The Adam-God Maze

Culley K. ChristensenTable of Contents

Independent Publishers

ISBN 0-9608134-0-3@1981 by Culley K. Christensen, M.D.

[3] CONTENTS

Preface 5 Key to Abbreviations 7 Chapter 1

Knowledge Is the Key to Salvation 9 Chapter 2

What Is the Adam-God Doctrine? 19 Chapter 3

The Creation 33 Chapter 4

The Fall 57 Chapter 5

Did Adam Die? 65 Chapter 6

Is God Merely an Angel? 71 Chapter 7

Adam-Ondi-Ahman 75 Chapter 8

The Relationship of Michael-Adamto Jesus Christ 79

Chapter 9Was Brigham Young Misquoted? 95

[4] Chapter 10

Was Brigham Young Wrong? 105 Chapter 11

Whence Cometh the Adam-God Doctrinein This Dispensation? 131

Chapter 12Adam-God and the Ancients 151

Chapter 13Pearls Before Swine 177

Chapter 14From Reticence to Mystery 205

Chapter 15Is Jesus Christ the Jehovah of the

Old Testament? 239 Chapter 16

Jesus Christ, Our Atoning Savior 259 Appendix A

Brigham Young's October 8, 1854,Discourse 263

Appendix BMiscellaneous Adam-God Correlates 287

Appendix CThe Sophistry of Man or They Splitthe Adam 297

Bibliography 319 Scripture Index 325 Index 329

[5] PREFACE

It is the privilege of Latter-day Saints to inquire after the mysteries of God. Said Orson Pratt:

We should not get into that old sectarian notion, that we have no right to know anything about this, that or the other, and that we must not pry into this, that or the other. That is an old sectarian notion, which we have fought against all the day long, and we do not want it to creep into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the privilege of its members to [6] let their minds expand, and to ponder upon the things of God, and to enquire of him, and by and by, when we have prepared ourselves by getting all the knowledge we possibly can from that which is written, God will give more (J.D. 16:336).

[7] KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

B.A. Biblical ArchaeologyB.N.D. Be Not DeceivedCoffin Texts The Egyptian Coffin Texts

C.H.O. Church Historian's OfficeHerm Sim The Shepherd of Hermas VisionsJub JubileeM.A.B.Y. Manuscript Addresses of Brigham YoungN.E.T. New English TranslationPoGP Pearl of Great PriceSOMIMH Son of Man in Myth and HistoryW.W.J. Wilford Woodruff JournalIQM War ScrollIQS Manual of Disciple

[9] CHAPTER 1

KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY TO SALVATION

The principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation.

2

Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge (Joseph Smith, T.P.J.S., pp. 297, 357)

On another occasion Joseph said:

A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits its will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God (T.P.J.S., p. 217).

[10] Concerning knowledge and salvation Brigham Young said:

All truth is for the salvation of the children of men--for their benefit and learning--for their furtherance in the principles of divine knowledge; and divine knowledge is any matter of fact--truth; and all truth pertains to divinity (J.D. 7:284).

Ultimately, the difference between man and God is the righteous application of knowledge. Without aknowledge of truth there can be no active application of truth. Hence, said the Lord: "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (D&C 131:6). We see, then, that our salvation hinges on the acquisition of knowledge. "And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come" (D&C 130:19). This is because one's exaltation is predicated on righteousness, and one can only apply righteousness as he has knowledge. Paul feared for the salvation of Israel because although they had "zeal of God" they did not have the knowledge (Rom. 10:2, 3).

The very purpose of our existence is that we prove ourselves as stewards over knowledge. Our judgment will not be concerned so much with the quantity of what we have known and applied as it will with the quality of what we have known and applied "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, andbehold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich" (D&C 6:7). Paul advised that we "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). In order to prove all things one must first know, then put that knowledge to the test. Hence John taught that we should "try the spirits whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1).

Let us here observe, that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge, respecting his character and glory, will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to behold him face to face (Second Lecture on Faith, paragraph 55).

"And no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22).

Search the scriptures--search the revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation, No; for when men receive their instruction from Him that made them, they know how He will save them (T.P.J.S., pp. 11, 12).

Brigham said:

3

If I should undertake to tell the people what I believe in my heart and what seemeth . . . to me to be eternal truth, how would they know unless they had the spirit of revelation to say to them whether it was a truth or untruth? (M.A.B.Y. April 25, 1855.)

"To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions" (T.PJ.S., p.321). As one progresses in knowledge, many previous assumptions consistent with a former state of progression may no longer be consistent. Thus, we are constantly required to revise or unlearn that which we once thought to be knowledge or truth. In this way, we evolve as beings of truth, continually putting off the old man until we have become totally enlightened.

Such enlightenment, however, requires the application of faith and the perseverance in truth which leads to an enlightened confirmation of that faith in new knowledge. This new knowledge then becomes a departure point for the exercise of greater faith with the promise of a greater confirmation of yet higher knowledge.

Our facility to receive this instruction and comprehend the mysteries is ". . . enlarged in proportion to the heed and diligence given to the light communicated from heaven" (T.P.J.S., p. 51).

[19] CHAPTER 2

WHAT IS THE ADAM-GOD DOCTRINE?

"The Lord deals with this people as a tender parent with a child, communicating light and intelligence and the knowledge of his ways as they can bear it" (T.P.J.S., p. 305).

Brigham Young said: There are items of doctrine and principles, in the bosom of eternity that the best of the Latter Day Saints are unworthy to receive. If the visions of their minds were opened to look unto the vast creations, and gaze upon the power, and glory, and goodness, and exaltation of the Gods, they would exclaim, "Wo is me, I am undone, I am of unclean lips" (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854).

Brigham Young … said that a knowledge of the Adam-God doctrine would prove either the "salvation or damnation" of the saints (J.D. 1:51).

Historical of the Godhead Doctrine

History bears out that the first vision had little if any effect on the early theologic concept of deity before 1840. B.Y.U. History Professor James B. Allen writes:

. . . it would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today.... It is evident that the general membership of the church knew little, if anything about it (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 32, 34)

The first vision account with which we are familiar was written in 1839 and first made known to the saints when published in 1842 (B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 287). Professor Allen:

A possible explanation for the fact that the story of the [first] vision was not generally known in the 1830's is sometimes seen in Joseph Smith's conviction that experiences such as these should be kept from the general public because of their extremely sacred nature.... It represented one of his most

4

profound spiritual experiences he could well have decided to circulate it only privately until he could feel certain that in relating it he would not receive again the general ridicule of friends (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 34).

As Joseph's experience lost none of its sacredness, his decision to make it known to the saints must have awaited the development of a foundation upon which the saints (his friends) could accept it without ridicule. It is well known that the first vision account was not originally used to demonstrate the pluralistic and anthropomorphic nature of the godhead; yet the account does embody these concepts …

As a result, the saints were taught that the godhead consisted of two beings: the Father and the Son, both possessing a common mind known as the Holy Spirit (Fifth Lecture on Faith, D&C, 1835 ed., pp. 53-57). This "Lecture on Faith" further identifies the Father as a "personage of spirit," whereas the Son is identified as a "personage of tabernacle."

Further expansion on the godhead doctrine took place on March 1, 1842, when Joseph published a synoptic version of church history known as the Wentworth letter. This letter contains a brief account of the first vision wherein "two glorious personages who exactly resemble each other in features and likeness" [23] were described. No allusion was given, however, that these beings were God the Father and His Son (Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842) until April of 1842 when the full account of the first vision was published. In this latter account, Joseph states that he saw two glorious personages. "One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said (pointing to the other), `This is my beloved Son, hear him'" (Times and Seasons, April 1, 1842). Although this does not explicitly identify the Father as a tabernacled being, it does ascribe to Him the properties of a tabernacled being, i.e., a personage in the exact likeness of the Son--a tabernacled being (see the Fifth Lecture on Faith) capable of physical gestures and audiblespeech.

April of 1843 at a conference held at Ramus. Here Joseph confirmed previous inferences by declaring that the Father is a tabernacled being:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us (D&C 130:22).

April 7, 1844, controversial King Follett discourse.

Granville Hedrick called Joseph's sermon "one of the most infamous sermons of blasphemy everpreached from the pulpit," and said: "A more high handed and degrading infamous attempt in blasphemy never was uttered by mortal tongue" (Truth Teller 1, September and October 1864, pp. 37, 53). William Cadman said that "Joseph Smith taught a worse doctrine than the Devil did in the Garden of Eden. The Devil only taught that men should be as gods. But Joseph taught that men could be gods" (Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, p.16). Others reacted by calling Joseph a fallen prophet (T.P.J.S., p. 370). Yet to those who accepted Joseph as a prophet these truths came as a sublime assurance of theireternal significance.

These truths were incorporated into the temple ceremony, becoming the essence of its message. [25] ... Yet the temple ceremony by no means represented a final consummation of the godhead doctrine. Joseph taught yet higher doctrinal concepts to an elect inner circle of trusted friends who had preparedthemselves to receive light greater than that given to the collective church. It was as members of this inner circle that Brigham and others learned the Adam-God doctrine.

Following Joseph's death and the saints' removal to the Rocky Mountains, Brigham felt that the saints were prepared to receive yet another endowment of knowledge concerning the nature of God. In 1852 Brigham Young, as a prophet of God, revealed to the church that God the Father not only had a

5

body, that He is not only one of many gods, that He not only was once a man like us, but is in fact Father Adam.

The Adam-God Doctrine

These concepts, pertaining exclusively to the gods within the eternal patriarchal order,include:

A. God our Father is a being currently abiding laws of eternal progression. He, like us, will continue to progress throughout all eternity; hence, eternal progression.

B. God the Father merited His current status as a deity through obedience to laws of progression the same as you and I are now attempting to do.

1. This means that God was once a man like us.[26] 2. That He lived a mortal existence analogous to our present mortal existence.

3. There He obeyed and kept the celestial law. 4. In that existence, He received effication of an atonement through a savior. 5. Having kept the celestial law, He was resurrected with a celestial glory having the

promise of eternal increase. 6. He assumed His position among the gods in the eternal patriarchal order.

7. As a member of the patriarchal gods, He commenced the realization of His promised blessings by becoming a spiritual creator under the council and direction of His patriarchal superiors.

a. Known then as Michael, He received the direction and keys from His father to commence a spiritual creation. b. The spiritual creation included mankind and all life that dwells on the earth.

c. As the Father of our spirits, it was His (Michael's) responsibility to oversee and direct our spiritual progression. d. Jesus Christ, you and I are the progeny of that spirit creation and are all of the same spiritual generation; i.e., brothers and sisters. e. Another council was held to plan the temporal creation. In this council Jesus Christ was chosen to be the atoning Savior for His father's creations.

8. The Father, Michael, proceeded with the temporal phase of creation which was necessary for the progression of his spiritual creations.[27] 9. The temporal creation included a world of gross matter by organization and all life forms with physical tabernacles provided by procreation through transplantation from another physical world. 10. Human life was transplanted from another world to this earth by the following schema: a. Michael, our spirit father, became Adam after having been "prepared" and placed in the Garden of Eden under the direction of God (Michael's patriarchal father). b. His preparation included a "veil of forgetfulness" concerning His former existence. c. Adam "fell" from a higher or more exalted state of existence to a lower state. 1) Exactly how the fall was effected and what the symbology represents are conjectural; however, the concept is that Adam's celestial body was rendered mortal such that He could then procreate physical tabernacles for His spirit offspring. 2) The fall may have been effected by Adam's partaking of coarse elements of this earth until His body became "charged" with the seeds of mortality. 3) As mortal beings Adam and Eve began procreating temporal bodies for their spiritual offspring to inhabit. In this way, human life was brought to another reach of the universe on a procreative basis.

6

11. Having accomplished His mortal mission, Adam, possessing the keys and power over [28] death from a previous resurrection, effected a transition from mortality to His former glorified state. 12. This same father, who had been known as Michael and Adam, later appeared to and overshadowed Mary in the meridian of time, fathering our Savior Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. 13. Prior to the millennium, Adam our Father will appear at Adam-ondi-Ahman. All including Christ,who have held the keys will stand before Him and give unto Adam an accounting of their stewardships. a. Adam will increase Christ's stewardship to include the entire world, giving Christ power and authority to reign for a thousand years. b. Adam will confer upon Christ the keys of the universe.

14. Adam (Michael) has power over Satan and will ultimately rout the forces of evil, banishing them to perdition forever. 15. Adam as Michael will initiate the resurrection with the sound of His trumpet. 16. At the end of the world, Christ renders up His kingdom to Father Adam, who in turn renders His kingdom to His father and so on. Father Adam then advances by inheriting His father's kingdom just as Christ inherits His father's (Adam's) kingdom. In this way the Savior treads in the tracks of Adam just as Adam treads in the tracks of His father, and so on. 17. As resurrected beings who have kept the celestial law with the promise of eternal increase, we may have the opportunity of becoming Adam's and Eve's to other worlds.

[29] Man and the Cosmos

Many have the concept that we, in our present state of progression, are gods in embryo. However, as the offspring of gods this is not the full truth. The Savior had to remind the Jews that the scriptures state that "Ye are Gods" (John 10:34). Further, He said: "Those are called Gods to whom the word of God was delivered" (John 10:35 N.E.T.). By the Savior's own words, we in our current state of existence are gods. We possess all the powers that gods possess, differing only in degree. Under this definition, one becomes a god when he receives the keys and powers to perform two specific functions: create and reign over a dominion. Inherent in these two functions is the objective to constructively build. Creation itself is a building process. However, the created needs to be tended and ruled over by a loving parent to be guided and elevated to a higher sphere or level of progression. In this way, God himself is glorified by extending His [30] powers and dominions by bringing to pass the eternal life and immortality of man. In this sense, we have been given the keys and power to act as gods. To us has been given the honor to procreate life. Second, as our dominion, we have been given the responsibility to rule over our posterities.

We are not merely the offspring of gods, we are what they are--gods differing only in degree the same as our children are what we are, differing only in degree. This is the law of propagation that each species brings forth its own kind. "A horse sires a horse, a man begets a man, a god brings forth a god" (Gospel of Philip).

Having identified with universal truth and light, it is their objective to elevate their creations to the same utopian glory that they have achieved.

Thus, the eternal pattern of the universe is one of constant building, the bringing to pass of immortality and eternal life of one's creations; ever extending one's dominions over his ever-increasing posterity throughout the eternities. Hence, their social structure is founded in the eternal patriarchal order. This is an eternal chain of [31] fathers or patriarchs comprising a posterity or race of deities. … In this structure, a god is nothing more or less than father. All fathers are gods and all gods are fathers. "Father" is a priesthood calling and of office of God. Gods differ only in their fatherhood i.e., glory, dominion and

7

degree of progression. Within this framework, Adam is one of many gods in a system of godhood wherein each member is subordinate to his lineal ancestors. Adam and His posterity represent only a part of a greater dominion. Jesus Christ is a part of Adam's dominion and as such is subordinate not only to Adam but to all His fathers who have gone before in Adam's patriarchal line. These patriarchs are gods in the eternal priesthood order.

Brigham Young explained:

. . . each person who we crown in the celestial kingdom of God will be a father of fathers, a king of kings, a lord of lords, a god of gods... Each person will reign over his posterity. Adam, Michael, the Ancient of Days, will sit as the judge of the quick and dead, for he is the father of all living, and Eve is the mother of all living, pertaining to the human family, and he is their king, their Lord, their God, taking and holding his position in the grand unbroken chain of endless increase, and eternal progression.... You can readily see this makes our father Adam a great and mighty king. When we are crowned kings and queens, father Adam and mother Eve will be king and queen of us all. Under the Priesthood which is after the Son of God and the power of an endless life, each father being a son, will always throughout time and eternity be subject to his father, and his king, dictator, father Lord, and God. Each son, in his own turn, becomes a father, and is entitled to the same obedience from the line of his descendants. It is by the authority and power of the Holy Priesthood alone that those in heaven [32] and on earth can be entitled to, and secured in, the possession of the legal authority (M.A.B.Y., Nov. 30, 1862).

"Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him" (T.PJ.S., p. 373).Brigham explained that:

Every world has had an Adam and Eve--named so simply because the first man is always called Adam, and the first woman Eve; and the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family.... Every world that has been created, has been created upon the same principle (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854).

[33] CHAPTER 3

THE CREATION

Most of the misunderstanding which arises from the creation accounts does so because we fail to consider: 1) the nature of the creation accounts--that they are highly symbolical and, as such, hide a mystery from the unprepared; and 2) that the accounts are not of the same creation; i.e., we fail todifferentiate between the spiritual and the temporal creations.

Procreation--The Mystery of the Creation

That our creation accounts are allegorical in nature is self-evident to anyone who has attempted to accept their literal interpretation. Such a literal interpretation where man is molded as a brick and woman is taken from his rib not only conflicts with revealed gospel principles but contributes little to the understanding of God and His ways. …God's purpose in revealing the creation account was not to reveal his sacred truths and thereby allow their desecration by the ungodly. His purpose was to satisfy thecarnal mind of an unbelieving generation.

Concerning the nature of the creation account Parley P. Pratt said:

8

In after years, when Paradise was lost by sin; when man was driven from the face of his heavenly Father, to toil, and droop, and die; when heaven was veiled from view; and, with few exceptions, man was no longer counted worthy to retain the knowledge of his heavenly origin; then, darkness veiled the past and future from the heathen mind; man neither knew himself, from whence he came, nor whither he was bound. At length a Moses came, who knew his God, and would fain have led mankind to know Him too, and see Him face to face. But they could not receive His heavenly laws, or bide His presence. Thus the holy man was forced again to veil the past in mystery, and, in the beginning of his history, assign to man an earthly origin.

Man, moulded from the earth, as a brick!A woman, manufactured from a rib!

Thus, parents still would fain conceal from budding manhood, the mysteries of procreation, and the sources of life's ever flowing river, by relating some childish tale of new-born life, engendered in the hollow trunk of some old tree, or springing with spontaneous growth, like mushrooms, from out of the heaps of rubbish. O man! when wilt thou cease to be a child in knowledge? Man, as we have said, is the offspring of Deity. The entire mystery of the past and future, with regard to his existence, is [35] not yet solved by mortals (Key to the Science of Theology, pp. 49-50, 1st ed.).

Said B. H. Roberts: "And as for the story of the rib, under it I believe the mystery of procreation is hidden" (The Contributor, vol. 10, pp. 265-66). Brigham Young confirmed the nature of this mystery when he said:

When you tell me that Father Adam was made as we make 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 that 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 multiply and replenish the earth (J.D. 7:285).

Joseph Smith clarified the law of propagation by saying: ". . . God the Father of JesusChrist had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?" (T.PJ.S., p. 373). Brigham extended the principle of procreation to universal application. "He [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" (J.D. 11:122).

Thus, the scriptures in telling us that Adam is the son of God may be literally interpreted (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22).

[36] The Creation of Adam's Body

From the foregoing, we see that Adam obtained his body by procreation from a father and mother. Brigham Young taught that Adam's body had been created of the dust of another world priorto coming to this earth. These teachings are consistent with the scriptures which also indicate that Adam's body had been created prior to being placed in the Garden of Eden. "I, the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there I put the man whom I had formed" (Moses 3:8; Abraham 5:8). The temple account also portrays the physical Adam as having existed prior to being placed in the Garden of Eden. Thus, Adam's body had been created independent of this earth and therefore could not have beenmolded from or made out of the dust of this earth's ground.

9

The question of where he obtained his body can be answered by considering the nature of his body. This latter question is answered if one considers the environment in which Adam as a physical being dwelt. We know from the scriptures and the temple account that Adam endured the presence of God. This is an environment of everlasting celestial fire and glory. Both Paul and Joseph Smith told us that neither flesh and blood nor corruption can endure God's presence (T.PJ.S., pp. 326, 367; 1Cor. 15:50). Moreover, Joseph told us that "immortality dwells in everlasting burnings" (T.PJ.S., p. 367)

Since Adam dwelt in His father's presence of everlasting burnings, His body had to have been incorruptible, without blood and immortal. In other words, prior to coming to the Garden of Eden, Adam possessed an immortal celestial body. The real question is how he acquired that body. Was he physicallybegotten in the celestial realm? If this be true then Adam would be the First Born, but we know that Jesus is the First Born. Furthermore, Christ would not be the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. The laws of progression would also be violated. [37] Said Brigham Young:

Adam . . . lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation and did honor to his calling and priesthood, and obeyed his master or Lord . . . and died upon an earth, and then [was] resurrected again to immortality and eternal life (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854).

On another occasion he said:

He [Adam] 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, or His glory, or His eternity, and was actually classed with the Gods, with beings who create, with those who have kept the celestial law while in the flesh, 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 (J.D. 4:217).

When we come to know God's laws, we will find that the power of creation lies in the organization of eternally existent life and matter. Thus, God creates neither life nor matter, he only oversees its organization and propagation. It is according to these same laws that the creation was extended to this earth with inorganic matter being organized out of chaos and life forms being brought from another sphere (transplanted) to this earth. Life was brought here for the express purpose to propagate its own kind.According to Brigham Young:

He [Adam] 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 please 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 (J.D. 3:319).

So we see that the mystery of life (procreation) applies not only to man but to all life throughout the universe.

The Spiritual and Temporal Creations

Another area of confusion is the contradiction posed between the first and second creation accounts. The first chapter of Genesis, which parallels Moses 3 and Abraham 4, relates a very orderly creation account transpiring in seven creative periods. "The account seems to reach from highest

10

attenuated nebulae to the solid earth clothed with its wealth of vegetation and animal life, with man placed upon it as the crowning excellence of the Creator's work" (The Contributor, vol. 10, p. 263). Following a very explicit account, the reader is perplexed to read that man, [39] in conflict with theforegoing, has in actual fact not been created, for in Genesis 2:4, 5 we read:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was not a man to till the ground (emphasis added).

As there was no man to till the ground, man must not have been created upon the earth. If man had not yet been created, then what of the rest of the creation account? What of the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air and the earth's vegetation? The second chapter of Genesis then proceeds to confuse the reader further by relating a second creation account with a reversed creation order.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree.... And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam . . . (see also parallel accounts in Moses 3:5-25, and Abraham 5:6-21).

