded and helped prepare its final form. The following is taken from
his journal and represents the substance of the lecture:

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming
this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I
have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but
they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while
in Jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only
true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
. . . Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; he had
lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and
the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his
resurrection and 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 begotten 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 celstial 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
they 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 . . .
. . . Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were
immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the
fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their
bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood
coursing through their veins as the action of life. . .
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 came in the
spriit to Mary and she conceived.) For when Adam and Eve got through
with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the
dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came. (Diary of
L. John Nuttall, Feb. 7, 1877)

This lecture remained part of the temple ceremony under the
direction of Presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and
Lorenzo Snow.

Orson Pratt, LDS apostle, steadfastly refused to accept the
doctrine, and carried on a running dispute with Brigham Young over the
course of many years. In 1875, about two years before Brigham Young's
death, he rearranged the seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve, placing
three others before Orson Pratt. Pratt did not succeed to the presidency
as would have otherwise occurred without the change. Brigham Young
maintained that the action was needed because of Pratt's 1842
excommunication from the Church, though the heart of the matter seems to
be that he was unwilling to allow Pratt to succeed him at any time.
Incidentally, Orson Pratt's 1842 excommunication resulted from his
rebellion at Joseph Smith's attempt to marry Sarah Pratt after Joseph
sent him on a mission overseas.

In 1860, the Quorum of the twelve met to consider Pratt's
opposition to Brigham Young's teachings:

O. Pratt: In regard to Adam being our Father and our God; I have
not published it, although I frankly say I have no confidence in it,
although advocated by Bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards affirmed
by Bro. Brigham.
I have heard Brother 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 . . .
O. Hyde: (President of the Quorum): 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 ax at the root of the tree.
Will he suffer His mouthpiece to go into error? No, He would remove him,
and place another there. Bro. Brigham may err in the price of a horse or
a house and lot, 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.
Who is our Heavenly Father? I would as soon it was Father Adam or
any other good and lawful being. I shall see him sometime, if I do
right.
J. Taylor: When Bro. Brigham tells me a thing, I receive it as
revelation. Some things may be apparently contradictory but are not
really contradictory.
O. Hyde: I do not see any contradiction or opposition between B.
Young & J. Smith.
G. A. Smith: [It is] for him [Orson] to acknowledge Brigham Young
as President of the Church, in the exercise of his calling, but he
[Orson] only acknowledges him as a poor driveling fool, he [Orson]
preaches doctrines opposed to Joseph, and all other revelations.

As Brigham Young claimed, the Adam-God doctrine probably originated
with Joseph Smith, who never proclaimed it openly, just as he never
preached plural marriage publicly. The following sources substantiate
this view:

Is there in heaven of heavens a leader? Yes, and we cannot do
without one and that being the case, whoever he is may be called God.
Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God (Brigham Young, Journal
History of the Church, May 14, 1876)

At meeting of school of the prophet, President Young said Adam was
Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our
God & that Joseph taught this principle. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec.
16, 1867)

While Joseph Smith never preached the doctrine explicitly, he
certainly hinted at it strongly:

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First
Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He
obtained it in the creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis
1:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature . . .
Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he
means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael. He will call his
children together and hold a council with them to preapre them for the
coming of the Son of Man. He [Adam] is the father of the human family,
and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys
must stand before him in this grand council . . .The Son of Man stands
before him [Adam], and there is given him [Jesus] glory and dominion.
Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to
him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as
head of the human family. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.
157)

For someone who wishes to examine an LDS perspective on this issue,
I would suggest looking at two sites on the Web. The first is the New
Jerusalem, an extensive LDS site, which has a page dedicated to the
Adam-God theory. Access it by clicking here. I found this site to be
totally inadequate in its treatment of the subject, as it takes an
"old-line" approach of essentially denying that Brigham Young ever
taught the doctrine. They definitely need to update their references and
line of reasoning.