Whereas the first account began with the formation of the earth from chaotic matter and relates the various steps of an orderly creation of all life ending with the creation of man, the second account begins with the creation of man out of the dust of the ground, followed by the creation of all other animallife. The Moses version as revealed to Joseph Smith underscores the disparity between these two accounts. According to Moses, Adam became the first flesh upon the earth. ". . . And man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also . . ." (Moses 3:7). This contradicts the former accountwherein all animal life had not only been [40] formed prior to man but "brought forth abundantly" (Moses 2:20, 21).

Just as Joseph's inspired translation underscored the problem, so also does it reveal the key to its resolution. After relating the account of the seven creative periods, the Lord states that all things of which He had spoken concerning the creation of heaven and earth (the seven creative periods) were created spiritually before being placed naturally on the earth. The Lord goes on to explain that this creation was in heaven and not on the earth.

And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb, of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord Cod, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I the Lord God had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air (Moses 3:4, 5; emphasis added).

The spiritual nature of this creation is verified in the Abraham account wherein we find that all life was "formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and heaven; according to all that which they had said concerning every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it

11

grew" (Abraham 5:4, 5). Accordingly then, Genesis 1, Moses 2, and Abraham 4, which also parallel the temple creation account, represent the creation of things spiritual before they were placed or created naturally upon the earth, i.e., the spiritual creation. The second creation account, as related in Genesis 2,Moses 3, and Abraham 5, is an account of the temporal creation of life. Indeed this has been the interpretation of the church leaders. Said Hugh B. Brown in a talk given at B.Y.U. (entitled: "What Is Man [41] and What He May Become?"): "The information given in the scriptures on the time involved in the first great acts of creation refers only to the spiritual creation." LDS scholar and theologian B. H. Roberts agreed, saying:

Though we cannot understand the nature of this spiritual creation, yet to learn that the first account of the creation in the Bible is of a spiritual creation and the second of an actual or natural one, gives some comfort, from the fact that it does away with all charges of inconsistency or contradiction between the two accounts. For since they are descriptions of two different things instead of one thing, there is nothing in the law of consistency requiring the accounts of different events to be alike (The Contributor, vol. 10, p. 264).

Said Orson Pratt:

The second chapter of Genesis (new translation) informs us that the spirits ... were created in heaven.... They were created in heaven, the spiritual part of them; not their flesh and bones.... The spiritual part existed in heaven.... On the seventh day he [God] began the temporal portion. There was not yet a man to till the ground, "and the gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit"--that is, the man's spirit--"and put it into him and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." This we read in the second chapter of Genesis (J.D. 21:200-01).

While an understanding of the spiritual creation is a decided advancement in the interpretation of the creation accounts, it by no means resolves all the problems, for the seven periods account, while admittedly spiritual, contains elements of a temporal rather than a spiritual creation. This has led some LDS authors to speculate that the first account (seven periods) is wholly temporal, despite the scripturalaffirmation that it is spiritual (see H. L. Andrus, God, Man and the Universe, p. 305). Thus, two philosophies have risen in an attempt to resolve the creation problems. One school states that the seven periods account is exclusively spiritual, while the second claims it to be exclusively temporal. Neither philosophy is wholly adequate. The major difficulty lies in the interpretation of the temporal elements of the spiritual [42] creation. This of course is resolved if one considers the account to be exclusively temporal, however this consideration fails to account for the obvious spiritual creation of life. Thespiritual interpretation discounts the creation's temporal elements, claiming these in fact to be spiritual, although beyond human understanding.

The foregoing explanations are based on the assumption that God must complete one phase of His creation before He could commence another. They assume that the creation sequence was first spiritual then temporal. However, nothing was to prohibit God from preparing a temporal abode (the earth) while at the same time being engaged in the procreation of spirit life. Why also could not the seven periods creation account contain both temporal and spiritual elements?

A careful reading of this creation account not only bears out both temporal and spiritual elements but verifies the same by distinguishing these in the manner of their creation. The organization of gross matter in the seven periods account lends itself to a temporal interpretation, whereas there is noquestion that all life was created spiritually. This distinction is real rather than apparent, for the creation reflects two different classes of created entities (the organized and the procreated).

Lehi recognized and distinguished between these two classes. One (gross matter) was organized to be acted upon; while the other (life as we know it) was created to act as an independent agent. ". . . He [God] hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to

12

act and things to be acted upon" (2 Nephi 2:14). The latter is a result of overt organization, while the former is a result of procreation. This may have been the Lord's distinction when He said: "Behold I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth" (Moses 2:1), the creation of heaven being spiritual by procreation and the creation of the earth being temporal by organization. Indeed the spiritual creation of all life was in heaven by spiritual procreation. [43] Life can exist as spirit independent of a temporal tabernacle, but the same is probably not true of gross matter. We know that all matter possesses intelligence or life to some degree. Said Brigham Young:

There is not a particle or element which is not filled with life, and all space is filled with element.... There is life in all matter, throughout the vast extent of all the eternities; it is in the rock, the sand, the dust, in water, air, the gasses, and in short, in every description and organization of matter. . . .(J.D. 3:277).

The kind of life within a rock, however, is not the same kind or degree as the life possessed by animate beings. From a doctrinal standpoint, we understand that the spirits of all animal life were created by procreation, whereas the spirit of gross matter (e.g., a rock) is created by overt organization of individual intelligences that comprise that rock. That intelligence, or spirit, is light and truth as an integral part of all matter. Therefore the aggregate spirit of organized gross matter lies in the organization of that matter. Hence, the spiritual creation of gross matter is accomplished through its physical organization, which in the beginning existed as "unorganized matter." The creation of the earth as a life substrate, then, is neither exclusively spiritual nor temporal but temporospiritual because of the nature of life or spirit within matter.

The only account of the temporal creation of the earth is in the seven periods account.

Moses 3:5, makes it clear that the spiritual creation refers only to life that was to be placed upon the earth.

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.

Misunderstanding is introduced by the word "all." "All things" does not refer to all things of the foregoing creation account but rather to all [46] things spoken of in the spiritual creation, for the Lord qualifies these "all" things as those which were created spiritually before they were naturally upon the face of the temporal earth. This clearly distinguishes between the earth and those things found thereon. That which was placed on the face of the earth was exclusively life. Therefore, the earth is excluded from the spiritual creation, for the earth cannot be found naturally upon itself. The word "upon," in this context, plainly has reference to the external temporal surface of the earth, where life was placed. …

Thus we see that the creation of man and all life in the sixth creative period, according to Genesis 1, Moses 2, Abraham 4, and the temple account, is without equivocation the account of man's spiritual creation in the preexistence. President Joseph F. Smith, a prophet of God, authoritatively confirmed this as church doctrine. On page 112 of the Origin of the "Reorganized" Church he elaborates on Genesis 1:29 and 30 as the spiritual creation when he quotes the following:

"And I, God created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him, male and female created I them. And I God blessed them, and said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. " . . . This was spiritual creation, man was created in the image of God, male and female, first in Spirit, and told in that spiritual

13

creation that they were expected to multiply and replenish the earth when they were placed upon it to subdue it. This we prove from the second chapter of Genesis beginning with the fifth [48] verse: "For, I the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth, for I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth.... And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men, and not yet a man to till the ground, for in heaven created I them, and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water neither in the air" (emphasis in the original).

Who Are the Creation Gods?

We know by revelation that Michael became the man Adam. Who, then, are the personalities identified as Jehovah and Elohim? We learn something concerning their identity when we consider the manner by which the creation took place. In the temple, Elohim is depicted as the superior God or Gods commissioning Jehovah and Michael to carry out the work of the creation. Jehovah in turn gives direction to Michael. Following each creative period Michael and Jehovah return to give an accounting to Elohim. This clearly demonstrates a subordinate authoritative relationship from Elohim to Jehovah and finally to Michael. This relationship can be assumed to be representative of a presiding priesthood order, with Michael being directly subordinate to Jehovah and Jehovah to Elohim. As pointed out in the previous chapter, the only priesthood order that exists among the gods is a patriarchal chain from father to son. Elohim and Jehovah, then, can be considered patriarchal superiors or fathers to Adam, then known as Michael.

ElohimAlthough the word Elohim has, on occasions, been used as a proper name (e.g., T.P.J.S. p. 313),

this usage is of conceptual importance only, for Joseph explained that Elohim is a title used to designate gods or a godhead. "The word Elohim ought to be in the plural all the way through [the Bible] @ [as] Gods" (T.P.J.S., p. 372). With this in mind the Abraham creation account becomes more meaningful ". . . and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heaven and the earth . . . " (Abraham 4). Joseph further said that the creation account should begin: "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, in other words, the head God brought forth the Elohim (T.P.J.S., pp. 348, 371). The Abraham account is consistent with Joseph's [50] interpretation of the creation as it identifies the creators of the heaven and earth as gods.

From the above, one would interpret the temple usage of the word Elohim to refer to a council of gods rather than an individual. That council or Elohim represents the source of decision and responsibility, with the decisions being carried out through Jehovah and Michael.

Others, in contrast to the above, see Elohim as portraying the role of an individual being who speaks for and in behalf of himself rather than a council. Certain it is that both Joseph and Brigham on occasions used the word Elohim in both contexts, in referring to a council as well as to the head God.

Who Is the Jehovah of the Temple Ceremony?

Having identified Elohim as the gods or council of gods, we should next consider the identity of the God Jehovah. The temple account portrays Jehovah to be one of the patriarchal gods functionally subordinate to the Elohim and superior to Michael. He may also be the being identified in Moses 2:1 as the Only Begotten.

Moses states that the creation took place by the Only Begotten, whereas the temple account identifies the creation as having taken place through Jehovah and Michael. An additional parallel between the creation Only Begotten and the temple Jehovah is seen in a comparison between Moses 3:18 and the

14

temple ceremony. In Moses, the Lord God conveys to the Only Begotten the need to create woman--because "it is not good for man to be alone." The temple parallel demonstrates Elohim as conveying the same message to Jehovah in the form of the question: "Is it good for man to be alone?"

Because Jesus is also identified as Jehovah and the Only Begotten (Moses 6:52, 57), many have assumed Jesus to be the Jehovah and the Only Begotten of the creation. Other scriptures which involve Jesus in the creation would appear to lend support to that conjecture, i.e. that Jesus, Son of Mary, is the Only Begotten [51] mentioned in Moses 2 and is the Jehovah depicted in the temple creation account. A more thorough study of the scriptures reveals that there are at least two and possibly three personages to whom these titles apply. As we shall see, the Only Begotten of the creation is a different person from theOnly Begotten of the created earth Jesus Christ).

The Only Begotten of Moses 2 by whom God the Almighty created both heaven and earth was not Jesus Christ. This is evidenced by the following:

1. The Only Begotten created heaven, the birthplace of Jesus Christ in the spirit. According to all creation accounts, as well as logic, heaven was created prior to the spiritual creation of man there. Jesus Christ was a product of that spiritual creation. He, therefore, was spiritually created by the Only Begotten. Jesus could not have created heaven before he was created. 2. The Only Begotten had created other worlds before Jesus Christ was spiritually created. At the very inception of the creation before the spiritual creation of man which included Jesus Christ, Elohim said: "Jehovah, Michael, see yonder is matter unorganized. Go ye down and organize it into a world like unto the other worlds that we have heretofore organized" (temple account). Our Savior had not then been spiritually created (see chronology of spiritual creation). 3. The Only Begotten is the spiritual Father of Jesus Christ. As we have seen, the account where the Only Begotten creates man after His own image is the spiritual creation of man. Christ was one of those spirits created by the Only Begotten. "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so" (Moses 2:26). For the reasons previously discussed, the immediately foregoing is of the [52] spiritual creation of man. Christ was a product of that creation. He could not have created that which created Him. Had Christ been that Only Begotten He would then be our Father, not our brother. References to Jesus as our creator are dealt with in chapter 15. 4. Jesus was not with the Father from the beginning as was the Only Begotten. From Moses 2:26 quoted above, the Only Begotten was with the Almighty Father from the beginning. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is a product of the Father's spiritual creation the same as you and I. This means that Christ is at least one generation in existence behind the Almighty God and therefore could not have been with Him (the Almighty Father) from the beginning. 5. The Book of Abraham differentiates between Jesus Christ and the temple Jehovah. At the preexistent council (Abraham 3:27) the Lord said: "Whom shall I send?" to which Jesus (identified as one like unto the Son of Man") answers saying: "Here am I, send me." Clearly the dialogue is taking place between Jesus and "the Lord." The identity of "the Lord" is disclosed by comparing the dialogue of the temple creation account to what is said by "the Lord" in the ensuing verses of the Book of Abraham. In Abraham 4:1 the same Lord who had voice in Abraham 3:27 "then" says: "Let us go down." In the temple account it is Jehovah who says "Let us go down. " Therefore "the Lord" who spoke to Jesus in Abraham 3:27 is the temple Jehovah. Since the temple Jehovah was speaking to Jesus in Abraham 3:27, Jesus could not be the Jehovah of the temple creation account. 6. The Only Begotten possessed knowledge of godhood not then acquired by Jesus as a spirit. After [53] Adam had partaken of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Lord said to His Only Begotten: "Behold, the man is become one of us to know good and evil" (Moses 4:28). The knowledge which Adam had obtained was relative to his physical body. His newly acquired knowledge made Him as one with Elohim and the Only Begotten. To assert that Christ was that Only Begotten would be ascribing to Him qualities and attributes not yet acquired by Christ through a mortal probation. This is to say that

15

Adam had become as Christ in knowing good from evil; whereas Christ, at that point in His progression, had not undergone an earthly probation whereby He could become as God the Father in knowing good and evil. Adam could only have become as those beings who had entered into mortality whereby they could know good and evil. This Jesus Christ had not done. Jesus was himself not as the Lord God in knowing good and evil. Adam had become as a being (the Only Begotten) more advanced in progression than Jesus Christ, one that had known good and evil in a temporal sphere. 7. In the preexistence Jesus Christ was not married whereas the temple Jehovah was. Before a change for obvious reasons, the temple ceremony depicted Jehovah as having a wife in the preexistence. Elohim, in considering the creation of a wife for Adam, addressed Jehovah asking: "Is it good for man to be alone?" Jehovah's reply "it is not, for we are not alone" (The World Today, vol. 8. no. 2, p. 166) suggests that both Jehovah and Elohim were married. Jesus, then in the spirit, had not the advantage of mortality wherein He could have entered the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Jehovah's reply further suggests that both Elohim and Jehovah had lived a previous [54] mortal existence wherein they had honored the eternal marriage covenant. This, Jesus at that point had not done.

The foregoing contradictions suggest that the Only Begotten is a title of deity that may be applied to individuals other than Jesus Christ. This is evidenced in Moses 5:9 where the Holy Ghost identifies himself as the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning. "And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam . . . saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever...."

From the foregoing, we can see that the only adequate and consistent explanation of the Only Begotten is as a title of deity. Its use as a personal name for Jesus not only leads to confusion but is also incorrect, for Jesus was not the Only Begotten of the Father in the spirit creation. The Father begat all the spirits. We were all His begotten. Jesus, however, was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh.

In identifying the Only Begotten, we can see that the term is a title of deity. In the creation account it applies to Adam's patriarchal Father and God. This was a person who, like Adam, had been through mortality and had the power to procreate spirits. Jesus was one of those spirits created by the Only Begotten.

The difficulty in identifying the personality behind the title Jehovah is the erroneous preconception that it always points to the same person. Nonspecific usage of the term Jehovah, however, is found not only in the scriptures but in the sermons of both Brigham and Joseph as well. Both used the term with seemingly equal interchangeability in referring to Jesus Son of Mary as well as in referring to the great Almighty God (e.g., T.PJ.S., p. 220). The conclusion is that only in specific instances does "Jehovah" identify a person. In every instance, however, it does identify a personality--Deity.

Scriptural usage of the word Jehovah as a functionary of the Almighty God is further discussed [55] under the concept of "unity and oneness of God" in chapter 15.

Adam the Creator

Since the temple creation parallels the scriptural accounts of the spiritual creation of man, Adam must be our spiritual creator or the father of our spirits. Joseph Smith clearly identified Adam as the creation god of this earth. On page 190 of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith he states that an

. . . everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to man on earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or testator.

It will be noted that the pre-earth covenant made between these three gods pertains to their dispensations on this earth. There have been three major earthly dispensations: the beginning, the

16

meridian and the last. The God of the first dispensation is identified as the Creator and indeed was Adam who established the first dispensation. God the second is the redeemer, Jesus Christ, who established the meridian dispensation. The [56] context of Joseph's own words clearly distinguishes Adam from Jesus Christ as the creator and God of this earth.

That Jesus Christ had some role in the creation of this earth is not challenged. It is maintained, however, that His exact role is ill defined. Quite obviously He could not have participated in the spiritual creation of which He was a product. An explanation of Christ's role as the creator is dealt with in chapter 15.

With regard to Jesus Christ, there is no question as to His calling from the preexistence to be established as Joseph Smith states "God the Redeemer."

In conclusion, we see that the scriptures actually refer to two different godheads, a godhead of the spirit creation and a godhead of the created earth. Our Savior is a member of the godhead of this created earth. Failure to differentiate between these two godheads has led to confusing the gods of thespiritual creation with the gods of the created earth.

[57] CHAPTER 4

THE FALL

From the preceding chapter, we understand that the temple creation account is of man's spiritual creation in heaven before being placed naturally upon the earth. From this account, Michael emerges as the creator rather than the created, and in every sense of the word is the father of our spirits. As a loving parent and father of our spirits, Michael oversaw the progression and development of our spirits. Our progression is the very purpose of his work (Moses 1:39).

To provide the means and opportunity for progress, man's earth life was planned. Standing before the preexistent council, God said:

We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever (Abraham 3:24-26).

It was necessary that a probation should be given to man. The courts of heaven were thronged with spirits that desired tabernacles. They wanted to come and obtain fleshy tabernacles as their Father had done. Their progenitors, the race of Gods with whom they associated and from whom they have [59] descended, had had the privilege of coming on earthly probations and receiving tabernacles, which by obedience they had been able to redeem. Hence, I say, the courts of heaven were thronged with spirits anxious to take upon themselves tabernacles of flesh, agreeing to come forth and be tested and tried in order that they might receive exaltation . . . (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, vol. 1, p. 25).

Joseph F. Smith, who said:

It is absolutely necessary that we should come to the earth and take upon us tabernacles; because if we did not have tabernacles we could not be like God, or like Jesus Christ. You and I have got to do the same thing. We must go through the same. ordeal in order to attain the same glory and exaltation which God designed we should enjoy with him in the eternal worlds (Deseret News, June 22, 1908).

17

According to the Elders' Journal, Adam and Eve may well have had physical offspring prior to their fall, but these would have been celestial "after their own kind" (see Elders' Journal, vol. 6, p. 33). On the other hand, [60] Lehi stated that had Adam not fallen he would have had no children (2 Nephi 2:22-23). Thegrand plan provided, however, that our first parents should undergo a voluntary transition to mortality such that they would then be able to "bear fruit after their own kind."

This is precisely what constitutes the "fall of Adam"—that he fell from a higher (celestial) sphere to a lower (temporal) sphere that he might beget children after his own temporal likeness. … It represents in every meaningful way a sacrifice on the part of a loving father for his children. How else, according to the laws of propagation, can one explain the origin of man from celestial parents, for the scriptures emphatically state that "we are the offspring of God" (Acts 17:28)?

Brigham Young:

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 creating earthly tabernacles precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material, that was organized and composed of this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the course materials of this earth (J.D. 4:218). ME: but wasn’t the earth celestial before the fall?

Brigham summarized the mechanics of providing tabernacles by saying:

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 of 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 [61] organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children (J.D. 6:275).

On another occasion Brigham said:

Adam and Eve when placed on this earth were immortalized 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 blood coursing through their veins as the action of life (L. John Nuttall Journal, p. 20, Special Collections, B.Y.U.).

Adam Fell That Man Might Be

Before the fall, we are informed, Adam and Eve were in a “childlike" state of innocence, having forgotten their former grandeur as celestial beings. After the fall, however, "their eyes were opened," they became aware of their nakedness and hid themselves from the Lord. …

Here, as was pointed out by Paul, we should recognize that it was Eve who was beguiled into transgression, not Adam. "And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). It follows, therefore, that Adam transgressed knowingly without the cunning of Lucifer or the enticements of the woman. His was a deliberate choice of obedience between two laws. With Eve he had received a commandment from God to be fruitful and multiply his [62] kind.

18

This he could not have done without partaking of certain forbidden fruit found in the garden. According to the account, Eve who had also received the commandment to multiply was deceived by the persuasions of Lucifer to partake of "the forbidden fruit." She, therefore, was in transgression and subject to the penalty which included not only death but banishment from the garden and God's presence. Under thesecircumstances, she would have been separated from Adam, prohibiting obedience to God's greater command that they multiply and replenish.

Thus the woman by deception was led into transgression, to stand the penalty of the broken law. Thereupon, the man Adam, with deliberate and full knowledge of his intended act, partook of the fruit that the progression of the great human race might roll forward. In his sacrifice, he willingly shared not only his wife's banishment but accepted the seeds of mortality that his children "might be." For all of humanity, no greater proof of love could be offered, no nobler act could be performed. Adam compassionately stepped down from a celestial throne to voluntarily offer himself as a blood sacrifice that we might live and grasp the opportunity to become a god.

As Orson F. Whitney of the Council of the Twelve said: In order that God's spirit children might have the opportunity to take bodies and undergo experiences on this earth, two heavenly beings came down in advance and became mortal for our sake. This is the true significance of the fall of Adam and Eve. It was not a mere yielding to temptation--they came on a mission, to pioneer this earthly wilderness, and open the way so that a world of waiting spirits might become souls, and make a stride forward in the great march of eternal progression (Improvement Era, 1915, vol. 19, pp. 402-03).

Hence, Adam fell from his celestial realm that man "might be" in the environment of mortality to participate in good and evil, life and death. To bring to pass these conditions essential to man's eternal [63] progression, a "fall" had to be effected. This simply means that a transition from conditions heavenly to conditions temporal had to be made. Although called a "fall," it in reality represents an unparalleled sacrifice of love for mankind.

Such a sacrifice is also called a condescension. Such a fall or condescension is in keeping with the nature of sacrifices required of gods. Brigham taught that we will be exalted to the degree that we are abased. Our father Adam, like His Son, was required to descend below all things in order that he might rise above them.