The second site I recommend is Russell Anderson's page, Response To
the Mormon Critics, which has a section on the Adam-God controversy
written by Van Hale. His treatment of the subject is far better than
what is found on the New Jerusalem page. His primary contention is that
the Adam-God doctrine is not official Church doctrine, but a personal
view held by Brigham Young, and that prophets can hold personal views
that may be in error that do not affect their status as a prophet.

Brigham Young certainly considered it to be doctrine, and
specifically used that word in reference to the subject on a number of
occassions. Van Hale does not address the issue of Brigham Young's
insertion of the doctrine into the temple ceremonies, designed to
initiate the worthy into the very mysteries of godliness, and which were
supposedly revealed by revelation to Joseph Smith. Also, with the
exception of Orson Pratt, the private journals of the General
Authorities of the time indicate they understood and accepted Brigham
Young's declarations on the subject. Three presidents beyond Brigham
Young, all of whom were involved in the Orson Pratt controversies
regarding the doctrine, and who had sided with Brigham Young, left the
teaching intact in the temple ceremonies. Joseph F. Smith removed it,
not because he repudiated the doctrine, but because of the attacks the
doctrine generated from without the church, as well as the confusion it
was creating within.

While Van Hale's interpretation of the topic may be comforting to
those who are members of the Church and accept its authority, to the
outsider the entire issue is just one more link in a long chain of
evidence that indicates the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is less than divinely inspired. While the LDS Church
claims that early christians apostasized and corrupted the conception of
God over a period of time, it is far easier to document the LDS change
in doctrine over a period of just a few years--from the strict
monotheism of the Book of Mormon, to the bitheism of the Lectures on
Faith, then to the polytheism of progressing deities Joseph Smith later
introduced, culminating in Brigham Young's ultimate humanization of
God--he was the first man.

Once again, if a personal view of a prophet or apostle is taught as doctrine, it is scriptures mingled with the philosophies of men, which by the church's own standards (and temple teaching) is SATANIC.

So the church by its own admissions is following Satan. I for one am glad they are now admitting it was taught and that it was personal opinion because hopefully more people will now come to the same conclusion that I have.

A poster on ARM contributed this info to that same thread:

The "Adam-God Doctrine" (yes, doctrine) was taught by multiple GA's over the
pulpit and in official church publications (including their "Conference
Reports") both here and abroad, for a period of 25+ years. At least one
person was officially excommunicated for NOT believing in it (a Bishop of
the Bunkerville ward . Like the Doctrine of Multiple Probations, it was
considered too controversial to be taught from the pulpit:
The doctrine was no longer taught publiclly after about 1898 when (Apostle)
George Q. Cannon gave a talk before the first Sunday School
conference entitled "Things which Should not be Taught in Sunday School."
(The exact phrase used in the Bunkerville trial per the St. George HC
Minutes thereof.)

In this talk Cannon says he thinks its not wise to advocate Brigham
Young's Adam God Doctrine, Multiple Probations, and certain other teachings
formerly taught from the stand. President Cannon and others had begun to
deemphasize deep doctrines formerly taught publicly.

The bottom line is that the core teachings of the mormon church are continuously evolving and changing over time. Whole generations of people can be taught by church leaders and believe things that are later not taught nor believed by the church. There are no core teachings, only a greedy cult that is constantly trying new teachings and beliefs on, in attempts to make more money. The mormon church is exacyly what they taught us all other churches are.

I love it when Morg apologists brush off the Adam/God doctrine with Brigham was probably misquoted! The Boner.

I wish you could pass this on to Brother Jake for one of his tongue-in-cheek apologetic videos because he seems to be able to keep the ridiculous alive and talked about. He also makes us Mormons and Exmormons hold up a mirror to what we were, are and what we have become.

Thinks subject makes me think of Kevin Spacey as Roger Kint as Keyser Soze.

As always, randyj, great stuff. Thanks!

Spencer W. Kimball, October conference, 1976:

"Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. 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."

Alleged.