Adam subjected himself to the conditions of this world as did our Lord and Master, that redemption and exaltation might come to man. Without descending below all things we cannot rise above all things. The gospel of salvation will never change. It is the same in all ages of the world and will be through all ages of eternity (Cowley, Life and Labors of Wilford Woodruff, p. 447-48).

Brigham related Adam's fall as a meaningful prerequisite to his progression.

In my fullest belief, it was the design of the Lord that Adam should partake of the forbidden fruit, and I believe that Adam knew all about it before he came to this earth. I believe there was no other way leading to thrones and dominions only for him to transgress, or take that position which transgression alone could place man in, to descend below all things, that they might ascend to thrones, principalities, and powers; for they could not ascend to that eminence without first descending, nor upon any other principle (J.D. 2:302).

The same principle is set forth by the Lord when He said: "He that is ordained of God and sent forth, the same is appointed to be the greatest notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all" (D&C 50:26).

19

Thus, Adam and Eve came to this world with the obligation to transgress the law in order to descend below all things. This, as pointed out, was also a prerequisite for Christ. It should be noted that Adam's fall or descension, although similar to that of Christ (both unto death), was from a greater height.Where has there ever been a father [64] who would require more of his son than he himself was willing to give? … The Gospel of Philip describes Adam's mission thus: "Adam was begotten again, again became a son, again was anointed, again was ransomed, and again paid the price" (Gospel of Philip, 119:1ff).

[65] CHAPTER 5

DID ADAM DIE?

The foregoing question has been a cause of some concern to many honest investigators of the Adam-God doctrine. To some, it not only appears illogical but also contrary to the scriptures that Adam, once a resurrected and immortal being, could again be subject to death.

The scriptures, indeed, point out that an immortal (resurrected) being may "never die" (Alma 11:45). The scriptures also state that a resurrected being will "see no more corruption" (Alma 11:45). Furthermore, it is scripturally apparent that Adam should experience a death as indicated by thefigure of speech "return to dust" (Moses 4:25; also Alma 42:4-9). Likewise, all mankind is to undergo a physical death because of the fall: "for, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).

Let us turn to the Prophet Joseph Smith for [66] direction. He states, "As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end" (T.P.J.S., p. 354) Although this was stated in reference to the spirit of man; it applies as an eternal principle to the body as well, and is consistent with the laws of science and theology. This is to say that whatever has been built up may be broken down by law or the same authority and power. We progress to and in godhood by living laws of progression. This progression may be undone or reversed by obeying retrogressive laws. As an example: God would cease to be God if He were to lie. Is this to say that He does not have the power to lie? Certainly not, for He is all powerful. Yet, even He remains obedient to laws of progression. Existence as an immortal represents a state of being along a continuum of progression. Since corporeal existence in a given state of immortality has not always existed, it must have had a beginning and thus may also have an end. According to Joseph, only thatwhich has existed eternally has the exclusive promise of never coming to an end.

As for an immortal not being able to die, one must remember that Adam did not die as an immortal but as a mortal being. He partook of the coarser elements of this earth which subjected him to a mortal state and subsequent death.

Brigham Young, knowing the mind of the Lord, taught furthermore that Adam did die: "Did not Adam die? Yes he did. Does [not] the Bible say he died" (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854)? The exact nature of Adam's death, however, is not completely understood. The difficulty here lies in the definition of deathas used in the scriptures. Interpretation here has given rise to [67] misunderstanding. The Doctrine and Covenants, section 101, verse 29, tells us that in the millennium there will be no death, and then in verse 30 we are told there will be death. "And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death. In thatday an infant shall not die until he is old."

We are told that all men will suffer death because of Adam's fall (1 Cor. 15:22). Yet the Doctrine and Covenants, section 110, verse 13, tells us that Elijah had not tasted death. "After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken toheaven without tasting death, stood before us." Further confusion regarding death is introduced in the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, wherein we are told that the earth shall die.

James simply makes passing reference, in a allegorical sense, that the body is dead without the spirit: "For, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:26).

20

Surely a separation of body and spirit is a type of death. However, death is also the putting off of mortality by undergoing a transition to an immortal state as will be the type of death in the millennium (D&C 101:31). The transition of death may be accomplished by a physical separation of body and spirit, or by being taken up unto the Lord. In either case, the coarse fallen elements of mortality must be purged from the body. God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. . . . When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit there will be no blood in this tabernacle.... Immortality dwells in everlasting burnings (T.PJ.S., p. 367).

There will apparently be many who will die without tasting death: ". . . when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality" (3 Nephi 28:8). And do not the scriptures [68] say the "Lord took Moses unto himself" (Alma 45:19)? So we see that death as achange to immortality does not necessarily imply a separation of body and spirit, although the body without the spirit certainly is dead.

There is no doubt that Adam died--i.e., was changed from mortality to immortality--as the scriptures indicate. But how could he die a second time after having been resurrected on a previous world? Because he held power over death.

As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again (T.PJ.S., p. 346).Thus, Jesus laid down His life just as His Father had done. Jesus informs us that He could do nothing but what He saw His Father do. "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do" (John 5.19) When did Jesus see His Father lay down his life? Certainly not before He (Jesus) was born as aspirit, which was when Michael died and was resurrected on another world, for the Savior did not then exist. He (Jesus) could only have seen His Father (Adam) lay down his life "and take it up again" on our present world (T.PJ.S., p. 346).

We see that, although Adam has voluntarily subjected himself to death, he already possessed the keys over death through having died and been resurrected on a previous world. "We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinances and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again" (Brigham Young, J.D. 15:137). Michael or Adam had already received the keys to the resurrection when resurrected on another world. These keys and his priesthood were brought with him to this world.

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, [69] as in Genesis 1:26-28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures (Joseph Smith, T.P.J.S., p. 157; emphasis added).

Summary

The fact that Adam died takes nothing away from his status as a god any more than the death of Christ denies His divinity. The parallels between these two deities are numerous. Both had a veil of forgetfulness; both were introduced as children; both sacrificed their lives for the love of man; both descended below all things; both had power over death; both advanced in godhood. Adam voluntarily came to this world and subjected himself to the law of mortality that his posterity might have opportunity of progressing into godhood through mortality.

One must remember that " when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things--things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purposes and the end thereof" (D&C 101:32-33).

21

[71] CHAPTER 6

IS GOD MERELY AN ANGEL?

Although Adam's true nature can only be appreciated by collectively considering all his titles and functional roles, we should, at this point, take a closer look at his least understood role as the archangel.

The term archangel has given rise to a great deal of confusion and hence misunderstanding as it applies to Adam as a divine being. … Doctrine and Covenants gives us a broader concept of an angel to include all resurrected beings in heaven. "There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages having bodies of flesh and bones" (D&C 129:1). … Thus, angels were notexclusively preexistent spirits with us.

As to the nature and calling of angels, Orson Pratt in 1869 gave us a more comprehensive understanding. "According to the revelations which God has given, there are different classes of angels. Some angels are Gods; and still possess the lower office called angels. Adam is called an Archangel, yet he is a God" (J.D. 13:187).

Following the consistency of this doctrine, Joseph Smith referred to the Savior in appearing to His disciples as an angel (D.H.C., vol. 4, p. 425). Likewise did John Taylor in 1879 refer to the Savior as an angel (J.D. 20:167). This same concept is found in the Bible where we are given not only to understandthat some angels are to be worshiped but are, in fact, gods. Throughout the Old Testament we find an angel (the angel of the Lord) who was not only worshiped but is identified as God. "The angel of the Lord appeared unto him [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" (Exodus 3:2). Moreover, the angel said, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and Moses hid his face for he was afraid to look upon God" (Exodus 3:6). Here God Himself appears to Moses in the burning bush and yet is referred to as an angel (of the Lord).

Hagar when visited by the angel of the Lord called Him LORD (Jehovah) and God (Genesis 16:7-13). In Genesis 31:13, the angel of the Lord declares himself to be the God of Bethel where Jacobanointed the pillar. It was at Bethel that this same being called himself "the LORD God of Abraham thy father and the God of Isaac" (Genesis 28:13). Jacob, furthermore, referred to the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac as "the angel which redeemed me from all evil" (Genesis 48:15-16).

What are we to understand by the term archangel? "The archangel" is understood to imply that Michael is the chief or the most preeminent angel. Joseph Smith stated, "He (Adam) is the head" (T.P.J.S., p. 158). As [73] such, all angels are subordinate to him. "These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord [Elohim]" (T.P.J.S., p. 168). This is consistent with Michael's (Adam's) responsibility in the priesthood, as he holds the keys of salvation (D&C 78:16). "He [Elohim] set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, toreveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them" (T.PJ.S., p. 168).

Thus we see that Michael (Adam) as the archangel oversees the priesthood and salvation of mankind, for when the gospel is sent, it is by Adam's authority (T.P.J.S., p. 157). All angelicmanifestations and ministrations take place under Adam's direction; it is through his power and keys that the gospel is revealed for the salvation of mankind. Since the function of an angel is to minister to mankind, and Adam controls those keys, he is the archangel.

It is within this function that Michael, as the seventh angel, will declare the end of times (Rev. 10:6; D&C 88:112) and muster his (Michael's) armies to do battle against the legions of hell in what is called "the battle of the great God."

And Michael, the seventh angel, even the archangel, shall gather together his armies, even the hosts of heaven. And the devil shall gather together his armies; even the hosts of hell, and shall come up

22

to battle against Michael and his armies. And then cometh the battle of the great God; and the devil and his armies shall be cast away into their own place . . . (D&C 88:1 12-14).

For the reasons that Michael is the defender of Israel and the "captain of the host of the LORD," elsewhere identified as deity (see page 159), and that Michael in the above scripture appears to be fighting his own battle with his own armies, it may be concluded that Michael is "the great God" mentioned inD&C 88:114. Further analysis of the seventh angel would seem to confirm this conclusion, for John the revelator described Michael's glory as having "a rainbow upon his head" (Rev. 10:1). [74] (Rainbows as facial auras are elsewhere encountered in the scriptures, but only as imagery depicting the glory of God [Rev. 4:3; Ezek. 1:28, 3:22-23, 8:2]. Thus the rainbow about Michael's head is a description of his--the archangel's--glory of deity.) The important point to be gleaned is that an angel is afunctionary between man and heaven. That functionary, usually assuming the role of a messenger, may be an intermediary or God Himself. Of angels, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states: "The usual Hebrew word for `angel' means simply`messenger, envoy' " (vol. 1, p. 129). "Besides messengers proper, the Hebrews recognized a wider class of celestial beingspossessing the same essential nature [as God]" (vol. 1, p. 130).The application of this definition, one should recall, is Joseph's initial first vision account wherein he describes God as an angel. "I received my first visitation of angels when I was about fourteen years old" (Deseret News, May 29, 1852). Those angels, Joseph later disclosed, were God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. (For further defense of the position that God is an angel, see: "Censoring the Joseph Smith Story," by Hugh Nibley, Improvement Era, November 1961, pp. 865-69). From a functional definition, then, we see that whenever God personally bears a message or intercedes for mankind, He isacting as an angel.

[75] CHAPTER 7

ADAM-ONDI-AHMAN

Between opponents and proponents of the Adam-God doctrine exists an artificial controversy over the meaning of the term "Adam-ondi-Ahman." Some claim this to mean "the valley where Adam was proclaimed Ahman or God" (Musser, Michael, Our Father and Our God, p. 122). On the other hand, it is claimed that it means "the place where Adam was in the presence of God" (B.N.D., pp. 88-89).

This controversy seems to have arisen from the methodology in deriving the above interpretations. Both factions trace the derivation of this Adamic term through modern languages. This, of course, assumes a similarity between modern languages and the pure Adamic tongue. This assumption, however, may not even be true among our modern languages with common origins, let alone the Adamic language which is altogether of a different origin than any earthly language.

The essential truth is that the literal translation of Adam-ondi-Ahman has not yet been revealed. It makes little difference if it is the valley where Adam was proclaimed God or where Adam stood in the presence of God. If the latter be true, nothing is taken away from Adam's divinity, for truly Adam did stand in the presence of his Father who was God. For completeness, that which has been revealed is discussed in the following paragraphs.

[76] The Council of Adam-ondi-Ahman

Three years prior to His death, Adam called the patriarchs together at a council at Adam-ondi-Ahman. There, he prophesied all that would befall his posterity from the first to the last generation. Before the millennium can be ushered in, Adam will again appear in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, where all who have held keys of authority in their respective dispensations will stand before Adam and give an accounting. Accordingly, Christ will also stand before His Father Adam. Adam will then give our

23

Savior the necessary commission and keys of authority He will need to reign over the earth for a thousand years (see Daniel 7:13-14; Psalms 2:6-7).

After Christ's millennial work is finished, this world brought to pass and the earth's inhabitants redeemed, the Savior will then deliver up his works to Adam (1 Cor. 15:24) who, in turn, will consecrate it to his Father, and so on. The term "Adam-ondi-Ahman" comes from the original language spoken by Adam, which is referred to as the "language of God." Orson Pratt elaborated on the revealed meaning of this term: We have then an understanding that it was the place where Adam dwelt. Perhaps you may be anxious to know what "Ondi-Ahman" means. It means the place where Adam dwelt. "Ahman" signifies God. The whole term means Valley of God, where Adam dwelt. It is in the original language spoken by Adam, as revealed to the Prophet Joseph (J.D. 18:342-43).

As explained above, Ahman is another word for God the Father. For this reason Jesus is called Son Ahman. By such, Christ revealed Himself in the latter-day scriptures: And let the higher part of the inner court be dedicated unto me for the school of mine apostles, saith Son Ahman; or, in other words, Alphus; or, in other words, Omegus; even Jesus Christ your Lord. Amen (D&C 95:17).

Orson Pratt went on to explain:

There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but [77] probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man."

This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, and Ahman, showing that angels are a little lower than man (J.D. 2:342).

In the above, the reader should note that we, as God's offspring, bear his name as "Sons Ahman." This correlates with Paul's teachings wherein he said; "For this cause I bow my kneesunto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph. 3:14-15). Thus, Christ's Father is Ahman and the whole human family is named after Ahman as Sons Ahman.

At this point, one should note that the whole human family is named after Adam; and therefore Adam must be "Ahman" as our prophets have taught. The word "Adam" is a Hebrew rendition meaning "man" (Ahman). The name of Adam's son is "Son of Man" (Son Ahman). The name of Adam's offspring are "men" or "mankind" (Sons Ahman). Thus, Adam is merely the Hebrew rendition of Ahman.

Therefore when we speak about Adam-ondi-Ahman, we are really talking about the Valley of God, where Adam dwelt as Orson Pratt stated: "Ondi-Ahman means the place where Adam dwelt" (J.D. 18:343).

Thus, the council at Adam-ondi-Ahman prior to the second coming is the council where Father Adam will receive an accounting of all the keys of authority which he delegated at the beginning of the earth. (This is a demonstration of a doctrine later to be defined--that Adam holds the keys over all dispensations [chapter 8], [78] and to the gathering of all things together in one.) At this point, Adam will transfer to Christ all the keys of authority he will need to rule the earth during the thousand years of peace and to see to its exaltation. Then, at the second coming "the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations" (Matt. 25:31-32).

24

I saw in a night vision, and, behold, with the clouds of heaven came one like unto a son of man Jesus, [see also Abraham 3:27], and he went to the Ancient One [Adam-God] and he Jesus] was brought near before him [Adam]. And to him [Jesus] was given dominion and glory and kingship, and all the peoples, nations, and languages will serve him. His dominion shall be an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed (The Messiah Texts, pp. 13-14; Daniel 7:13-14).).

[79] CHAPTER 8

THE RELATIONSHIP OF MICHAEL-ADAM TO JESUS CHRIST

Adam is not only our great common progenitor, he is a priesthood father as well. Indeed, this was the Master's interpretation of the word "father" when he said, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). In the true sense of the word, father is a priesthood office. The patriarchal government among the gods sees each father as a god and each god as a father over his own posterity (J.D 11:262).

Adam, Father of the Human Family

It is exactly in this way that Joseph Smith referred to Adam as father when he said, " 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 great council" (T.PJ.S., p. 157, emphasis added).

One should note that according to Joseph Smith, Adam's authority over mankind originated not as our physical procreator, but in the preexistence where he presided "over the spirits of all men." As Adam presides over the spirits of all men, he would also stand in a presiding position over Jesus Christ. Joseph continued to state that "all who have had the keys must stand before Adam in the grand council." This, again, includes Jesus Christ, who is a key holder in the human family. Why should Christ be subject to Adam, if he (Adam) were not [80] the father of Christ? For, in the priesthood, we find ourselvessubordinate only to our fathers.

Joseph further explained the relationship between Adam and Christ:

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 [Adam] as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his [Adam's] standing as head of the human family (T.P.J.S., p. 157)

In this way the keys of the universe which Adam had obtained in the creation were passed on to Christ our Redeemer. Adam, however, will always maintain his patriarchal standing as our father and head of the human family.

In this council Adam, holding ascendancy over Christ, will exalt Him (Christ) to his (Adam's) glory and dominion by giving unto the Son "all that the Father has." Adam in turn receives a greater glory and dominion from his Father. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children (T.P.J.S., pp. 347-48).

This teaching of Joseph Smith is reflected in the following teaching of Brigham Young:

25

The Savior comes to the father, the Ancient of Days, and presents to the Father the kingdoms of this world all in a saved condition except the sons of perdition and he says, "Here, [81] Father, here they are and I withthem" (L. John Nuttall Papers, May 14, 1876). When Christ has finished his labor and presented it to His Father, then he, Adam, will receive a fullness. That is all easily understood by me. He cannot receive a fullness of the kingdoms he has organized until they are completed (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854).

Indeed, it would appear that Brigham Young learned this doctrine from Joseph Smith, who said,

This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from the Lord but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom [Christ's] to the Father [Adam], which shall be at the end of the last dispensation (T.P.J.S., p. 169).

In Daniel 7:14, the establishment of Christ's kingdom is cross-referenced to Psalms 2:6-7 where he is anointed King upon the holy hill of Zion with a decree that "Thou [Jesus] art my Son; this day I have begotten Thee." The establisher of Christ's kingdom in Psalms is identified as the LORD (Jehovah). SinceDaniel 7:14 and Psalms 2:6-7 are parallel cross-references to the same event, the Ancient of days (Adam) in Daniel 7 must be the LORD identified in Psalms 2. (These cross-references have been deleted from the new LDS Bible edition.)

That the Ancient of days (Adam) is the god to whom Christ presents his kingdom (as per Joseph Smith and Brigham Young above) becomes apparent in the cross-reference of 1 Cor. 15:24. This verse makes reference to the end when Christ, having put all things under His feet, will deliver up His kingdom to God the Father. The original cross-reference to that kingdom is to Daniel 7:14 where Christ is pictured as initially receiving His kingdom from the Ancient of Days (Adam).

Further testimony as to Adam's position as the father of our spirits was given by Joseph Smith on page 167 of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days," or in other [82] words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth.

Here, Joseph credits Michael (a pre-earth deity who became Adam) as being the father of us all. It was Adam who was the progenitor of our physical bodies. Michael ruled over our spirits where he, according to Joseph, was the father of us all. It is by virtue of his standing as the father of our spiritsthat he holds the spiritual blessings over us. Michael was, furthermore, the first to whom the plan of salvation with the calling of the Savior or Christ was made known. And it was here in the pre-existence that Michael (Adam) was given the command to multiply. These he called before him in contemplation of their temporal creation such that he might carry out the command he (Michael) had received from his Father--to multiply and replenish the earth. "The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply" (T.P.J.S., p. 158). … Adam is seen here as the head or the father of the spirits.

Elohim: "Adam, awake. See the woman which we have formed to be a companion and an help meet for you. What will you call her? " Adam answers: "Eve."

26

"Why will you call her Eve?" asks Elohim. "Because she is the mother of all living."

Elohim verifies this by saying: "That is right, Adam; she is the mother of all living."By emphasizing the present tense "is," Elohim shows that Eve is the mother of all living prior to

taking up the mortal flesh; i.e., the mother of all living spirits. Because the above dialogue is spoken prior to Adam's mortal fall, and prior to Eve's bearing him physical offspring, it corroborates the fact that Adam's helpmeet is indeed the mother of all in the spirit creation. Thus Adam is our spiritual procreator "not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings" (T.P.J.S., p. 167).

Brigham Young had merely accepted his calling as a prophet to instruct the saints concerning God when he began teaching the Adam-God doctrine publicly. He was merely telling the saints what they should have learned in the temple of our God when he said:

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.... He is not only the father of our spirits, but of our flesh, he being the founder of that natural machinery through which we have all obtained our bodies . . . 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 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 [84] in his Savior, or elder brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed, and got a glorious resurrection.... I tell you more, Adam is the father of our spirits. He [had] live[d] 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 they were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life. . . . Our spirits and the spirits 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 (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854).

Adam, As a Resurrected Being, Presided Over Christ in the Spirit

Brigham Young said that resurrected beings "have control over matter as well as spirit" J.D. 4:133). "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not" (T.P.J.S., p. 181).

Early Mormon doctrine has it that Adam came to this world as a resurrected being. This theological concept puts Adam at least one generation in progression ahead of Jesus Christ who came to this world as a spirit to obtain a body. Adam, by virtue of having passed through a mortal probation and resurrection, possessed priesthood keys and powers above those held by the pre-mortal spirits of this world. Among these spirits was Jesus Christ. Adam, as a more progressed resurrected being in the preexistence must, then, have had ascendancy over Jesus Christ. This is not a doctrine which arose from Brigham Young, but it is taught in the temple endowment ceremony. According to this ceremony, Adam had a physical body prior to the creation of, and being placed on, the earth in the Garden of Eden. One should also [85] remember that prior to coming to the earth, Michael (Adam) dwelled in the presence of Elohim--a celestial environment. Therefore, his physical body must have been celestialized. Said Orson Pratt:

Jesus Christ . . . gives us hope of escape, of redemption, that we may come forth with the same kind of body that Adam had before the fall, a body of immortal flesh and bone. Adam and Eve were immortal the same as resurrected beings . . . (J.D. 3-344).

There is only one plan for obtaining such a body and that is through mortality and a resurrection.

27

But when you speak of the system of salvation to bring back the children of Adam and Eve into the presence of our Father and God, it is the same in all ages, among all people, and under all circumstances, worlds without end, Amen (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854).

In reflecting on the temple creation account, we see that Adam is not portrayed as having a body created but, rather, is prepared to be placed upon the earth. He is not portrayed as undergoing a birth wherein he receives a body. Elohim causes a sleep to come upon him saying:

Brethren and Sisters, this is Michael who helped form the earth. When he awakes from the sleep which we have caused to come upon him, he will be known as Adam and having forgotten everything, will become as a little child (temple endowment ceremony).

After Adam's memory had been taken, and he had received Eve as his wife, they were then introduced into the Garden of Eden with their physical bodies. Said Elohim:

We will plant a garden eastward in Eden, and there we will put man whom we have formed. Jehovah, introduce Adam into the garden.... The brethren will follow Adam and the sisters will follow Eve, and they will introduce you into the garden (temple endowment ceremony).

This shows that Adam and Eve came to this world with physical bodies which had previously endured God's celestial presence.[86] "Adam, before he fell, was in the presence of God, and could behold the face of his maker, hear his voice, look upon his glory, behold his angels, and associate with those pure and holy beings" (Orson Pratt, J.D. 7:257).

Further testimony as to Adam's previous existence on another world is portrayed in the Adam-Lucifer confrontation in the Garden of Eden (as given in the temple endowment ceremony). The ensuing dialogue between Adam and Lucifer indicates that they each lived on a previous world; however, Adam failed to recall this existence because of the veil over his memory. Lucifer says, "Well, Adam, you have a new world," to which Adam replies with a question, "A new world?"

"Yes," says Lucifer, "a new world, patterned after the old one where we used to live.""I know nothing of any other world," Adam answers."Oh, I see, your eyes are not yet opened."This dialogue is subject to deeper interpretation (ME: suggestion is that Satan was a son of

perdition from Adam’s world) but is sufficient here to show that Adam indeed lived in a previousphysical existence. This correlates with other creation statements made by Jehovah to Michael: "Michael, see, here is matter unorganized. We will organize it into a world like unto the other worlds that we have heretofore formed" (temple endowment ceremony).

The temple endowment ceremony, as we have seen, reflects elements of the Adam-God doctrine. Of this ceremony Heber C. Kimball said, "These endowments are to prepare you for exaltation in the celestial kingdom." We prepare for exaltation by learning the process through which we must pass to become gods. This process is portrayed in the endowment ceremony with each man and woman acting as though he or she were an Adam or Eve of the earth. This is symbolic of the time when they (if faithful) will become Adams or Eves of an earth. The following is quoted from an account of the endowment ceremony as given in the Nauvoo temple in 1846:

[87] It will readily be perceived by the intelligent reader that this whole ceremony is designed to represent a certain thing and what has been acted in the two rooms already described, consists altogether in a preparation of what follows.... I am now placed in a certain position on the floor designed to

28

represent a certain thing, and that is Adam in embryo (printed by Killner, 1847, Albany; emphasis mine). (ME: you must consider yourselves respectively as Adam and Eve)

One should note that according to the succession of events in our present-day endowment account, a man must first be ordained an elder, then washed and anointed, and given his garments before he can go through the ceremony of the creation. This is because before a man can go through and receive his exaltation and become an Adam to an earth he must first pass through all the laws and ordinances to the gospel on a mortal earth. He must first receive the priesthood and his endowments, then live all the laws of God and obtain a celestial glory.

Brigham Young's teachings are nothing more than an amplification of what was originally revealed to Joseph Smith as a part of the temple ceremony.

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, L. John Nuttall Journal, Feb. 7, 1887).

Michael (Adam) as a more progressed deity, as taught by the temple endowment ceremony and by Brigham Young, has ascendancy over our Savior Jesus Christ. In the words of Joseph Smith: "He(Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men" (T.P.J.S., p. 157), even Jesus Christ.

Adam Holds and Oversees the Priesthood Keys to This Earth

In keeping with his position of deity to this world, Adam is seen in a presiding position over Jesus Christ in [88] the priesthood and its keys. It is only fitting that the presiding position in the priesthood with its keys should belong to the highest administrative deity. It will be seen that the keys topreside over and control the priesthood of the earth are held by Adam in ascendancy to Jesus Christ. The reader should be apprised that this, again, is no doctrinal idea of Brigham Young, but like all Adam-God teachings, goes back to the founder of our dispensation, Joseph Smith. Joseph said:

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority (T.P.J.S., p. 157).

Joseph sees Adam, here, in a position of priesthood overseership, a position of controlling the keys and knowledge of the priesthood to this world. For when the priesthood keys are brought from heaven to earth, it must be by Adam's authority.

In further explaining Adam's position in the priesthood, Joseph traced the priesthood power and keys back to their origin from Peter, James and John through Christ and then next to Adam. In tracing priesthood succession, Joseph states:

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next (T.P.J.S., p. 158).

It should be noted that Joseph is talking here about the order of priesthood descent and not the stature or relationship of Adam to Christ. In tracing priesthood descent, Joseph begins with Peter, James and John, who received their priesthood from Christ; then from Christ (who is the Great High Priest) the priesthood

29

keys are next traced to Adam. This quotation, because of its poor grammatical structure has been a source of confusion and misunderstanding to many. However, it is obvious that Joseph is here speaking of priesthood descent and not the [89] degree of grandeur between Christ and Adam. The direction of thatdescent is retrograde in time back to Adam, with Adam standing next to (immediately preceding) Christ. Joseph explained further:

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 [me: including Christ]. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in this [his] day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven (T.P.J.S., p. 157).

Said Wilford Woodruff:

Father Adam stands at the head, so far as this world is concerned. Of course, Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest of Salvation of the human family. But Adam holds those keys [of the presidency] in the world today; he will hold them to the endless ages of eternity. And Noah and every man who has ever held or will hold the keys of the Presidency of the kingdom of God, from that day until the scene is wound up, will have to stand before Father Adam and give an account of the keys of that Priesthood (Deseret Weekly News, vol. 38, p. 389).

The reader should note that Adam received his priesthood keys in the creation before the formation of the earth and has held the keys from generation to generation. Joseph makes reference to a first presidency in this priesthood consisting of Adam and Noah. This presidency is similar to the priesthood presidencies over each dispensation (see T.P.J.S., p. 169), with Noah standing next to Adam in this presidency. (This logic here speaks for itself, with Adam having the largest posterity and Noah the next largest.) Since the keys in this presidency are held (collectively as a presidency) "first on earth, and then in heaven," this indicates that this patriarchal first presidency pertains to the generation of this earth, as these men collectively form a first presidency to bring to pass the second phase or:

[90] . . . the last of my [the Lord's] work [from temporal to spiritual]. For by the power of my Spirit created I them . . . both spiritual and temporal . . . first spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work (D&C 29:31-32).

From the foregoing, we see that the Lord's work begins spiritually, passes through a temporal phase and then is ultimately redeemed spiritually. Adam and Noah comprise the first presidency that is bringing to pass the second phase—from temporal to spiritual--as indicated by the fact that these men collectively held keys "first on earth, and then in heaven" (T.P.J.S., p. 157).

Adam, as an independent being, however, has keys and power above those held in common with Noah in their first presidency, for it is to be noted that Adam received his individual keys first, and obtained them "in the creation, before the world was formed" (T.P.J.S., p. 157), which is the spiritual creation. The spiritual creation is the "beginning of the Lord's work . . . for by the power of my spirit created I them . . . first spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work" (D&C 29:31-32). Some have used the above quotation from Joseph Smith to show that Adam received no priesthood keys prior to coming to earth. However, as above indicated, Adam received his independent keys "in the creation, before the world was formed"--the spiritual creation. Adam and Noah collectively, however, received a joint appointment and keys that pertain to the temporal phase of the Lord's plan.

30

Adam Holds the Keys to All of the Dispensations of the Earth

As proof of Adam's independent position as presiding in the priesthood over this earth Joseph said: "The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority" (T.P.J.S., p. 157). "The keys [91] were first given to Him [Adam], and by Him to others" (T.P.J.S., p. 158).

Adam's exalted priesthood position as a deity above Christ was further elucidated by Joseph Smith when he said, "This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam" (T.P.J.S., p. 169). As seen here, the head of each earthly dispensation possesses the priesthood keys to his respective dispensation. However, Adam is seen to hold the keys over all the dispensations of this earth. This puts Jesus Christ, as a key holder to his dispensation, in a subordinate position to Adam whose keys encompass those of Christ. Joseph delineates the nature of the priesthood powers and keys which oversee the keys of the kingdom of God throughout all dispensations:

There are two Priesthoods spoken of in the scriptures, viz., the Melchizedek and the Aaronic or Levitical. Although there are two priesthoods, yet the Melchizedek Priesthood comprehends the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth; and is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven (T.P.J.S., pp. 166-67).

Who is it that holds this the highest authority that "controls the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven"? Joseph Smith tells us that it is Adam.

Adam . . . is Michael . . . to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth (T.P.J.S., p. 167).

From the above, we see that Adam holds the keys to and oversees the revealment of Jesus Christ to all mankind. This would logically include all knowledge, [92] doctrine and the plan of salvation. Hence, whenever the gospel is revealed from heaven it is by Adam's authority (T.P.J.S., p. 157). This is further supported by the following teachings of Joseph:

And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them (T.P.J.S., p. 168).

Thus, any revealment of the gospel comes ultimately through Adam's keys and authority. From this one might speculate that Adam must therefore hold the keys to and oversee all the dispensations of this earth. And indeed this is the case.

Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times, i.e., the dispensation of all the times [that] have been and will be revealed through him [Adam] from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed (T.P.J.S., p. 167).

31

From the foregoing, we see that Christ, in establishing His meridian dispensation, revealed Himself and the gospel not through the independence of His own godship but under the direction of Adam and Adam's keys. Therefore, Jesus functions under the immediate direction of Adam's authority and keys.

Adam's overseership does not limit itself to the spiritual blessings or the ordinances of the dispensations but extends itself to the personal revelation of our Savior. Whenever the Savior has been revealed to the world, it has been by Adam's authority. It is Adam ". . . through whom Christ has beenrevealed from heavens, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth" (T.P.J.S., p. 167). Hence it is by Adam's authority that Christ is personally revealed, and through Adam that Christ will continue to be revealed. In this light, Adam would likely [93] be the Father who revealed His Son to Joseph Smith. It was Adam who revealed Christ to the world saying, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17). It is Father Adam who reveals the Son unto those who qualify as sons of perdition: "The Father . . . saves all the work of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him" (D&C 76:43).

The concepts of this chapter are best summarized by Brigham Young in the following quotation:

. . . Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam, what a humiliating circumstance it would be! Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass"; and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass"; then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam (J.D. 5:331-32).

[95] CHAPTER 9

WAS BRIGHAM YOUNG MISQUOTED?…Brigham Young's mind was continually open to vision from the Almighty. "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to doin order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office" (J.D. 13:95).

… Brigham, in 1852,made public the Adam-God doctrine. It was disclosed in a priesthood conference in the old tabernacle on April 9, 1852. Brigham spoke of the mysteries, noting that many elders desired to know them. He stated that the proper place for the mysteries to be taught is "here" in Salt Lake where the "fountain" and"body of the saints" are. Following this introduction, Brigham then proclaimed that he was about to reveal a "mystery in the kingdom" to both saint and sinner. Furthermore, this mystery is "in regard to the character of . . . the Son of God." The flow of the sermon passes from the nature of Christ to the nature ofAdam and then back to Christ as Adam's son.

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 nonprofessing, 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.

32

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.... 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, [97] pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation (J.D. 1:50-51; emphasis in the original).

… The author has in his possession over 800 pages of excerpts (not full discourses) by Brigham Youngdeclaring Adam's divinity. To claim that Brigham Young was misquoted or [98] misrecorded is an admission of one's ignorance. For a partial compilation of Brigham's discourses concerning Adam God, see bibliography.… The Charles C. Rich contradiction is often cited in support of this view.

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 misquotation as it appears in the Journal of Discourses, and in his own hand he wrote the following as the corrected 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." Some of the reporters at the Tabernacle in those days were not as skilled 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 had 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" (Adam, Who is He? 1976 ed., pp. 16-17; emphasis added).

The above argument is more contrived than real. It is asserted that the marginal corrections made in the Journal of Discourses belonging to Charles C. Rich were made by Rich himself. It alleges Rich to have been present at the 1852 discourse. This is a curious set of circumstances. One wonders why the Charles C. Rich [99] Journal of Discourses is the only corrected version of the discourse in all of church history and literature. Was Charles C. Rich the only person to note the discrepancy between the verbal discourse and the printed version? Why had no one else made a similar notation or mention of such a discrepancy? Or, why did Brigham Young allow the publication of his misquoted discourse in England in the year 1853 (Millennial Star, vol. 15, pp. 769, 801)? Or why did Brigham himself not make public correction setting forth the true doctrine?

It is claimed that the marginal notations were made by Charles C. Rich. However, this not the case. The note at the bottom of page 51 of volume 1 of the Journal of Discourses in question reads: "As corrected above is what Prest. Young said as testified to me by my father C. C. Rich, Ben E. Rich." Hence, the correction was made by Ben E. Rich. The story now appears to be hearsay and is of considerably less importance since it is only secondhand information. Furthermore, Donald T. Schmidt,church scholar and historian, said of the notation:

I am sorry that I am unable to identify the exact date when Ben E. Rich made the note in his copy of the Journal of Discourses . . . . There is no indication that Charles C. Rich wrote anything in his diary about the sermon which Brigham Young gave.... I feel certain that the notes in the Journal of Discourses were done in the latter part of the 19th century" (Letter from Donald T. Schmidt to Mr. Dirlan, 14 April 1977).

33

Not only is this account and information now second-hand, but may have been recorded a half-century after the fact! And may, in fact, be spurious--and indeed the historical facts bear this out. The facts indicate that Charles C. Rich was twelve days' travel by wagon outside the Salt Lake Valley when Brigham Young delivered his 1852 discourse and, therefore, was in no position to testify as to what Brigham Young said. Charles C. Rich left San Bernardino, California, by wagon en route to SaltLake Valley on March 24, 1852. (L. Arrington, Charles C. Rich, Mormon General and Western Frontiersman, p. 173). [100] He arrived in the Salt Lake Valley on April 21, 1852, twelve daysafter Brigham's famous speech (Journal History under date; Deseret Weekly, May 1, 1852).

It would appear that not only is the Ben E. Rich story second-hand and belatedly reported, but bogus as well.

One might inquire as to what others present at the 1852 discourse had recorded in their diaries concerning the sermon. The diary of Hosea Stout under April 9, 1852, reveals the following: "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 body and more hereafter." Hosea Stout gives us here a first-hand testimony that leaves no room for doubt as to what Brigham Young actually taught on that occasion. Hosea Stout's reflections on the discourse are also consistent with subsequent Brigham Youngteachings concerning Adam. Whereas the Charles C. Rich account is at variance with Brigham's teachings.

The real origin of the notes in the Charles C. Rich Journal of Discourses can only be speculated to have been written to serve the private purpose of whoever wrote them. Furthermore, it has not been conclusively shown that the notes were even written by Ben E. Rich.

It has been argued that Brigham Young's 1852 discourse does not definitely identify Adam as the father of Christ in the flesh. Although this argument is literally true, the spirit of the discourse does declare Adam as the same character that was in the Garden of Eden and who begot Jesus in the flesh. Here was no question in Hosea Stout's mind that Brigham had reference to Adam as the Father of Christ. (See his journal entry under April 9, 1852, cited above.)

Subsequent teachings by Brigham Young carry no shadow of doubt as to the identity of the Savior's Father: Adam . . . had begotten all the spirits that were to come to this earth, and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living, bore those spirits in the celestial world.... Father [101] Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written (Discourse delivered by Brigham Young, Feb. 7, 1877, as recorded by his secretary and scribe, L. John Nuttall, in the L. John Nuttall Journals under date). The God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the father of our spirits.... I tell you more, Adam is the father of our spirits . . . our spirits and the spirits of all the heavenly family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 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 (M.A.B.Y., Feb. 19, 1854; also Wilford Woodruff Journal, under date). 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 (J.D. 1:51).

Much of the misquotation furvor arises from a personal bias toward the Journal of Discourses wherein many Adam-God teachings are contained. The "journals" have been discredited as being "unreliable" and "full of errors." Some even dispute the authenticity of entire Adam-God sermons.

However, concerning the "journals" John A. Widtsoe said:

As he [Brigham Young] traveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851, to August 19, 1877) were

34

published in the Journal of Discourses, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved. (Widtsoe, Discourses of Brigham Young, p. vi; emphasis added).

Furthermore, it becomes apparent to those who read the Journal of Discourses that "the journals" were considered part of the "standard works of the church" by the general authorities who published them. Said George Q. Cannon, as a member of the First Presidency:

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every right minded Saint [102] will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of "the light that shines from Zion's hill" (Preface to J.D. vol. 8).

Whether or not one accepts the Journal of Discourses as part of the standard works depends entirely on his bias. However, the Lord's counsel to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21) can readily be accepted as our guide.

Another area of confusion is citations of Brigham Young wherein he speaks of both the Father, or God, and Adam as two distinct beings. From such a distinction one might conclude that Brigham Young was asserting that Adam is not God. The following quotation serves as an excellent example: "The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are coworkers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of this earth" (J.D. 8:174).

This issue is most lucidly resolved in Rodney Turner's thesis wherein he states:

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" (J.D. 10:231). "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. 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" (J.D. 13:311). These 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 [103] statements must be discarded as being false. If, however, he has not contradicted himself, then we are faced with the task of harmonizing seemingly opposing views. Basing the decision on an application of 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 of 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 earth--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--but an endless line of Gods pertaining to other worlds and universes as well.... 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" (D&C 76:22-24), 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." Again, this differentiation between

35

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 undeniably specific terms, in order to justify and sustain [104] uncertain interpretations of his intent in general ones (R. Turner, The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint Scripture and Theology, pp. 54-58; emphasis added).

It is often assumed that the contemporaries of Brigham Young mention nothing of the Adam-God doctrine in their private journals. This, of course, is difficult to evaluate if one does not have access to these journals. Recently, however, many of these journals have received wide enough circulation to refute this assumption. The following from Wilford Woodruff's private journal more than document the point in question:

At meeting of School of the Prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and was our God and that Joseph taught this Principle. He [Brigham Young] said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ--our God was no more or less than Adam, Michael the Archangel (Dec. 16, 1867; Feb. 19, 1854).

Summary

We see that Brigham Young undisputedly taught, throughout the term of his presidency, that Adam (Michael) is the father of our spirits as well as our flesh. He taught that Adam (Michael) was the father of Jesus Christ in the spirit as well as the flesh. Arguments that Brigham Young was misquoted ormisrepresented or that he really meant otherwise are either admissions of ignorance or opposition to his teachings.

[105] CHAPTER 10

WAS BRIGHAM YOUNG WRONG?

Reaction to Brigham's teachings has polarized thought into two camps: the believers and the nonbelievers.

The Believers: This is a heterogenious group of people, most of whom have, or have had, some affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fundamental to their belief is the understanding that Brigham Young was a prophet of God and that his Adam-God teachings were authoritatively expounded within the purview of his prophetic calling, therefore these teachings are considered true.

The Nonbelievers: Within this class fall two subgroups: 1) the uncommitted and 2) the disbelievers:

36

The Uncommitted: The existence of this group offers a comfortable third alternative to those who feel that sufficient information on which to base a more definitive decision has not yet been brought to the fore. This group certainly does not demean the need for spiritual confirmation, but just as appropriately feels that a confirmation is both consistent and commensurate with objective data. Accordingly, the current weight of objective data lends itself neither to a confirmation of truth nor to a falsehood.

The Disbelievers: This category rejects the Adam-God concept with its attendant implications as false. This group can be subdivided into two categories--those who [106] regard the church as false and those who regard the church as true.

Those who reject the church view the Adam-God doctrine as defacto evidence of the church's apostate nature. They view Brigham as having taught false doctrine, which in turn qualifies him as a false prophet. It is maintained that God would never lead his people by means of a false prophet or by one who would advance an erroneous concept of God.

This group includes opposing religious denominations as well as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who upon discovering the church's earlier teachings on Adam-God reject the same with the church as wayward.

Those who disbelieve the doctrine, yet hold to the belief that the church is true, do so by adhering to one or more of the following proposals:

1. That Brigham Young did not teach the Adam-God doctrine but was in fact misinterpreted, misrepresented or misrecorded. 2. That Brigham did teach the Adam-God doctrine and was wrong, but that these teachings were not church doctrine. 3. That Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God doctrine and was wrong, but he was merely expressing a personal opinion or idea. 4. That Brigham did teach the Adam-God doctrine and was wrong, but while enunciating these teachings he was not acting within the purview of his prophetic calling. 5. That Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God doctrine and was wrong but Brigham was doing God's bidding as the Lord wanted the saints, at that point in their progression, to believe false doctrine. 6. That Brigham did teach the Adam-God doctrine which was then true but is no longer true today. 7. That Brigham, knowing that true sheep always [107] recognize their master's voice, deliberately advanced false doctrine as a means of separating the wheat from the tares. 8. That Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God doctrine and was wrong, but God has tolerance for the mortal mistakes of men whether they be a prophet or not. In other words, a prophet can make a mistake and still remain a prophet.

The varied nature of the above hypotheses underscores the difficulty modern theorists have in harmonizing the past with the present. Collectively, the above suggests the construction of hypotheses to explain a foregone conclusion. And certainly there is nothing wrong with this technique so long as the validity of each hypothesis is tested. However, the tendency has been to propose such a hypothesis without ever subjecting it to analytical thought. When the validity of a hypothesis is thus not tested, it becomes an excuse. Let us, then, examine the above proposals as rational hypotheses for rejecting Brigham's Adam-God teachings while maintaining a belief in the church.

First is the claim to misinterpretation or misrecording. As brought out in the preceding chapter, this claim until recently had been the time-honored rebuttal to almost all Adam-God inquiries. Within this fantasy all shadow of mystery and contradiction are effectively dispelled with a single misconception. The suppressed nature of Adam-God material has made it difficult for the average gospel student to evaluatethis claim. However, the plethora of recently surfaced information leads to no other conclusion than that Brigham was neither misquoted nor misrepresented nor misinterpreted but that he actually taught and believed Adam to be our spiritual procreator. With this knowledge now in broad daylight, the claim

37

to misrecording or misinterpretation has only heightened intrigue and undermined the credibility of such claimants.