Back in 2002, one of the most fanatical Mopologists on ARM, Woody Brison, stated that Brigham Young didn't actually teach the Adam-God doctrine, but rather was misheard/misquoted by scribes who recorded his sermons. Woody's silly assertions are demolished by Bruce R. McConkie's 1981 admission that Young did in fact teach the doctrine, and that he was wrong. I'm posting Woody's "misheard" assertions here to document for newbies the fact that some TBMs actually used this nonsensical, already-refuted argument.

Woody wrote:

"Have you ever considered acoustics? How did Brigham Young pronounce
the name Elohim? "AL uh him", maybe? He studied Hebrew with
Joseph Smith back in Kirtland, from the Hebrew teacher hired by
the School of the Prophets. Did the stenographer of your quote
here (you don't give a hint of where you read this) study Hebrew?
Had he ever heard of God by the name Elohim? Did he hear "AL uh him"
and think he heard Adam? How do you know he didn't? Were the
acoustics so perfect that he could not have made this mistake?
For I know where this quote comes from, and in context it is
Elohim he's talking about, the only God we have anything to do
with."

"Hate to introduce any hesitancy into your militant stupidity,
but the old Tabernacle was not the original one. There was an
earlier one, with less perfect acoustics."

"a secretary
might not recognize the sound of Elohim, and erroneously write
Adam instead"

"My point was, that
some of the confusion that people have about BY and AG is
due to the stenographers hearing Adam when Brigham said
Aluhhim. I don't see what's so unreasonable about this."

So 25 years of misquotes and Brigham young was too busy attending to his wives and children to correct them. Yep, sounds resonable.

Readers should also be aware of the letter that Bruce R. McConkie wrote to Eugene England, in which he admitted that Brigham Young did, indeed, teach that Adam was God. But, said McConkie, Brigham was wrong on that. We should be paying attention to the *correct* doctrines he taught. He added that BY has gone to his celestial reward, but that any member who now teaches that Adam is God will be damned to hell.

So teaching false doctrine is OK if you're the Prophet. If you're not, you fry.

McConkie's letter:
http://www.mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england

"So teaching false doctrine is OK if you're the Prophet. If you're not, you fry."

And yet, today's Mormon children are taught to sing this song:

"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don't go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; he knows the way."

https://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng

Some talented person needs to write a parody of that.

"Follow the prophet, hold to the rod...
unless he's Brigham, teaching Adam-God."

Oh. My. God.

What a great read. That left me with a giant know in my stomach.

It basically says "The elite will do what they will do, but YOU must toe the line."

One thing is clear: even if you accept the apologetic response that a prophet sometimes speaks as a prophet and sometimes speaks as a man, and that in this case Brigham Young was giving his own opinion, Brigham himself couldn't tell the difference between his own opinion and a revelation. We would then have to ask how modern general authorities or apologists are better able to know whether something is opinion or revelation than the prophet who originally taught that doctrine as revelation.

...he taught that "It is the first principle of the gospel to know the character of God." Duh, if Brigham Young was clueless about the basic character of God, then that alone negates the idea that he was a "prophet," or that he had any communication with any Deity.

And the silliest part of all this is, one of Mormonism's biggest selling points is their claim to be led by a "living prophet." TBMs constantly express gratitude for having a "living prophet." They sing "We Thank Thee O God For A Prophet" and "Follow The Prophet," when the man holding the title of "prophet" is liable to be completely wrong about basic doctrinal issues.

The lecture at the veil is the nail in the coffin for this one. The temple is the pinnacle of Mormonism, and the inclusion of this teaching in the endowment ends the debate.

Thank you, Randy, for sharing this great information. I was a little murky as to when it was removed from the endowment, and it makes sense that it disappeared under Joseph F. Smith.

"Thank you, Randy, for sharing this great information."

You're welcome. I'd been wanting to post this for a couple of years, but I kept forgetting to.

"I was a little murky as to when it was removed from the endowment, and it makes sense that it disappeared under Joseph F. Smith."