The second, and certainly a more innovative proposal, is the assertion that Brigham's Adam-God [108] teachings were never church doctrine and therefore not binding on the saints. Supporters of this view state that all formal doctrines must be passed by the church through common consent. This argument is not germane to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The question is not whether it was church doctrine but whether or not it is true. Truth is equally binding on every Latter-day Saint whether formalized as doctrine or not. Falsehood, on the other hand, can never be made binding on any member even if formalized as church doctrine. Many issues throughout church history serve to illustrate this point. Plural marriage prior to 1852 was not formal church doctrine, yet it was true and incumbent upon those to whom it had been revealed. The fact that Brigham's teachings may not have been formal church doctrine does not excuse him for advancing falsehood. What must be explained is how a true prophet can teach a false concept of God.

On the same basis early Adam-God teachings cannot be excused as one man's personal opinion. Furthermore, the claim to personal opinion is dispelled as it becomes obvious that Brigham advanced his Adam-God teachings within the purview of his calling as a prophet. As such, these teachings were intended to become a part of the life of every Latter-day Saint. This is borne out if one examines the doctrine from the standpoint of who taught it, under what circumstances it was taught, who believed it and the extent to which it permeated the church.

The Adam-God doctrine was taught not by Brigham Young alone, but was infused into every avenue of gospel and doctrinal input. Within the temple, it was taught in both literal and symbolic form. It is found in the sermons and writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and other church authorities. Church publications such as the Deseret News and Elders' Journal became proselyting tools for the Adam-God doctrine. It was also taught in missionary publications, and is reflected in the contemporary writings of the time. In short, the Adam-God doctrine was intended to become an [109] expansion on the concept of God and to be an integral part of every saint's belief in God. It permeated every facet of Mormon ideology. Its permeation was so extensive that, to this day, it has not been rooted out.

That Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine has been amply documented in the preceding chapters. He repeatedly taught this doctrine throughout his tenure as president of the church.He seemingly seized every opportunity to teach it. It was taught in the School of the Prophets, semiannual general conference, semiannual priesthood conference, in the temple, as well as in private.

Orson Pratt was severely chastized and brought to repentance for his disbelief and opposition to Adam-God. "Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness and unbelief in what President Young said that willdestroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil way" (Wilford Woodruff Journal, March 11, 1856). Can we truly believe that Brigham was only voicing a personal opinion when he should have been discharging his responsibility as a prophet of God? What then did Brigham really mean when he said: "How much unbelief exists 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?" (Deseret News, June 18, 1873). In Brigham's own words, he received the doctrine by revelation from God. Perhaps this is why he warned the Latter-day Saints that a belief in Adam-God would become a matter of their salvation or damnation (J.D. 1:51). It certainly would not appear that Brigham was only expressing personal ideas or personal belief in Adam-God. Furthermore, Brigham classified his Adam-God teachings on a par with baptism for the dead. 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 [110] derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism for the dead instead of Joseph Smith,

38

there are those around me who would have ridiculed the idea until doomsday. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1861).

Nor can it be argued that Brigham was not acting as a prophet when he enunciated his teachings. Consider the following given to the Deseret Theological Institute on April 25, 1855:

We cannot know the only wise God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. No man can have this knowledge but those to who God reveals it.... 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 it 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 enable you to appreciate it.... When we can see that very character [Michael] and talk and live with him in our tabernacles, if we are so fortunate as to get there into his society, then we can say that to us there is but one living and true God, and he is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our spirits. And when we get back to him and learn that he is actually our father, we shall not feel any anxiety to call upon anybody else for the blessings we are in need of. 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 others; 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 mind and to my feelings those matters are all plain and easy to be understood (M.A.B.Y.).

It is difficult to interpret the above as a nonprophet advancing personal speculation, for Brigham claims his Adam-God insights to have come through the Spirit of [111] God and is admonishing others to obtain the same spirit of revelation.

Was Brigham not acting as a prophet when he addressed the school of prophets in 1867 saying that "Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God" (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 16, 1867)? Was Brigham in 1852 not acting as a prophet when, while presiding over semiannual priesthood conference, he told the priesthood body that "here (Utah where the priesthood presides) is the place for you to teach great mysteries to your brethren, because here are those who can correct you" and then defined himself as overseer of that priesthood: "I am the controller and master of affairs here, under heaven . . . "? Certainly he was. After having set this stage he continues as the controller of that priesthood by revealing a mystery to the world: "Now, hear it, O inhabitants of the earth.... He [Michael] is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (J.D. 1:47-50).

From the context of Brigham's sermons it becomes apparent that Brigham felt he was acting within his prophetic calling when he taught that Adam was God. He continually maintained that "it is my duty to see that correct doctrine is taught and to guard the Church from errors--it is my calling" (Brigham Young, minutes of meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve in the Historian's Office April 4, 1860, Brigham Young papers, Church Historian's Office).

Could it be that Brigham was actually a true prophet who had paid the price to know the mysteries of godliness, whereas the disbelievers had not? Would this, then, not be to their damnation? Where in the history of God's dealings with mankind was the populace ever more advanced in their concepts and beliefs in God than the prophet of God? To the contrary, the masses have never been willing to "pay the price." God has never chosen a prophet who was not willing to "pay the price."

Was Brigham, then, teaching false doctrine under [112] the Lord's direction? Did God want the church to believe false doctrine?

39

To this one should ask: When has God ever desired that mankind believe falsehoods, let alone a false notion of His identity? This hypothesis is totally without precedent. If indeed this hypothesis is true then our concept of a God of truth must be called into question.

Was the Adam-God doctrine true in Brigham's day whereas it is false today? This theory necessarily concludes that Adam was God during Brigham Young's presidency but is no longer Godtoday. This claim completely undermines a gospel of logic and consistency. Faith in God rests on the foundation that He is unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Did Brigham deliberately advance false doctrine as a means of separating the wheat from tares? That there has been an extreme polarization (a sifting process?) over Brigham's teachings is true. However, closer analysis does not support the idea that Brigham considered his teachings false. Can we not take Brigham at his word when he said: "Some have grumbled because I believe God to be so near to us as Father Adam" (J.D. 5:331)?

This author maintains that Brigham was too consistent and too persuasive to have deliberately advanced a falsehood. He, as a prophet of God, repeatedly claimed to have received his knowledge by revelation. Would he go to that extreme to propagate a falsehood? If so, then none of his words havecredibility.

Why, furthermore, were members excommunicated for a disbelief in Adam-God?And who were the supposed tares that supported a belief in Brigham's teachings? They include

almost every general authority of the church up to 1900. In 1860, for example, Orson Pratt was called before Brigham and the other apostles to account for, among other things, his anti-Adam-God teachings. It isinteresting that of all the inspired church leaders Orson Pratt alone stood in opposition to Brigham's teachings. Had other quorum [113] members had grave reservations about Adam-God, they might easily have sided with Orson. Yet they, to the man, sided with Brigham. Orson was called to repentance and pressured into a recantation. Within the benediction that concluded that meeting we find the brethren praying that a

. . . double of thy spirit may rest upon him [Orson Pratt]. Let his [Orson Pratt's] mind be clear, divest him of selfishness and hardness of heart, and may he [Orson Pratt] be filled with the Holy Ghost that he [Orson Pratt] may subject himself to his Brethren, comfort his [Orson Pratt's] heart, and rend the veil of unbelief, cause that the scabs of blindness to fall from his eyes, that he may see, and his ears to hear the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, soften his heart as a little child to the will of his Brethren and reconcile himself to the will of our God (Minutes of Meeting of Council of the Twelve in Historian's Office, April 5, 1860, Brigham Young Papers, Church Historian's Office).

From the tenor of the above meeting and prayer it would appear that Orson Pratt rather than leaning with the wheat was leaning with the tares. He obviously needed to be reconciled with God and his prophet.

If Brigham played such a game as to deliberately advance false doctrine he was indeed the man for the job, for he appeared to have fooled everyone including the Quorum of the Twelve.

Furthermore, if Brigham did deliberately advance false doctrine, one has no assurance--save by the Holy Spirit--that he is not being misled today. Such a hypothesis completely undermines the authoritative structure of the church, for one can never be sure that what he is told is really true.

Adam-God Teachings of Early Church Leaders

At this point we should consider the former pervasiveness of the Adam-God doctrine within the church. Brigham was not alone in voicing the Adam-God doctrine. The following is an example of other church leaders who felt it necessary to proclaim that doctrine. [114] Joseph Smith: His teachings on Adam-God have been reviewed in chapter 8, and will be further reviewed in chapter 11.

Heber C. Kimball (apostle), as given in Journal of Discourses 4:1:

40

I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the Lord that pertains to this earth--the first man. That first man sent his own son to redeem the world.

The "first man" referred to by Kimball was declared by Joseph Smith to be Adam (T.P.J.S., p. 167).

Franklin D. Richards (apostle), as taken from the Millennial Star (vol. 17, pp. 785-86):

Not only do the Old and New Testaments, and other ancient and modern revelations through the Holy Priesthood assert the fact, but mankind of every grade, condition, and religion, whether Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, or pagan, all believe in leading personages or influences which are the sources of good and evil. One of these is God, the Father Michael or Adam, from whose loins the earth is peopled, and who is now laboring for the redemption of his children.

George Q. Cannon (apostle): "God is the being who walked in the Garden of Eden, and who talked with the prophets" (Millennial Star, vol. 51, p. 278). And Apostle Abraham H. Cannon recorded his father's private teachings in his own journal under date of June 23, 1889.

He [George Q.] believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God; that under certain unknown conditions the benefits of the Savior's atonement extended to our entire solar system.... He asked me what I understood concerning Mary conceiving the Savior; and as I found no answer, he asked what was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus. Then said I: "He must have been a resurrected Being." "Yes," said he, "and though Christ is said to have been the first fruits of them that slept, yet the Savior said he did nothing but what He had seen His Father do, for He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. Adam, though made [115] of dust, was made, as President Young said, of the dust of another planet than this." I was very much interested by the conversation and this day's services (Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Sunday, Special Collections, B.Y.U. Library).

President Joseph E. Taylor: The following remarks were made in the Logan temple in June 1888:

I think these two quotations from such a reliable authority fully solve the question as to the relationship existing between Father Adam and the Savior of the world, and prove beyond question the power that Adam possessed in regard to taking his body [up] again after laying [it] down--which power he never could have attained unless he had first a resurrection from the grave to a condition of immortality. We further say that this power was not forfeited when as a celestial being he voluntarily partook of the forbidden fruit and thereby rendered his body mortal in order that he might become the father of mortal tabernacles, as he was already the father of immortal spirits--thus giving opportunity to the offspring of his own begotten to pass through the ordeals necessary to prepare them for a resurrection from the dead, a celestial glory (Deseret Weekly, Dec. 29, 1888).

Teachings of the Temple: As a culminating ordinance, the endowment ceremony dramatizes man's quest for eternal progression. Essential to that progress is the knowledge imparted by the temple ceremony by which one comes to know God. This knowledge is available to the temple initiate for hispersonal edification. It is within the temple walls that these "higher," more "edifying" principles are taught with the confidential reverence they deserve.

Prior to 1900 the Mormon temple ceremony taught with verbal explicitness the divine relationship of Adam to us as his spiritual offspring. If the endowment recipient had not received this

41

knowledge in symbolic form by the time he reached the veil, it was given him in a "summary lecture" or 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. [116] L. John Nuttall, acting as temple recorder under Brigham's direction, recorded that lecture and helped prepare it in final form. The following, taken from L. John Nuttall's journal of February 7, 1877, represents the substance of that veil 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."

We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them. But we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read, "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well, he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made, but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; he had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and 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 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 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. 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 [117] interpreted that the man Adam, like all other men, had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently, she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression, not the man. Now in the law of 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 a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood. [Four blank lines in the manuscript here.] 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 spirit to Mary and she conceived.) For when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came (Diary of L. John Nuttall, February 7, 1877, Special Collections, B.Y.U. Library).

42

From the foregoing and from other corroborative sources (see chapter 14), the following Adam-God concepts are known to have been part of the veil lecture:

1. That Adam and Eve were created from the dust of another world. 2. That Adam and Eve came to this earth as immortal resurrected beings. 3. That Adam and Eve are the procreative parents of our spirits.

These concepts remained an explicit part of the temple ceremony under the direction of presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and [118] Lorenzo Snow. The fact that these teachings remained part of the temple ceremony under their respective administrations implies that each president gave his personal endorsement to those teachings. Under the administration of Joseph F. Smith, however, persecution and disbelief necessitated the removal of these teachings from the temple ceremony placing them beyond the scorn of the disbelieving (see chapters 13 and 14 for the evolutionary withdrawal of the Adam-God doctrine).

Adam-God Reflected through Mormon Hymns

Hymns, sung in praise to God, depict the degree of Adam-God indoctrination. They also reveal the God to whom those praises were being sung. "We Believe in Our God" appeared in an 1856 British hymn book:

WE BELIEVE IN OUR GOD

We believe in our God, the 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 brothers and sisters came down from above, To die, to redeem them from death, and to teach To mortals and spirits the gospel we preach.

"Michael Is the Eternal Father" appeared in the domestic hymn books in the early 1850s. It clearly identifies Michael as the Eternal Father and instructs us to worship Him. This has been altered to read more innocuously in our current hymn book.

MICHAEL IS THE ETERNAL FATHER

Sons of Michael, he approaches! Rise, the Eternal Father greet; Bow, ye thousands, low before him; Minister before his feet;

Hail the Patriarch's reign, Established now o'er sea and main!

[119] Adam-God and LDS Poetry

43

Latter-day saint poetry reflects the degree to which the Adam-God doctrine found its way into the lives of the saints. Eliza R. Snow, wife of Joseph Smith, penned her belief in Adam-God in her "The Ultimatum of Human Life" (Poems, Religious, Historical, and Political, Eliza R. Snow, vol. II, pp. 5-10).

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been Subject to sorrow in a world of sin; Through long graduation he arose to be Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty. And what to him is his probative sphere, Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or 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 fiftieth 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 and 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.

Thus said the Seraph--Sacred in my heart I cherish all his precious words impart; And humbly pray, I ever may, as now, With holy def'rence in his presence bow.[120] The field of thought he open'd to my view,

My wonder rous'd--my admiration too; I marveled at the silly childishness Of saints, the heirs of everlasting bliss, The candidates for Godheads and for worlds, As onward time, eternities unfurls, I felt my littleness, and thought, henceforth I'll be myself, the humblest saint on earth;

44

And all that God shall to my care assign, I'll recognize and use as His, not mine. Wherever he appoints to me a place, That will I seek, with diligence, to grace; And for my Parents, whatsoe'er my lot, To work with all my might, and murmer not, I'll seek their interest, till they send or come, And as a faithful daughter take me home.

As thus I mus'd, the lovely queen of night, 'Neath heav'n's blue canopy, diffus'd her light; Still brighter beams o'er earth's horizon play@ A cheering prelude to approaching day, When truth's full glory will o'erspread the skies, And the bright "Sun of Righteousness arise."

William W. Phelps, a confidante of Joseph Smith and one of the presidents in the Zion Stake, reflected his belief in Adam-God as in the following verse (Deseret News, Oct. 12, 1865):

O may the saints be perfect As God our Father was,

When he got back to Eden By her celestial laws.

Secular Writings

In the secular writings of Edward Tullige, we find the following in his Women of Mormondom, which was coauthored by Eliza R. Snow (p. 179):

Adam is our Father and God. He is the God of the earth. Adam is the great archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He's the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ--the father of Him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of men. Adam![121] Michael is one of the grand mystical names in the works of creations, redemptions, and resurrections. Jehovah is the second and the higher name. Elohim, signifying the Gods, is the first name of the celestial trinity.... Michael was a celestial, resurrected being, of another world.

Church Publications

Church newspapers and periodicals (Deseret News, Elder's Journal, Journal of Discourses, The Contributor, etc.), all previously quoted in this work, were indoctrination media for teaching the Adam-God doctrine. Missionary publications were used to teach the local saints as well as the proselytingmissionaries the true gospel doctrine. In many of these we find strong Adam-God teachings. The voice of the gospel to the British saints was the Millennial Star. Volume 15 carried the following article written by Samuel W. Richards, who was personally acquainted with Joseph Smith and his teachings. Richards was the brother to F. D. Richards, at that time an apostle.

45

Our father Adam--the extracts from the Journal of Discourses (vol. 1, p. 50) 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 truths (vol. 15, p. 780). Then Adam is really God! And why not? If there are Lords many and Gods many, as the scriptures inform us, why should not our Father Adam be one of them (vol. 15, p. 801)? 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, than hunt for another and take up with the devil. Whoever is acknowledged Father must have the rights and honor that belong to him. No man may ever expect to attain to more then he is willing others should enjoy. If these things have power to disturb the pure mind, we comprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ's incarnation (vol 15, p. 825)

[122] In volume 16, page 482, of the Millennial Star we find that the British saints were lacking in faith on one principle--Adam-God.

The same Adam-God teachings were preached to the saints in the Southern Indian Mission: "Then Michael came down with his wife and began to people it. Michael had his body from the dust of the planet he was begotten on, he obeyed his Lord, was faithful and obedient, died and was resurrected" (Journal of the Southern Indian Mission, pp. 88-89)

Brigham Young's 1852 discourse and declaration of the Adam-God doctrine was also published in Zion's Watchman, vol. 1, nos. 18 and 19, as a doctrinal standard for the Australian saints.

Excommunication for Disbelief in Adam-God

Excommunication for a disbelief in Adam-God is evidence that the doctrine was to be incorporated by every Latter-day Saint. Francis M. Lyman (apostle) made the following comment about a member who was wrongfully cut off for not believing the Adam-God doctrine:

Persons sometimes say that they have enjoyed the spirit of the work as much since they were cut off, as while they were in the Church. Have they enjoyed the Spirit? Yes. Why? Simply because they were wrongfully cut off. They were cut off in such a way that it did not take the Spirit of God from them. And the reason why they were cut off was because they did not come up to the particular standard of perfection of those who dealt with them, or they did not come up to their feelings. I have heard of a man who was cut off because he would not believe that Adam was our Father and God. "Well, but was it not so?" Its being so does not change the fact that we are sinners (Millennial Star vol. 24, p. 100).

A documented case in point is Scott Anderson who was summarily disfellowshipped for, among other offenses, having a disbelief in the Adam-God doctrine. He was "disfellowshipped from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for apostasy" on Jan. 20, [123] 1885 (Minutes of Bishops Court,Eleventh Ward School House, Jan. 20, 1885).

It is apparent that the Adam-God doctrine was proclaimed throughout the church as greater light to assist in "the perfecting of the saints." It permeated every aspect of Mormon belief, and clearly, in the words of Brigham Young, was to be a source of "salvation or damnation." It was by no stretch of theimagination just a personal belief belonging to Brigham Young. The saints at home and abroad were to understand and believe the Adam-God doctrine as a principle of belief in perfecting themselves in truth.

Was Brigham Really Wrong?

Could Brigham have been wrong and remain a prophet of God? That a prophet is human and can err is an intuitive concept, for there has been only one who was found free of guilt and error. For God

46

to direct a prophet in every particular such that he could not err would be tantamount to taking away his free agency. Surely God allows us all to make our own choices and by these choices grow in knowledge and truth. The real question is, would God choose a prophet oblivious of His true nature to lead His church? Would God choose a prophet who didn't believe in the one true and living God, but in fact considered one of God's creations to be God Himself? Would God allow His prophet to err on such a matter of extreme importance? If God allows for such personal latitude in the life of a prophet, would He allow that prophet to lead others astray with the preaching of erroneous concepts concerning the nature of God?

What, then, are the implications of Brigham's teachings if he really was wrong?The scriptures show the Lord to be very protective of His church in guarding against the

introduction of false doctrine. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 tells us that if anyone, even a prophet, who causes the Lord's children to turn from the only true God should be dealt with by putting him to death! [124] Brigham, if wrong, had committed a capital offense in teaching that Adam was God. He, in the eyes of the Lord, should have been put to death for leading the saints away from the only true God in preference toa false god.

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the 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, your God, proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your 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 hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God (Deut. 13:1-5).

This characterizes the heinous nature of serving or believing in a false god. Hence, the commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If wrong, Brigham violated this, the most fundamental of all commandments. He was guilty of practicing idolatry. Would God allow a prophet to mislead his people for 33 years, in whoring after strange gods? For, if Adam is not our God, the Father of our spirits as well as flesh, the only God with whom we have to do, He is a false god. Brigham would have been guilty of a crime warranting his death.

The above is in complete harmony with the teachings of Paul who said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8, 9). If wrong, Brigham taught another gospel and should have been accursed of God. To be accursed is to be "doomed to destruction, or damnable."

Peter foresaw these accursed preachers of false doctrinesand warned the saints that "there shall be false [125] teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destructions. And many shall follow their pernicious ways" (2 Peter 2:1, 2).

Peter clearly impugns the ways of false teachers as evil by referring to their ways as pernicious. The commission of sin, the breaking of the Lord's commandments, leading the saints into pernicious, accursed ways can hardly be interpreted as good works and in fact are evil works which, according to the Book of Mormon, must be of the devil.

For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil. Therefore, if a man bringeth forth good works he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd, and he doth follow him; but whosoever bringeth forth evil works, the same becometh a child of the devil, for he hearkeneth unto his voice, and doth follow him (Alma 5:40-41).

47

Brigham, in the words of Alma, would qualify as a child of the devil for teaching his false doctrine. Was Brigham one of those described by Micah as walking "in the name of his God" (Micah 4:5)?

Indeed this was foretold by Timothy who said, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:3). It would appear, then, that Brigham, in chasing after strange gods, could not endure sound doctrine.

Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.... Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted because of pride, and because of false teachers and false doctrine their churches have become corrupted (2 Nephi 28:9 and 11).

Brigham appears to have taught foolish and vain doctrine, and in so doing had gone out of the way and become corrupted. What is the fate of the corrupt who teach false doctrine? 2 Nephi 28:15 says they shall be [126] thrust down to hell! Brigham would be the tail of Israel who teacheth lies causingthe people to err:

Neither do they [the people] seek the LORD of Hosts; therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honorable, he is the head, and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed (Isaiah 9:13-16).