Yeah, I daresay what happened was, church leaders in the early 19th century knew that the whole doctrine was bogus, but they waited to remove or disavow it until most of the members who had learned and disseminated it during Brigham Young's era had died off. It's similar to the deletion of the oaths of loyalty and vengeance from the endowment ceremony during that same era; the removal of the Masonic penalties in 1990; and the church's recent essays, which disavow such things as past leaders' "curse of Cain" doctrines.

From time to time, the question as to whether the apostles are believers or not comes up. Consensus seems to be that they are believers, but issues like the Adam-God doctrine make me wonder. As you pointed out in this post, Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie both knew about it and condemned it. Boyd Packer seemed to know a lot of church history that he wasn't sharing. They remind me of Dr. Zaius in "Planet of the Apes." He preaches orthodoxy but knows very well what Taylor will find in the Forbidden Zone.

I first learned about Adam-God from a mission companion who studied a lot of church history in the pre- internet days. It bothered me. How could it not bother true believers?

When I was a true believer, I was psychologically incapable of tackling these issues head on. They would make me uncomfortable and upset, causing my sympathetic nervous system to fire uncontrollably. I would dismiss these issues in a hand-waving fashion with half-baked apologetic deflections, but I was unable to directly confront them. Is the ability to know about Adam-God or similar issues and be unfazed a sign of not truly believing?

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it was taught by Brigham Young over a course of more than
> 30 years, and accepted by all the General Authorities of the
> Church at the time (with the notable exception of Orson Pratt),

[Snip]

> Orson Pratt, LDS apostle, steadfastly refused to accept the
> doctrine, and carried on a running dispute with Brigham Young
> over the course of many years.

[Snip]

> O. Pratt: In regard to Adam being our Father and our God; I
> have not published it, although I frankly say I have no
> confidence in it, although advocated by Bro. Kimball in the
> stand, and afterwards affirmed by Bro. Brigham.

[Snip]

> Joseph F. Smith removed it, not because he repudiated the
> doctrine, but because of the attacks the doctrine generated
> from without the church, as well as the confusion it was
> creating within.

It is interesting to note that Joseph F. Smith was a missionary
companion to Orson Pratt. In the doctrinal disputes between BY
and OP, the Church ended up following OP's opinion. These
ideas were promulgated by Joseph F. Smith in his "Gospel
Doctrine" and further by his son, the Apostle and later Church
president, Joseph Fielding Smith. Orson Pratt got the last
laugh over Brigham Young when it comes to Mormon Doctrine.

Suppose I can prove that the revelations received by Joseph Smith and explained and expanded on by Brigham Young could be true?!?! That this doctrine was taught and written down for the gnostic gospels...Yet was only found in the 1970's and translated in the early 2000's. This is the Gospel of Judas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

The gospel talks about luminaires or as Mormons would call them "intelligences" [the glory of God is intelligence, which is light and truth]. That Adamas (God) was born as Adam and the female Zoe became Eve.

You can be fascinated or intrigued or denial of the linkage between what J.S. taught and B.Y. expanded on; but...Here's the kicker. The modern prophets and apostles after these two claim it's nonsense or as far as blasphemy and of the devil.

Hugh Nibley did a twelve part series in the Ensign From Oct 1975-1976 on a gnostic/apocryphal book, "The Book of Enoch" you can check the Mormons own website for it. So new translations and canonized scriptures were still trying to come forth by God, but hard headed lawyers and Pharisaical leaders of the church will never allow new prophecies or revelations; even though this is against the LDS creed, articles of faith, and their whole reason for existing as a church of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, a true TBM cannot believe any prophet or leader in the church after J.S. and/or B.Y. because the later so called prophet, seers and revelators denied their revelations and teachings.

You'd think that God/Adam/Michael/Heavenly Father/Elohim would pop in and clear things up about who he/they/him is/are.

No. Scratch that.

Heavenly MOTHER should drop in and say "You boys stop all this nonsense and get your story straight!!"