Is this what the Lord meant when he said, "And my vineyard had become corrupted every whit . . . they err in many instances because of priestcrafts all having corrupt minds" (D&C 33:4)?

Brigham would be one of those ungodly and unrighteous men seen by Paul who professed to be wise and became a fool, "and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man . . . who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the created more than the Creator" (Rom. 1:22-26). Adam, if not a god, was an "image made like corruptible men," and was the "created not the Creator." Could Brigham's condemnation for propounding this doctrine be overlooked by the Lord?

We see from the above scriptures that Brigham, if wrong, should have been "accursed" for teaching the "damnable heresies" that led the saints into the worship of a "false god." In fact, his sin would have been so heinous in the eyes of God that he would have been "put to death" for his "pernicious ways."

The real question at this point is whether Brigham Young was a prophet of God. Would God allow a true prophet to lead His people astray into the worship of an idol (a false god)? Would God allow a prophet who satisfies the requirements for becoming a "child of the devil" to corrupt His church with the doctrines of the devil?

The conclusion is inescapable. If Brigham Young was a preacher of false doctrine, then he was a fallen or [127] false prophet! He had gone the way of all the unholy prophets who had fallen into transgression, thereby disqualifying himself as the seed of God (Mosiah 15:13).

How can one claim to have the true church if it was led astray into corruption by a child of the devil for 33 years? Are we to believe that the Lord has reversed His policy of not putting "new wine into old bottles," for the church under Brigham's leadership failed to endure sound doctrine and hence became corrupted as an old wine bottle. New wine in an old bottle itself becomes corrupt. Joseph understood this when he told the saints: "except the Church receive the fullness of the scriptures, they would yet fail" (T.P.J.S., p. 9). "If Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek another people" (T.P.J.S., p. 18). Did the saints accept the fullness of the scriptures in following Adam as God? Did the church purify itself when led in "damnable heresies" by a "child of the devil" for

48

33 years? The Lord, according to Joseph Smith, would choose a new people, or put new wine (true doctrine) into new bottles (another people).

If Brigham Young is guilty of teaching false doctrine, then he is guilty of covering his sins in "exercising unrighteous dominion over the souls of men." This is not the channel through which the powers of heaven are controlled. In fact, the Spirit of God must have been grieved, and upon withdrawing from Brigham Young, said: Amen to the priesthood and authority of that man….(D&C 121:36-37).

[128] How does the withdrawal of Brigham Young's authority affect the Church today? Brigham Young is the foundation of authority upon which the church rests and from which all present authority is derived. To admit that Brigham taught false doctrine is to condemn the church today. Take away the foundations and the church must fall. Without Brigham, there is little claim to authority.

The following men received their apostolic callings under the inspiration of a grieved spirit during President Young's reign of heresies: Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, F. D. Richards, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Brigham Young, Jr., and Albert Carrington. If Brigham Young, as a fallen prophet, had no authority (as indicated by section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants), then those who were ordained under his hands have no authority. It would be impossible to identify the number ofpeople who received their "supposed authority" through Brigham Young. Among those apostles chosen by Brigham Young were two who later became presidents of the church with the authority of the apostleship they had received from Brigham Young. This raises further serious questions as to the authority and direction of the church under their leadership. How many subsequent apostles and prophets who received their authority through Brigham Young would be difficult to determine, but would certainly exceed a majority. If Brigham had no authority, whence cometh the authority today?

The only possible course of justification would be to accept Brigham Young as a true prophet of God. One must accept his teachings as true and binding, the same as he accepts every word that comes from the mouth of God through His holy servants, the prophets.

The death of the Prophet Brigham Young does not deny or destroy the truth of his teachings. They stand independent of him personally. However, if his teachings prove him a false prophet, he may have fulfilled the prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-10 as "the son of perdition, who opposeth and exaltethhimself above all [129] that is called God." This he would have fulfilled by preaching a false god in the temple of God—thereby debasing and making a mockery of that which is most holy.

Brigham Young was either a true prophet who spoke through the spirit of God or a fallen prophet who corrupted the incorruptible God.

Indeed, this was the conclusion of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1860 when it met on April 5 to consider Orson Pratt's false teachings. Of Orson's teachings which were considered were his anti-Adam-God doctrines. Excerpts from the minutes of this closed meeting, as recorded in the Church Historian's Office, are as follows:

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.

49

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 [130] his calling, but he [Orson] only acknowledges him as a poor driveling fool, he [Orson] preaches doctrines opposed to Joseph, and all other revelations.

Present at the above meeting were Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Charles C. Rich, Franklin D. Richards and Erastus Snow. This meeting documentsthe 1860 Quorum of the Twelve (with the exception of Orson Pratt) as sustaining Brigham as a true prophet of God and accepting the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham to be revelation of divine truth.

To accept that Brigham could make such an error is to suppose that Brigham knew not whereof he spoke.

Do you suppose that he is so unwise to say a thing which he does not know to be true? He understands what he speaks, and he looks before he jumps, and God Almighty will lead him straight, and he will never stumble--no, never . . . (Heber C. Kimball, J. D. 5:32).

To accept that Brigham was wrong is to admit that Joseph Smith erred in revelation when he received the promise that Brigham would do what is right. Brigham tells us:

I had the promise, years ago, that I never should apostatize and bring an evil upon this people. God revealed that through Joseph, long before he died; and if I am not doing right, you may calculate that the Lord is going to take me home (J.D. 9:142).

The choice that was before Orson Pratt is before the people today. One either acknowledges Brigham to have been a prophet of God or a "poor driveling fool." To accept the latter, that the presiding power can advance false doctrine, is to lay an axe at the root of the tree.

[131] CHAPTER 11

WHENCE COMETH THE ADAM-GOD DOCTRINE IN THIS DISPENSATION?

In all his teachings (on Adam-God) Brigham never intimated that the credibility laywith him. This is derived from two primary sources--Joseph Smith and God.

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 treasured up the things of God, and this is the key that I hold today. I was anxious to learn from Joseph and the Spirit of God. (Deseret News, June 6, 1877, p. 274; emphasis added).

Supportive evidence that Joseph introduced and taught the Adam-God doctrine, which must be considered in toto, comes from the following:

1. That Joseph holds the keys to the doctrinal mysteries in this dispensation [132] 2. The testimony of Brigham Young 3. The testimony of other close associates of Joseph Smith

50

4. Joseph's plural wives 5. Joseph's own teachings

Joseph, the Doctrinal Source of this Dispensation

It would be inconsistent for Brigham Young to receive the primary revelations concerning the Adam-God doctrine, for if it is true knowledge, it should be part of the restoration and, as such, should be restored through him who has been appointed and who has the keys for that specific work. That person was Joseph Smith. He was the medium through whom the Lord has sent forth the fullness of the gospel. The word fullness certainly includes true doctrinal concepts. Joseph's very mission was to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ with its accompanying knowledge of God, for, according to Joseph Smith, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us" (T.P.J.S., pp.345-46).

We must assume that this knowledge, the first principle of the gospel, as a part of the kingdom, was restored through Joseph Smith, for it was he who received the keys to the kingdom in these last days.

I have sent forth the fullness of my Gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph; and in weakness have I blessed him; and I have given unto him the keys of the mystery of those things which have been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world, and the things which shall come from this time until the time of my coming (D&C 35:17-18).... [T]he keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you [Joseph], while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come (D&C 90:3).

From the foregoing, we see that the keys to the fullness of the gospel have been entrusted to Joseph, and [133] that these keys will remain with him. The Adam-God doctrine, as true doctrine, had to be restored as part of the restoration of the fullness of the gospel. The keys to the mysteries and theirrestoration of this dispensation lie with Joseph and are with him to this day.

Joseph's keys depict him as architect and master mason in laying the foundation of this dispensation, whereas Brigham's calling oversaw the construction upon Joseph's foundation.

Brigham Young was first a great disciple and student of Joseph Smith and only secondly a great leader in his own right. He saw himself as the master-builder--not the architect--of the Kingdom and of Zion. And while he taught the necessity of revelation to carry out the program, and claimed revelation himself, he felt it was Joseph Smith's special calling to have given the patterns and to have taught all the necessary principles of priesthood and government. The responsibility of Brigham Young and the Twelve, then, was to erect, on the foundation of Joseph, the building Joseph had envisioned. This was stressed time and again by President Young and his associates. For example, in 1866 he explained that "on the things of God, on the building up of His Kingdom, or the doctrines Joseph taught, or on anything that pertains to the priesthood," his memory of what he had learned at Joseph's feet was of primary importance (B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 19, p. 396).

Testimony was repeatedly given that, as the Lord lives, "the work that has been carried out by President Young and his brethren has been in accordance with the plans, and designs, and Spirit, and instructions of Joseph Smith . . . (George A. Smith, M.A.B.Y., October 8, 1866).

From our historical perspective, Brigham was Joseph's most faithful disciple. Of all the early apostles, none were more dedicated to Joseph's teachings, nor were there any who enjoyed the privilege of Joseph's confidence more than Brigham. As such, Brigham enjoyed the most intimate access to Joseph's teachings. These Brigham received not only as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Council of Fifty, and the Holy [134] Order, but also in private as Joseph's most trusted friend. Brigham's worktestifies of his dedication to the principles and teachings of Joseph Smith. Said Brigham:

51

An angel never watched him [Joseph] closer than I did, and that is what has given me the knowledge I have today. I treasure it up, and ask the Father, in the name of Jesus, to help my memory when information is wanted and I have never been at a loss to know what to do concerning the kingdom of God (M.A.B.Y., October 8, 1866).

Considering Brigham's intimacy and dedication to Joseph's teachings, it is unlikely that Brigham advanced any new doctrinal concept of major importance.

Many of the teachings and practices formalized during Brigham Young's administration can be traced to private councils where Joseph Smith taught the Twelve in detail about the affairs of the Kingdom. In fact, it seems far more compelling to accept that possibility, one in harmony with what we know of Brigham Young, and of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, than to continue to believe--in the absence of documentation--that Brigham Young made a fundamental innovation of his own during those tumultuous years of succession . . . especially in view of the fact that the private meetings where Joseph Smith taught the full pattern of temple ordinances (and related doctrines) would have provided the ideal forum (B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 19, pp.398-99).

Thus, it is consistent that Brigham's Adam-God teachings derive from Joseph Smith. However, it has been argued that absolute evidence which unequivocally demonstrates Joseph as having taught Adam-God concepts has not yet been brought to the fore. This, however, depends on what one considers unequivocal evidence. Furthermore, this argument does not exclude the possibility that Joseph did in fact teach such doctrines. It is based on negative evidence and the assumption that all of Joseph's important doctrinal teachings were recorded. This, however, is not true. "Only a small portion of his [Joseph's] public teachings and very little of his extensive private teachings were recorded."

[135] Dean Jessee, research historian with the LDS Historical Department, has shown that of approximately 250 public sermons mentioned in diaries and minutes (and surely Joseph gave others), we have a fairly adequate account (notes, not verbatim reports) of only 54 of them, not to mention the numerous private sessions held with the Twelve and others, especially during 1843-1844. The latter were not recorded nor meant to be recorded. Rather, they were the proper forum for the teaching of the "mysteries of the kingdom," those temple related teachings that were not to be taught abroad and could not go to the broader membership of the Church until after completion of the Temple and the removal of the Church to the relative isolation of the West (B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 19, pp. 397-98).

These private teachings began to emerge as the development of a superstructure on Joseph's foundation.

Brigham Young's Testimony

Because Brigham was both a prophet of God and Joseph's closest confidant, he must be taken seriously when he said that he learned a doctrine from Joseph. He, on many occasions, stated that his knowledge and understanding of Adam-God came directly from Joseph Smith. The implication, from Brigham's statements, is that he was taught the Adam-God doctrine from Joseph. The point in contention, here, is not Brigham's veracity but rather his intended meaning.

The Adam-God doctrine is composed of many fundamental concepts which are integrally interwoven with the doctrine of eternal progression. Could it be that Brigham merely expanded Joseph's teachings beyond the scope of their immediate meaning? Did Brigham really mean to say that it was from

52

Joseph that he learned the fundamental concepts from which he then concluded that Adam was God? Was it Brigham's extrapolation that Adam as our God was also the father of our spirits and the father of Christ?

One of the difficulties here is that we have no personal account in the hand of Brigham Young setting [136] forth exactly what it was that Joseph taught relative to Adam being our God. We are left to draw conclusions from those who recorded Brigham's statements. The nature of such accounts makes them subject to some interpretation. Thus, what Brigham really meant cannot be inferred from a single quotation but must be extracted from as many statements as possible.

In 1876 L. John Nuttall, then secretary to Brigham Young, recorded the church president as saying:

Is there in the 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; also L. John Nuttall Papers, B.Y.U. Library).

In this statement, Brigham appears to be fairly specific as to what Joseph said, which is that Adam is not only our father but our God as well. We naturally understand our father and God to be our spiritual progenitor. Is this, however, what Joseph meant?

In his 1873 Adam-God discourse (published in the Deseret News), Brigham said:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our father and God.... I 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 (Deseret News, June 18, 1873; emphasis added).

This statement correlates well with the previous statement implying that Joseph taught "that Adam is our Father and God" but does not conclusively state that Adam either fathered the Savior or was our spiritual procreator as was understood by Brigham.

An 1876 recording by Wilford Woodruff strikes closer to the mark:

At meeting of school of the prophets, 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).

[137] While the above may not be a literal quotation, the substance is that Joseph in principle taught that Adam was the father of Christ. Is this an inherent extrapolation of a more restricted teaching, or did Joseph literally teach this concept? In 1860 Brigham directly inferred that Joseph taught the fine subtleties such as Michael being our spiritual procreator as well as fathering Christ. On April 4, 1860, in a meeting which had been convened to discuss Orson Pratt's refused acquiescence to Brigham's teachings, Brigham was directly challenged by Orson Pratt as teaching these concepts in opposition to Joseph's revelations. Said Orson:

I would like to enumerate items. Firstly--preached and published that Adam is the father of our spirits, and father of our bodies. When I read the revelations given to Joseph, I read directly the opposite (minutes of Quorum meeting held in the Historian's Office April 4, 1860, Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives)..

Orson is here directly challenging Brigham's teaching that Adam is the father of our spirits. It is worth noting that Brigham's teaching runs contrary to Orson's interpretation of Joseph's revelations. Orson

53

did not say that he heard Joseph say anything contrary. Brigham responded by saying that his teaching was Joseph's doctrine.

It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God.... God comes to the earth and eats and partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, or if people had it revealed, it was not told (Quorum meeting minutes cited above).

Brigham here responds to a charge against a specific teaching that Adam is both the father of our bodies and spirits by saying that it was Joseph's doctrine. He went on to explain what Joseph's doctrine apparently was: "God comes to the earth and eats and partakes of the fruit." Since this is a directreply to Orson's allegation about Adam being the father of our spirits, it follows that the father of our spirits and bodies is referenced as the God [138] who comes to the earth and partakes of the fruit. Within this exchange, God, the father of our spirits, comes to this earth as Adam to partake of the fruit.This doctrine, said Brigham, was Joseph's.

In verification of this, one might ask what it was that Joseph could not reveal to the people. Brigham had reference to teachings that were never made public during the life of Joseph. Just what was so sensitive that could only be taught in private and never repeated? Was it that God had once been a man like us? Was it that we possess the potential of becoming Gods? Was it that there are innumerable Gods one above the other? No, for these concepts were publicly revealed by 1842. What was it that Joseph could not reveal? From Brigham's remarks, that which Joseph could not reveal pertained to Adam as our Father and God. Was it that Adam is our God by virtue of his patriarchal standing over us? Not only was this concept also publicly revealed by Joseph but it antedated the restoration—certainly not a sensitive issue.

Could it be that Joseph's secret teachings went beyond Adam's standing as the patriarch to the human race? Could it be that Joseph taught, as Brigham implied, that Adam is our God because he fathered our spirits as well as Jesus in the flesh? This, now, is a sensitive doctrine worthy of being repeated only in the most trusted circles. As Joseph explained to Brigham, there were many such doctrines that he could not reveal: "Brother Brigham, if I was to reveal to this people what the Lord has revealed to me, there is not a man or a woman [that] would stay with me" (J.D. 9:249).

Heber C. Kimball recalled Joseph as saying that when he came before the people

. . . he felt as though he were enclosed in an iron case, his mind was closed by the influences that were around him . . . hence, he could not make use of the revelations of God as he would have done; there was no room in the hearts of the people to receive the glorious truths of the gospel that God revealed to him (J.D. 10:233-34).

[139] Other Testimonies That Joseph Taught the Adam-God Doctrine

Brigham's testimony that Joseph taught Adam-God concepts does not stand alone but is corroborated by other witnesses of equally unimpeachable character. In every instance they include the most intimate and trusted associates of Joseph Smith—those who were privy to his more secret and sacred teachings. Such a witness was John Taylor who, as president of the church, said that he heard Joseph say that "Adam is the father of our bodies. Who is to say he is not the father of our spirits?"

I heard Joseph say that Adam was the ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel.... [W]hen we get to God our Father we are told to approach him in the name of Jesus. Adam is the father of our bodies. Who is to say he is not the father of our spirits (L. John Nuttall Papers, Jan. 13, 1880, B.Y.U. Archives)?

54

Here, President Taylor heard Joseph ask the provocative question, "Who is to say that Adam is not the father of our spirits?" The answer by implication, is that He (Adam) is the father of our spirits; otherwise, why would Joseph raise the question? This mild Adam-God assertion was probably made as astimulus to prepare men's minds to draw the obvious conclusions. It clearly documents Joseph as proposing Adam-God concepts.

Another such Adam-God assertion was given directly by Joseph when he explained to William Law, "The keys by which he may ask [in prayer] and receive blessings" (D&C 124:97). That key, according to Joseph, Joseph, lay in the identity of a person "like Adam."

The Great God has a Name By w[h]ich he will be Called which is Ahman--also in asking have reference to a personage like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image. Now this [is] a key for you to know how to ask & obtain (B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 83).

It can be argued that Ahman is here tacitly equated to Adam.Zebedee Coltrin reported having been with Joseph [140] and Oliver Cowdery when they "saw

the heavens open and in it a great golden throne and on it a man and woman with hair as white as snow." They were told by Joseph that "the man and woman was father Adam and [Mother] Eve" (Diary of Oliver B. Huntington, 1847-1900, part 2, pp. 207 and 244, B.Y.U. Special Collections; also Zebedee Coltrin papers, Church Historian's Office).

Benjamin F. Johnson was also a member of Joseph's inner circle of trusted friends. He testified as having been instructed of Joseph in the Adam-God doctrine.

He [Joseph Smith] taught us that God was the great head of human procreation--was really and truly the father of both our spirits and our bodies (Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to G. S. Gibbs, B.Y.U. Special Collections).Concerning Anson Call's testimony, Elder Whitaker wrote:

I now quote from a certain statement by the Prophet Joseph Smith to certain brethren who promised to cut his wood if he would answer their questions. This statement was recorded at the time by Anson Call: recopied by Patriarch John M. Whitaker of Nauvoo, also, years later by B. H. Roberts, L.D.S. Historian, in S.L.C. A number of copies were also made by John M. Whitaker, the son, and distributed at the B.Y. University by proper consent, in connection with his seminary work. These two copies by Patriarch Whitaker and Roberts are verbatim: "I quote Joseph Smith: `Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him.' (Therefore they were immortal) "and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay . . . made mortal and subject to death" (Church Historian's Office).

Further testimony that Joseph introduced the doctrine is given by his plural wives. Eliza R. Snow, whose Adam-God beliefs are found in Women of Mormondom and The Ultimatum of Human Life, has been quoted in a preceding chapter. Helen Mar Whitney, daughter of Heber C. Kimball and plural wife of Joseph Smith, said that Brigham Young "did not happen to be the author of these [141] doctrines, and to prove the truth of my assertion, I will produce some of the Prophet's teachings given May 16, 1841"(Helen Mar Whitney, Plural Marriage, pp. 31-32). Sister Whitney then proceeds to give Joseph's Adam-God teachings as found in T.P.J. S., page 157. Thus it becomes apparent that those closest to Joseph knew the doctrine to be of him.

Did Joseph's teachings, one might ask, go beyond the circle of his most trusted friends? The absence of any significant anti-Mormon treatment of Adam-God suggests that it did not. Doctrinal dissemination beyond the trusted would surely have aroused anti-Mormon indignation.

55

A review of anti-Mormon literature contemporary with Joseph Smith reveals no significant preoccupation with Adam-God. At the writing of this book, the author is aware of only two anti-Mormon references contemporary with Joseph Smith which can be interpreted as reflecting on Adam-God.

The Warsaw Message on February 4, 1844, printed "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives" as an expose of secret Mormon doctrines. Verse 5 can be interpreted as exposing the Adam-God secret. Gods are here depicted as creating worlds, each serving as a habitat for the creator and one of his wives.

A tenfold glory--that's the prize! Without it you're undone!

But with it you will shine as bright As the bright shining sun. There you may reign like mighty Gods,

Creating worlds so fair; At least a world for every wife That you take with you there.

This verse can be interpreted as God creating a celestial world for each wife. However, the fact that God takes one of his wives there suggests relegation to a physical abode. Such relegation imposes a limitation in space through confinement to a world such as seen in mortality. God, however, is not confined by the [142] limitation of a world. Nor do we understand that God has a world for each wife. The gospel teaches us that God and his wives are one--a perfect unity--not bounded or relegated to a physical world.

Another interpretation of the above verse is that God creates a world and then takes one of his wives there where, relegated to mortal limitations, they procreate their physical species.

The second anti-Mormon source is the Nauvoo Expositor which was printed by those who had fallen from some of the highest positions in the church. These men had been in some of the most trusted church circles and as such, may have been privy to Joseph's secret teachings. Their expose was so explosive that it caused Joseph to formulate a plan to lay seige and destroy their press. This act was the precipitating factor in Joseph's ultimate martyrdom. In effect, Joseph died over this incident to protect his secret teachings.

Resolution 2 of the Nauvoo Expositor may be exposing Adam-God as being one of Joseph's "false and damnable doctrines."

Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many of the official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ . . . and having laboured with them repeatedly with all Christian love meekness, and humility, yet to no effect, [we] feel as if forebearance has ceased to be a virtue and hope reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church such as: a plurality to Gods above the God of this universe; and his liability to fall with all of His creations; the plurality of wives . . . (Nauvoo Expositor 1:1, Resolution 2, emphasis added).

It is here claimed that Joseph taught that there were many Gods, each of whom has "the liability to fall with all of his creations." Like almost everything else, this phrase has spawned a difference of interpretation. Some have proposed this to mean that a being once having attained godhood status still remains subject to law which carries the inherent "liability" or possibility of [143] transgression. Such a transgression of law would then result in a fall. Scott Isaac reported Joseph as having taught this concept.

Joseph says there are Gods above the God of this Universe as far as he is above us, and if He should transgress the law given to Him by those above Him, Hewould be hurled from his throne to hell (B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 18, p. 218).

56

A closer reading of the Nauvoo Expositor reveals the intended meaning of the second resolution to be an extension of the doctrine reported by Scott Isaac, for it states: It is contended that there are innumerable Gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us, and if he varies from the law unto which he is subjected, he, with all his creatures, will be cast down as was Lucifer.

It may well be true that a God can transgress laws and fall from his esteemed position of deity; however, this concept does not fully explain Joseph's teachings as outlined in the Expositor to the effect that a God has the liability to fall with all of His creations.

One wonders if this is really what Joseph taught or is it just an interpretation of an ill-understood doctrine? Did Joseph really teach that God's creations would be cast down to hell if God were to sin, whereas, the gospel teaches us that the responsibility and punishment for transgression do not extendbeyond the transgressor? It would be unmerciful to thrust down to hell all of one's creations because of one's transgressions. Did Joseph teach such a doctrine of injustice and retribution, or was he talking about a "fall" of a different nature where as a result of God's transgression all his creations are cast down--to earth?

A god's capability for transgression and the casting down to earth of all of his creations because of his transgression are clearly elements of the Adam-God doctrine. Furthermore, a god's liability to fall with all his creations need not be taken in the negative context. Other meanings for the word liabilityinclude "that for which [144] one is responsible." In this context, God's liability is the responsibility to fall with all of his creations. How? Brigham explained:

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 (L. John Nuttall Journal, Feb. 7, 1877). He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it (J.D. 4:214-19). Adam assisted in forming this earth and agreed to fall when he came and fell that man might be (Wilford Woodruff Journal, May 6, 1855).

Adam's transgression affected all his creations. The world and all life therein fell to a mortal state of existence. These anti-Mormon sources suggest that Adam-God concepts were contemporary with Joseph himself. They give credence to the foregoing testimonies that Joseph was indeed the doctrinal source for the Adam-God doctrine. Mormon historian B. H. Roberts came to the same conclusion:

It is generally supposed that Brigham Young was the author of the doctrine which places Adam as the patriarchal head of the human race, and ascribes to him the dignity of future presidency over this earth and its inhabitants, when the work of redemption shall have been completed. Those who read the Prophet's treatise on the Priesthood in the text above will have their opinions corrected upon this subject; for clearly it is the word of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith which established that doctrine. The utterances of President Brigham Young but repeat and expound the doctrine which the Prophet here sets forth (B. H. Roberts, D.H.C., 3:388. footnote).

With those who regard Joseph Smith as the restorer of the doctrine, there is little question as to what he meant when he said:

57

The Priesthood was first given to Adam, he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to [145] 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.... The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority. 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 prepare 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 (T.P.J.S., p. 157). Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days". . . he is Michael, because he was the first and the father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times, i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed (T. P.J.S., p. 167; emphasis added).

Although these teachings were given publicly, they were not given in boldness. They were given only to "those who had ears to hear and eyes to see." Brigham, as B. H. Roberts said, only enlarged upon Joseph's teachings as an attempt to raise the spiritual level of understanding commensurate with the mysteries of godliness.

Brigham only expanded on Joseph's teachings that "Adam obtained the priesthood in the creation," that "Adam holds the keys of the priesthood over all men," [146] that Adam "presides over the spirits of all men," that "it is by Adam's authority that Christ is revealed to mankind," that "Adam holds the keys to all the dispensations of the earth."

Because the Adam-God doctrine in this dispensation appears to arise from Joseph Smith, the question is no longer a matter of rejecting a personal or even a false teaching of Brigham Young, but is a matter of rejecting the very restoration and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. If these teachings areJoseph's and are rejected, Mormonism may well be reduced to the same foundation with the same saving power as the Christian world at large. To deny Joseph's doctrine is to deny true doctrine which has been revealed by a prophet of God, for Joseph suggested that no other gospel should be taught save that whichhe taught. To this end he echoed Paul's words by saying: "If any man preach any other Gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed" (T.P.J.S., p. 366). This indicates that there is only one true gospel. There can only be expansion on the gospel taught by Joseph, for only he holds the keys to themysteries and to the fullness of the gospel in this dispensation. The Adam-God doctrine is either part of the true gospel taught by Joseph or part of a false gospel.

Revelation--The Source for Adam-God

If Joseph was a true prophet and taught the Adam-God doctrine, then we naturally assume that doctrine to have come from God. Brigham testified to this end, stating that he received his understanding of that doctrine directly from God by revelation. He often laid the responsibility for that doctrine with God. This undoubtedly means that he received spiritual confirmation as to the truthfulness of Joseph's teachings and that he had received further light and knowledge in expanding his mind to embrace these doctrinal concepts. Brigham called the Adam-God doctrine "one of the most glorious revealments of the

58

economy of heaven," yet said he, "the [147] world holds it in derision" (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1861). In his 1873 address, Brigham boldly told the saints that he had received the Adam-God doctrine from God by revelation.

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).

On another occasion Brigham said:

I tell you this as my belief about that personage who is called the Ancient of Days . . . to me this is as clear as the sun. . . . 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 . . . (M.A.B.Y., April 25, 1855).

In evaluating Brigham's claim that Joseph introduced the Adam-God doctrine, we must also examine the evidenced against such a proposition. Aside from misrepresentations which have been covered elsewhere in this book, the most serious challenge to Brigham's claim is found in Joseph's October 1840 conference address (see T.P.J.S., pp. 168-69). Joseph's remarks on that occasion are of particular interest in that this was one of the few instances where Joseph was known to have prepared hisremarks in advance. It is precisely from this address that Adam-God proponents find some support for the doctrine. However, in two instances within this address Joseph subjugates Adam's authority to Christ.

In the original manuscript Joseph is alleged to have said:

These Angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam who acts under the direction of Christ.... This then is the nature of the Priesthood, every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ (T.P.J.S., pp. 168,169; also, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 39,40).

Note that in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith the word "Christ" in the original manuscript has been changed to read "Lord." This change apparently took [148] place during the presidency of Brigham Young. This teaching conflicts with Brigham Young's teachings, for it places Adam in a subordinate priesthood position to Christ (who is assumed to be Jesus). How then could Adam be Christ's father? There are many hypothetical solutions to this problem, depending on one's point of view.

First, it might be assumed that Joseph was right and Brigham's changing of Joseph's words is evidence of sinister complicity; i.e., that Brigham was wrong. Or one might ask what purpose Joseph had in preparing his remarks. Was it that his words would be carefully chosen so as to give the saints a hintbut not say too much?

Did Joseph have reference to Jesus Christ or does the word "Christ" have a broader titular meaning and may in fact refer to a personality other than Jesus? Did Joseph purposefully misrepresent the doctrine so as to maintain its secretive nature while placating the saints according to their level of understanding? As precedence for this, one should consider Joseph's denial of plural marriage (T.PJ.S., p. 119 and D&C 101:4, 1835 ed.). Notwithstanding these denials, history bears out that Joseph and others at the time had entered into polygamous relationships.

The most insightful question that could be asked is: Did Joseph, in October of 1840, have a fully developed concept of God? Could then the Adam-God doctrine represent a further theological development within the last years of Joseph's life (subsequent to 1840)?

As was implied in chapter 2, we have no reason to believe that Joseph's concept of God was fully developed in 1820, 1830 or even at his death in 1844. Those who have studied Joseph's life and teachings agree that he, like everyone else, had to obtain knowledge in a "line upon line," ever-increasing

59

manner. Consequently, by October of 1840 Adam-God concepts, which theretofore had been taught by implication, had not reached their full stature. The October 1840 message, rather than reflecting a dogmatic assertion that characterizes finality and [149] precludes further development, may simply reflect a point of progression in the development of a godhead doctrine. This concept not only harmonizes many of Joseph's conflicting statements on the godhead, including incipient Adam-God concepts, but harmonizes Brigham's teachings with Joseph's and explains the many claims that Joseph taught this doctrine.

And, finally, one can just as easily conclude that Brigham felt so strongly about the Adam-God doctrine that Joseph's words were changed to harmonize with subsequent doctrinal developments. This is the reasoning behind many of the changes made by Joseph in his own revelations--to reflect the development of more refined concepts. By what authority did Brigham presume to alter Joseph's text? By the same authority that he authorized changes in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, and The History of Joseph Smith. Certainly, if he could authorize changes in the Lord's word, he could changeJoseph's.

A final argument against Brigham's claim is that anti-Adam-God sentiment does not permeate anti-Mormon literature prior to Brigham Young. While we have shown some anti-Mormon response, it is admitted that the overwhelming majority of anti-Mormon literature is void of any reference to Adam-God. This is due to the following factors:

1. The Adam-God doctrine was highly sensitive and consequently was shared only with those who as members of Joseph's select inner circle proved themselves worthy. Although the Laws, Higbees and Fosters (publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor) were long-standing church members from relatively high position, they were not trusted members of Joseph's inner circle. It is apparent from the 1860 minutes quoted in this chapter that apostle Orson Pratt was not even a member of that circle. Hence, the Higbees, et al, could have heard the doctrine only second hand. [150] 2. The Adam-God doctrine, if it did reach fruition under Joseph Smith, did so within the last months of his life. The Nauvoo Expositor was published only days before Joseph's death. The Warsaw Message was printed just four months prior to his martyrdom.

Summary

Brigham Young openly proclaimed that his Adam-God teachings derived from Joseph and the Lord. That Joseph Smith taught the Adam-God doctrine is testified to by Brigham Young, John Taylor,Benjamin F. Johnson, Anson Call, B. H. Roberts, and Joseph's plural wives Helen Mar Whitney and Eliza R. Snow. Testimony that the Adam-God concepts were contemporary with Joseph Smith is suggested by contemporary writings of the times.

Joseph Smith is the Prophet of God who holds the keys of the restoration, to the mysteries and fullness of the gospel. This restoration has included the doctrinal concepts whereby one may know for a certainty the character of God.

[151] CHAPTER 12

ADAM-GOD AND THE ANCIENTS

At this point, there can be little controversy as to the existence of Adam-God ideologies in early Mormon thought. Nor can there be much controversy concerning Brigham's personal beliefs in those ideas. What remains to be addressed is the causality of those ideologies and beliefs. To the believer, theyfollow as a natural consequence of the restoration of the true gospel. To the disbelieving Latter-day Saint, however, the demonstration of causality is somewhat more problematic.

60

A further accounting must also be given as to why Brigham saw fit to promote such seemingly heterodoxical ideas. To those who have studied the life of Brigham Young, it must be admitted that he was not only a sensitive and intelligent spiritual leader but was also well versed in the Christian canons. In this context, what must be explained is how an individual from a traditional background could elaborate a doctrine (such as Adam-God) that was alien to both his religious milieu and personal experience. Traditional Christianity had taught Brigham that Adam was a transgressor, the man of sin responsible for the world's misery. What influences could have led him to speculate and then believe that this man of sin was actually God? Furthermore, what prompted Brigham, as steward over the Kingdom of God, to preach a doctrine so seemingly foreign and contradictory to the restored truth?[152] While Adam-God concepts were certainly foreign to the general religious environment of Brigham's day, it is this author's contention, as supported in the preceding chapters, that Brigham's teachings were not alien to his immediate religious milieu or to his personal experience, but were in fact influenced by Adam-God motifs taught by Joseph Smith and the scriptures he produced.

Critics of the restoration, in an attempt to discredit revelation, have attempted to demonstrate doctrinal derivation from sources contemporary with Joseph Smith. There appears, however, to be no external Adam-God parallel contemporary with Joseph or Brigham. The concept of a deified Adam, in this dispensation, does not appear to derive from, or to have been influenced by, sources outside the restoration. It appears among 19th century religions to be singularly unique to Mormonism. How, then, one might ask, did these thought patterns arise within the framework of the Mormon church?

In pressing toward the source of this doctrine, one should inquiry as to whether it has any basis in history. Indeed, if the doctrine derives from truth, one might expect to find similar motifs and ideological patterns in former dispensations.

In turning to the Bible, we must remember that many plain and precious truths have been removed by those to whom these truths were most objectionable. And since our Bible came down from the early Christian churches, we would expect any doctrine found to be in opposition to their philosophies to have been removed. Foremost among the objectionable doctrines stands the anthropomorphic nature of God, which forms the very foundation of the Adam-God doctrine. As the Adam-God doctrine is discordant in the ears of the Latter-day Saint, one can imagine how repugnant it must have seemed to the early Christian churches who view God as an ethereal being. Consequently, biblical references to Adam as our God and Father cannot be expected to be numerous. Nonetheless, there remains some biblical evidence that [153] the Adam-God ideologies have always been a part of the gospel in both Old and New Testament eras.

Paul, according to the Bible dictionary, recognized Adam as one of the two grand heads of humanity. It can be argued that his teachings further suggest that he (Paul) recognized Adam as the "Lord from Heaven."

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul expanded on the resurrection, stating that the natural body is raised a spiritual (or resurrected) body (1 Cor. 15:44). He then applied the resurrection to Adam "who was made a living soul [mortal]; the last Adam [resurrected] was made a quickening spirit" (1Cor. 15:45). Paul goes on to explain that this "first man" or Adam "is of the earth; earthly" (a description of Adam's mortal state), whereas Adam's resurrected state, "made by a quickening spirit," is referred to as the "second man." This second man, or the resurrected Adam, is declared to be the Lord from Heaven (1Cor. 15:47).

And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.... The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:45, 47).

Whether or not Paul intended to say that Adam is the Lord from heaven is conjectural. What is significant is Paul's thought category, which includes the concept of a royal First Man, or that the First Man could be or have a heavenly counterpart. In the foregoing verses there were two "men" or two

61

Adams, one heavenly and the other his mortal counterpart. The second man is a type of Adam by comparison with which Jesus was to be identified.

Paul may have been converting older pre-Messianic ideas concerning a royal Adam-man tradition into the Christ experience. In a sense, he has fused the identity of Christ with the first man, Adam. This unified relationship between Adam and Christ was hinted at by Paul when he said that Adam "is the figure of him Jesus] that was to come" (Rom. 5:14). The word "figure" is an [154] English translation of the Greek word tupos which means a die, model, or resemblance; thus, suggesting thatAdam is the pattern or positive mold from which Jesus would be fashioned, and hence resemble the figure of Adam. Paul uses the same metaphor in describing Jesus as the express image of God's person." Christ is "the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his [God's] person" (Heb. 1:3). The word image is translated from the Greek charakter, meaning stamped in an exact copy or representation. Since Adam is the mold from which Christ would be stamped, and Christ was struck after the image of God, Adam emerges as God, the person after whom Christ is the express image--a fusion of both Adam and Christ into a common royal image.

That image is extended to Adam as a procreative deity. In Acts 17:26-29, Paul explains that God has made all nations of one blood by having created us (all nations) as His offspring. In other words, God made all nations of one blood through procreation. Since the common blood progenitor of all nations isAdam, he (Adam) emerges as the God who created us as His offspring.

The royal image of the "man" figure extends further to the father of Christ. Paul, in his epistle to the Ephesians, identified the father of Christ as the deity after whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph. 3:14-15). Accordingly, if we identify the name by which the whole family of heaven and earth is called, we would unmask the Father of Jesus. The name by which that family is known is "mankind" or "man." "Man," then, must be the father of Christ. Curiously, the name Adam means "Man."

Under Adam, the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 42, states: ". . . the word adham occurs well over five hundred times in the Old Testament with the meaning `man' or `mankind.' This generic term is used only rarely as a proper name for the first man." [155] It is interesting that the man Adam should share the same typology as God the Father of Christ. Quite clearly the royal "man" figure (Adam) plays a major theme in many of Paul's writings. It is all the more interesting to note the continuance of this theme in latter-day scripture.

When 1 Thess. 4:16 is compared to D&C 29:26, Adam is again pictured in the role of a "man" deity. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul explains that the dead will rise at the sound of God's trump and the voice of the archangel. Note that Paul specifies the archangel. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Thess. 4:16). The word of the Lord in the 29th section of the Doctrine and Covenants confirms Paul's teachings with the clarification that Michael is the archangel referred to by Paul. Furthermore, whatPaul describes as God's trump, the Lord describes as Michael's trump. Assuming exclusive ownership of the trump, Michael is God by reason of parallel description. "But, behold verily I say unto you, before the earth shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth--yea, even all" (D&C 29:26, emphasis added).

These two accounts are clearly of the same event, with the Lord ostensibly speaking as an archangel in the former and Michael sounding his trump in the latter. With Michael identified as God, the owner of the trump, it is likely that the voice of the archangel will be the Lord's own voice; i.e., the voice of the Lord--Michael, the archangel.

Adam-God motifs are not of Pauline post-Messianic introduction. They are infused throughout the Old Testament and apocryphal writings as well as both Hebrew and pagan tradition. Daniel described God as a being "whose garment was white as snow, and the hair [156] of his head like pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him" (Dan. 7:9-10) God is here seen in celestial glory sitting upon His throne; and being

62

ministered to by thousands of beings. If one compares this description of God to that of John in Revelations 1:14-15 or Joseph Smith's description of the Savior in Doctrine and Covenants 110:3, he readily concedes that Daniel is describing deity. Bible commentators agree:

Ancient of Days. The phrase used to designate the judge in the eschatological scene in Daniel 7:9.... The figure is probably intended to be that of God himself, and the attribute of age is ascribed to convey the ideas of dignity, wisdom, and primeviality; but some (more particularly Jewish Medieval) commentators have thought the description too anthropomorphic to be that of deity (Interpreter's Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 126).

The difficulty sectarians have in accepting an anthropomorphic God is the same difficulty Latter-day Saints have in accepting Adam as God--too anthropomorphic. However, the scholarly Anchor Bible bolsters this concept as it defines the "Ancient One" as the God of Israel:

Ancient Israel had long envisaged Yahweh as the divine judge enthroned in the assembly of his angels [e.g.] "God presides in the divine council, in the midst of the gods he judges" . . . or "I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne and all the hosts of the heavens standing beside Him on His right and on His left...." The "thrones" (plural!) are for the angelic associate judges who constitute the celestial "court . . . that sat in Judgment." The scene is not expressly said to be laid in heaven, but this is implied in [verse] 13 ("the clouds of the heavens"). Nor is God explicitly mentioned by name, but every reader would at once recognize as God "the Ancient One" who presides at this celestial tribunal. The term "the Ancient One" . . . as used of God, though not found in older biblical literature, is partly based on the biblical concept of God's eternal existence . . . and partly on the popular notion of God as an old man.... Not only does [157] Yahweh have the white hair of an old man, his clothing is also "as white as snow," symbolizing unsullied majesty. This feature of celestial apparitions is new here in biblical literature, but it is carried on from here in the New Testament . . . and in rabbinical literature. The concept of fire as surrounding the Deity goes back to general Old Testament sources . . . but the mention . . . of the "wheels of blazing fire" [in Ezekiel 1:15-20; 10:9-17] shows that our author is indebted for imagery here to Ezekiel's vision of Yahweh's chariot throne.... The fire is pictured here as a "surging stream" . . . because this is the "consuming fire" . . . that destroys the body of the fourth beast (The Anchor Bible, "The Book of Daniel," pp. 217-18).

What is the popular notion that God is an old man? And where would the concept of an aged deity arise? Certainly not with a God that has been forever immortal in a celestial state. Such a concept could only arise from the mortal concept of aging which was attributed to Adam, the Ancient of Days. The biblical footnote to the Ancient of Days gives further insight into His divine role as being "from everlasting to everlasting; thou art God" (Psalms 90:2).

This is the God described by Daniel--the "Ancient of Days"--whom the Latter-day Saints know as Adam. Daniel's description is identical, in part, to a description of God in 1 Kings 22:19: ". . . I saw the LORD sitting on his throne and all the hosts of heaven standing by him and on his right hand and on his left."

The title of deity meaning the "Ancient of Days," "Venerable One," "Old of Days," "Head of Days," etc., is not a term used exclusively by Daniel. It is also encountered in the apocalyptic literature. The Book of Enoch describes the God in Genesis 9 who caused the flood and set the bow in the sky as the"Head of Days" [Adam].

And after that the Head of Days repented and said . . . I destroyed all who dwell on the earth. And he sware by His great name: "Henceforth I will not do so to all who dwell on the earth, and I will set a sign in the heaven: and this shall be a pledge of good faith between me and them forever so long as heaven is above the earth" (Book of Enoch, 55:1,2).

63

[158] Such Adam-God parallels are found elsewhere in the Book of Enoch. In one of his visions, Enoch was privileged to behold the celestial throne on which the "Great Glory" sat. From under that throne issued forth a stream of fire. God's raiment is described as shining more brightly than the sun and was whiter than any snow. That Enoch is describing God is emphasized by the fact that this being "needed no counsellors." A comparison of Enoch's vision to Daniel's, wherein he saw the Ancient of Days, leadsone to conclude that both Enoch and Daniel beheld the same vision of the same god. The being whom Daniel saw and described as the Ancient of Days" Enoch described as the "Great Glory who" needed no counsellor" (Book of Enoch, 14:15-23).

Enoch was also favored to see into the preexistence where he saw Jesus in the presence of Michael. In this encounter Michael is described with the imagery of a god whereas Jesus is described as a man.

And there I saw One who had a head of days [Michael] and His head was white like wool, and with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man. . . This is the Son of Man [Jesus] who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness (Book of Enoch, 46:1, 3).

Michael

In understanding Adam's Old Testament role, we must give further consideration to his office and calling as Michael. Many of the attributes and qualities ascribed to Michael characterize him as deity. To one ignorant of the fact that Michael, Adam, the Ancient of Days, is the father of our spirits, his role asour intercessor is ill understood. The Adam-God doctrine, however, fully accounts for his role as intercessor.

Michael is the guardian angel of the House of Israel and as such is called the "great Prince" (Dan. 12:1, D&C 107:54). The name Michael (Hebrew, Mikael) literally means "who is like God."He is seen to champion his [159] people against rival forces and will lead the celestial hosts in the final triumph over evil (D&C 88:112-15). Michael delivered his people from the "Prince of Persia" (Dan. 10:12, 20). Michael is styled as the "general" or the "chief Captain" (II Enoch 22:6; 33:10), and his name is emblazened on the escutcheon of one of the four divisions (tower) of the troops of God (1QM IX, 14-16; The Interpreter'sBible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 373). This last observation, that Michael is the captain of the Lord's hosts, is consistent with his role in defeating Satan as depicted in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 88.

A more complete understanding of Michael as the captain of the Lord's host can be gleaned from Joshua 5:13-15. As recorded by Joshua, the "Captain of the Host of the Lord" appeared to Joshua as a man with a drawn sword. This being is identified as a physical being. Furthermore, upon learning his identity, Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship" him. This being was no commonplace angel or messenger, but a deity worthy of worship. This is evidenced by the "captain's" command that Joshua loose the shoes from off his feet "for the place whereon thou standest is holy"--precisely what the Lord told Moses.

Thus, the Joshua account documents the "captain of the Lord's hosts" as a physical being--a resurrected deity. As seen above, this "captain" is identified as Michael or Adam. Further evidence that the "captain of the Lord's hosts" is "Michael" the "prince" surfaced with the recently discovered Ebla documents written in old Canaanite about 2400 B.C. The Ebla account of Joshua's experience identifies the "captain of the hosts of the Lord" or the commander of the army of Yahweh by the term "Prince," another of Michael's titles (G. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla," BA 39 [1976], p. 50).

If Michael is the great prince denoted in Daniel 12:1, then he may be the God denoted as the "Prince of Princes" in Daniel 8:25 who in the last days will break [160] "the king of fierce countenance" who destroyed the holy people. The holy people, according to this verse, are to be prevailed against and

64

destroyed by peace and prosperity. Might this king also be the same "horn" seen in Daniel 7:21-22 that made war with the saints and prevailed against them until the Ancient of Days (the Prince of Princes) came? Thus we see Adam's continued intervention as Michael, the patron of Israel.

It is also of interest to note that the Canaanites, in adopting their religious concepts, worshiped the God "Mikal" which is derived from the root ykl which means "to be powerful," "powerful one," or "conqueror" (The Anchor Bible, the Book of Daniel, p. 282). Where would the Canaanites get such a notion that Michael was God?

Michael's role as the God and lawgiver to Israel is further brought out by identifying the God with whom Moses on Mt. Sinai spoke. The Exodus account identifies this being as the "God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," whereas, in Acts 7:38, we are told that Moses spoke with an angel on Mt. Sinai. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by the apocalypses wherein Moses is identified as speaking with, and receiving the law on Mt. Sinai from, "Michael" the "archangel" (Greek Apocalypse of Moses; Jub. 1:27; 2:1; Ascension of Isaiah 11:21; Herm, Sim VIII. 3:3; Palestinian Targum; Deuteronomy Rabbah 11:10).

Of Michael another author writes:

Michael ("who is a God")--in Biblical and post-Biblical lore--Michael ranks as the greatest of all angels, whether in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic writings, secular or religious. He derives originally from the Chaldeans by whom he was worshipped as something of a god. He is chief of the order of virtues, chief of archangels, prince of the presence, angel of repentance, righteousness, mercy, and sanctification; also ruler of the 4th Heaven, tutelary sar (angelic prince) of Israel, guardian of Jacob, conqueror of Satan (bearing in mind, however, that Satan is still very much around and unvanquished), etc. His mystery name is Sabbathiel. In Islamic writings he is called Mika'il. As the deliverer of the faithful, he [161] accords, in the Avesta, with Saosyhant the Redeemer. Midrash Rabba (Exodus 18) credits Michael with being the author of the whole of Psalm 85. In addition, he has been identified with the angel who destroyed the hosts of Sennacherib (a feat also ascribed to the prowess of Uriel, Gabriel, Ramiel) and as the angel who stayed the hand of Abraham when the latter was on the point of sacrificing his son Isaac (a feat also ascribed to Tadhiel, Metatron, and other angels). In Jewish lore (Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews II, 303) "the fire that Moses saw in the burning bush had the appearance of Michael, who had descended from Heaven as the forerunner of Shekinah." . . . According to Talmud Berakot 35, where the comment is on Genesis 18:1-10, Michael is recognized by Sarah as one of 3 "men" whom Abraham entertained unawares. Legend speaks of Michael having assisted 4 other great angels--Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael, Metatron--in the burial of Moses, Michael disputing with Satan for possession of the body.... In mystic and occult writings, Michael has often been equated with the Holy Ghost, the Logos, God, Metatron, etc. In Baruch III, Michael "holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven (David Gustav, A Dictionary of Angels, pp. 193-94).

As our Father, Adam's concern and vigil over the welfare of us, his children, can be readily understood. It is He who is our lawgiver; He who is our defender and protector; He who is the author of our salvation "the first to hold the spiritual blessings . . . for the salvation of his posterity" (T.P.J.S., p. 167). Consequently, it was probably no surprise to Abraham to see the anguish Adam suffers at the loss of any of his posterity. Abraham saw Adam seated on his celestial throne as God, having an appearance "like unto that of the Lord."

And Abraham saw two ways, the one way narrow and compressed, and the other broad and spacious; and there also he saw two gates, one gate broad on the broad way, and one gate narrow on the narrow way. And outside the two gates there I saw a man seated upon a golden throne, and the appearance of that man was terrible, like unto that of the Lord. And I saw many souls being driven by angels and led in through the broad gate; and other souls I saw, few in number, that were being borne by angels through the narrow gate. And when the marvelous being who sat upon the Golden throne saw few

65

entering in through the narrow gate, but many entering in through the broad gate, straightway that marvelous man did [162] pluck the hairs of his head . . . and hurled himself on the ground from his throne, weeping and wailing. And when he saw many souls entering through the narrow gate, then he arose from the ground and sat upon his throne, rejoicing and exulting with great jubilation. Then Abraham asked the chief-captain: My Lord, who is this all-marvelous man, who is in such majesty, and sometimes weeps and wails, and sometimes rejoices and exults? The (bodiless one) said: This is Adam, the first created man, who is in such majesty, and he beholds the world, for all are sprung from him (Testament of Abraham, XI).

The idea of a royal, deified first "man" is a theme that recurs repeatedly throughout religious history. These ideological motifs have indeed been borrowed and adapted with varied mythological representations by many cultures. Consequently, mythology abounds with the stories of Gods who partook of both celestial and terrestrial natures. Odin of Scandinavia is a good example of a deity subject to mortality--bowing before the laws of nature and yet remaining a supreme deity. Heimdal, furthermore, is portrayed as a god who, in his state of deity, came to this world to become the father of mankind. Upon assuming his new role he became known (received a new name) as Rigr (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. 5, p. 37).

The relationship between Elohim and Adam can be extrapolated from the relationship between the Germanic god Twisto and his son. Twisto gave rise to a son Mannus who became the "originator" or procreator of the human race (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1969, vol. 10, p. 214). In the same way Michael,having come forth from Elohim became known (received the new name) as Mannus--man or Adam.

God, as the physical procreator of the human race, is found in an old Babylonian myth of Atrahasis where it is said that the first man came into existence when a God "who has understanding" mixed his blood with clay (Botterweck and Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 76). In Merikare, 132, we read of an Egyptian myth wherein mankind is pictured as being procreated or coming "forth from his [the God's] limbs" Botterweck and Ringgren, vol. 1, p. 78). [163] In ancient lore Michael (Atum) is the one who provides sustenance for mankind. He is the viceroy of Heaven, the warrior of God, the slayer of the dragon, the arbitrator of justice and the Prince of Light. Adam's exalted position in Egyptian lore has only recently been appreciated. He is styled as both demiurge and hypostasis. He was the father of the gods in the heavenly council at the creation (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 131). His preeminence in the preexistence council is as the creator of the world and spiritual father of mankind. In the Coffin Texts Adam declares himself to be a god.

I came into being from the members of the Great God who was self-existent. He created me in his heart; he made me in his glory; he breathed me from his nose. I am a god whose forms were breathed forth.... He created me in his heart, he made me in his glory, before my mother bore me. There was made for me plants in the Garden of Stt [the East]; I became the provider of bread for the gods. I am in the midst of going the rounds, Lord of the green garden . . . (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 173; emphasis added).

It was the council's decision that the creation should be expressly for Adam and his posterity.

I am Atum [Adam] . . . I have received and entered into my kingdom.... I advanced on my feet, I stretched forth my two arms; heaven was perfect for me. The Divine Council was satisfied. They granted that I should reunite with them. So my family, my children, my brothers and my sisters and my dear friends everywhere were included (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 230).

Within the preexistent council, the grand plan was formulated. Those who accepted that plan would have a "pure begetting" (physical procreation) through the First Sent One (Sophia Christi, 82:1 2). It was Adam who became a Sent One to help his children (Psalms of Thomas, v:26-28; iv: 1-10, 12-17).

66

The Sent One is in charge of the "Treasure of Life" (Ginza, 96). These concepts correlate with Joseph's teachings that Adam controls the keys of the priesthood to this world (T.P.J.S., p. 157) and that it [164] is Adam who watches over the ordinances of the priesthood and reveals them to mankind (T.P.J.S., p.168).

Michael was revered for more than just being the "Prince of Light"; he, in fact, was considered to be the source of eternal life. It is the "light of Adam" that leads men in truth (Psalms of Thomas, iv:9). Adam is "the son of the Treasuries of Radiance" (Mandaean Prayerbook, nos. 379, 290) and, as such,those who are faithful are promised his glory (IQS, iv: line 23). Adam was in fact considered the archtype whom all must follow to be received into the "Treasury of Light."

Adam's status as a primal god is extended as God and Father of the Savior. According to the Coffin Texts, the Savior, when introduced to the great assembly, said: "I am . . . the seed of Atum [Adam], the issue of him who gave names in the days when Atum discussed it with the Gods" (The Coffin Texts, 1, 167, Spell. 39). (For the identification of Atum with Adam see E. Lefebure, in Bibliotheque Egyptoligique, xxxv, 1913, pp. 16-21; also The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 133.)

Regarding Adam as His Father, the Savior further said:

I am the Living One, the Lord of Years, who lives for time and eternity, whom Atum made the eldest one in his glory . . . when He was one and became Three, at the time he separated the earth from Heaven, before the bringing forth of the first flesh, before the first Mother.... My name lives as Son of the God of the preexistence.... I live in the members of my father Atum. I am the Living One whom . . . Atum begot with Neper, when he had me descend to this earth, even the Isle of Flame, when my name became Osiris, son of Earth. I am the Living One for whom the expanse of the heaven and the broad earth were made, that the offerings of the ordinances might be through me to God (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 173)

Adam (Atum) was also recognized as the Creator of the world as well as of man. He is "the Ancient One . . . the first hypostasis of the demiurge at the time of the [165] creation . . . the word of Ptah [Elohim] incarnate" (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 133).

The Pistis Sophia describes the creation as having been effected by Atum and Gabriel who took charge bringing light to chaos. With the world having been organized and prepared to receive and sustain life, the gods then extended their dominion through an ever enlarging colonizing process called a "planting."

Colonization, always a family affair, takes place according to the divine patriarchal order. God wants all of those He raises up to fill the face of the universe with His seed The "plants," or inhabitants, are the offspring of the patriarchal deities (Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, p. 79). Thisplan offers each plant (individual) the opportunity of becoming a planter (god) whereby he can extend his own dominion and posterity to other worlds. This process as documented in ancient philosophy is explained in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless:

. . . we find throughout the cosmos an infinity of dwelling places (topoi), either occupied or awaiting tenants. These are colonized by migrants from previously established "toposes" or worlds, all going back ultimately to a single original center. The colonizing process is called "planting," and those spirits which bring their treasures to a new world are called "Plants," more rarely "seeds," of their father or "Planter" in another world. Every planting goes out from a Treasure-house, either as the essential material elements or as the colonizers themselves, who come from a sort of mustering-area called the "Treasure-house of the Souls." With its "planting" completed, a new world is in business, a new Treasury has been established from which new Sparks may go forth in all directions to start the process anew in ever new spaces; God wants every man to "plant a planting," nay, "he has promised that those who keep his Law may also become creators of worlds." But keeping that law requires following the divine pattern in every point;

67

in taking the Treasure to a new world, the Sent One (who follows hard on the heels of the colonists) seeks nothing so much as complete identity with the One who sent him; hence, from first to last one mind alone dominates the whole boundless complex. Because each planting is completely dependent on its Treasure-house or home-base, [166] the system never breaks up into independent systems; in this patriarchal order all remains forever identified with the Father from whom all ultimately come forth (p. 60).

The colonization of the earth is a planting process. Those who share in God's plan are his plants. The human race according to the Mandaean Prayer Book is Adam's planting (Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, p. 80, fn. 98) With creation being the essence of godhood, Adam again emerges as the God of the planting of this world.

At Heliopolis, Atum (Adam) was in fact recognized as one of the greatest of gods. "I am Atum who created the Great Ones.... I am he for whom the heavenly hosts were assembled, upon whomdivine authority was bestowed," Atum's dual personality is unique as one who is God, the Creator, yet human. He is at home in heaven as well as on earth. He is God come down to earth (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 132-33).

In many respects ancient Egyptian rites parallel the current LDS temple rite. An integral part of the Egyptian rite was a series of embraces which, through a gesture of meaning, symbolizes steps in progression. Many of these embraces have their counterpart in LDS ceremony. Such is the paternal embrace which has its parallel in the temple ceremony in the patriarchal embrace. Just as the patriarchal embrace is the culminating ritual in the current ceremony, so was the paternal embrace of great significance in the Egyptian rite. This rite culminated in the "celestial room" where the "Creator Himself" embraces the initiate as a representation of the fusion of the heaven-bound with God (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 241). The paternal embrace is a father-son relationship wherein the son unifies with and is taken into the bosom and presence of the father. This parallels the Mormon ceremony where the candidate (for godhood), embracing the Father, seeks admission into His presence. In the same way the candidate is symbolically taken into the bosom of the father. In some Egyptian traditions the God who [167] embraced the candidate was "Atum the Ancient One." "More often the embracer is Atum, the Ancient One. . . . When Atum opens his arms to the candidate, the way of further progression is opened up to him" (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 241, 242). The main purpose of this rite, just as our purpose today, is complete identification with God the Father.

Atum (Adam) in the Egyptian tradition signifies "the collective sum of all future beings, all embracing, the sum of everything or the uniting of many in one, of combining all preexistent beings in a single archtype who thereby represents all beings hereafter" (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 133). The contemporary parallel of this theology is again found in the temple ceremony where the initiate in his eternalquest treads the footsteps of the Archtype--Adam.

The Royal Man Rite

The motif wherein Adam is depicted as the archtype of humanity, the ideal prophet, or a divinized king and patriarch, is a theme common to a cross-section of ancient cultures, which has left its influence on their ideologies and religious beliefs. These ideologies were commonly expressed within thecontext of sacred rites and rituals. Many of these rites, as we have seen, bear a striking resemblance to the Mormon temple ceremony in both form and thought.

These rituals concerning the first man, who is seen as a God come to earth, have been researched and compiled by the biblical scholar Frederick Houk Borsch in his book The Son of Man in Myth and History (hereinafter SOMIMH). This important work traces these thought patterns through various gnostic, pagan, and Jewish sects contemporary with Christian origins back to antecedent Royal King Rites practiced in the ancient religions of the Near East. In these ancient cultures, the King was seen

68

to be a representative of Adam, who was worshiped as "the royal god-Man, son of the high-god . . . First Man-King [168] of the earth and the royal, Primordial God Man . . ." (SOMIMH, pp. 89-90).

The many rituals and beliefs concerning the heroic "man" figure all play upon the word "man" in one of several languages. Among his titles and descriptions are: Proanthropose, Archanthropose, Pre-existent Man, The Great Man, The Perfect Man, The Upper Man, The Inner Man, The Son of Man, The Great and Beautiful Man, Adam, Amush, Adamas, Adakas, The Heavenly Man, The True Man, etc. (SOMIMH, p. 55).

The all-important ritual, Borsch tells us, took place at the annual festival and concerned itself with "providing a social and cosmological harmony between the people and their ruler" as well as between their ruler and the gods. The festival represented a rejuvenation of a decaying world and was portrayed as a recreation of the world. "The creation story was therefore either ritually enacted or, at least, ceremonially read."

The central figure in the rite was the human king who portrayed the role of the heavenly deity or king-god who was also known as the first man. As such the identity of the earthly king is fused with that of the heavenly first man. Through this relationship the king himself becomes a deity personifying thedivine Man above.

He [the earthly king] could assume for certain designated parts of the drama the role of the king-god. What happens to the king symbolizes what happened to the god.... The king and the king-god could, representationally, be one, their attributes confused.... In certain respects a union of divine and human takes place in his representative person.... Possibly this could be viewed as a kind of incarnation of god.... [T]he king-man has become a divine being and can represent the king-god to his people.

The human king is a "figure of the first man," and son of the king-god who is seen as a former "first man now in heaven." The deifying parallels to Adam, the first man and king, are obvious.

The rite begins on a heavenly stage with the creation of the world. A creation battle against "primeval forces of [169] darkness, evil and chaos" ensues. The king, acting in the role of the king-god or first man, then does battle against these forces which are sometimes seen as rebellious "peoples [or spirits] intent on overthrowing the society."

The king is initially defeated and "goes down into the earth to a place of darkness and death. He suffers and is totally humiliated; he becomes a figure of contempt, even of ridicule." He is stripped of his godhood and must suffer the pangs of mortality. His suffering is often "interpreted as a result of his sin." But in other rites "he is seen to suffer as an innocent victim." His connection with former deity is hintedat by Borsch's quizzical note: "Odd though it at first seems, he was accused of trying to make himself into a deity. " In either event, he is cast out and cries unto God for help. Sacrifices were probably made at this point.

The drama becomes confusing at this point as it is not clear to whom the king-god is crying or calling for help. "Sometimes it appears that it is to the high-god, the father of the king-god (and thus, the father of the king acting the part of the king-god), but at other times it is the king-god himself whose help he requests." In order "to understand this we need to comprehend how gods could sometimes exchange roles." Borsch sees the high-god (father of the king-god) filling his son's role as king-god while he (the king-god) is in his fallen mortal state. This concept extends nicely to Adam's father who, after the same manner, must have extended himself to encompass Adam's pre-earth role while Adam sojourned in mortality. This explains such apparent contradictions as Moses 6:51, 52, where God called upon Adam, stating that he "made the world, and men before they were in the flesh."

His cries for help are heard and the first man is saved. In some accounts the emphasis "falls on the idea that he himself is empowered to rise." His powers are revived "through the partaking of the sacred water and/or food that revive him." Could that sacred food have been from the tree of life? [170] With his powers restored, the man "overcomes the powers of evil and chaos...." The king ascends then

69

into heaven where he is enthroned as god. The enthrone-ment rite, Borsch notes, "was usually performed in the temple." Here also

. . . The king is anointed. The holy garment is put on him together with the crown and other royal regalia. He is said to be radiant, to shine like the sun just as does the king-god.... He is permitted to sit upon the throne, often regarded as the very throne of the god. He rules and judges; all enemies are subservient. All do him obeisance.

The final scene of the rite is of special interest to students of Mormon doctrine who would interpret its message as eternal increase or endless lives. The king-god now reenthroned consummates a . . . sacred marriage with a woman who was herself regarded as a representative of the Goddess, wife of the king-god. This union . . . was . . . intended to signal and encourage the reproduction process of the world of nature.... All nature is his dominion. It is the beginning of the creation all over again, and the king is the First Man and ruler restored, the father of his people. The cycle is ready to repeat itself (SOMIMH, pp. 92-96).

Parallels to Mormon doctrine and temple ceremony are obvious to the initiated. The mythical king-god can be none other than Michael or Adam. It was Michael who contended against the preexistent insurgents. It was Michael, as Adam, who descended to the earth to be humiliated and die. It is Adam, asthe "first man," who is King and Priest over his posterity. It is Adam who ultimately will overcome the powers of evil to win victory for his people. It is Adam who, in the temple, is anointed and dressed with the holy garment and is received into the presence of the most high god to rule and reign over his posterity throughout all generations of time.

It is interesting that the pattern is extended by Borsch (a non-Mormon) to marriage and procreation in the hereafter, which is again followed by another fall or cycle in eternal progression.[171] Such "man" figures as those depicted in the king god rites have been described in the lore of numerous cultures which include: Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Jewish, Hebrew, Gnostic, Iranian, Mandaean, Zoroastrian, Mithraic, Egyptian, and Chaldean. This list can be expected to grow with furtherresearch. Commenting on the widespread nature of the royal "man" myth, Borsch observes that

. . . it is very difficult to believe that there is not some relationship between many of these conceptions despite all their diversity.... Endeavoring to find the source of the Man mythology is in many ways like trying to identify the source of gnosticism. Indeed it is probably wrong to speak in terms of a source. Rather should we think of sources, and if we are to presuppose anything, it is probably best to reckon with a variety of ideas and cultural backgrounds intermingling, complicating, and affecting one another as versions of legendary Man story were told in different milieux. In addition it should be pointed out that figures bearing at least some resemblance to the Man of the early Christian centuries have been located in other ages and places as distant as China or Scandinavia. There may be something almost archtypal about the basic conceptions involved (SOMIMH, p. 68).

Other reflections of the royal "man" myth are found in the beliefs and rites of the Mandaeans. This sect, still extant in lower Mesopotamia, may be traced back to the early Christian and Palestinian era. Their preoccupation with Adam (who is seen to play two roles, that of "the heavenly Adam . . . the one from which all was made," and the earthly Adam, "in whom the Adam above indwells") is summarized:

So all Mandaeans at baptism are thought to indwell or be indwelt, to become like him. Priests especially are held to be Adam's earthly representatives, and many carry his name along with their own. The double Adam, who seems to be at the heart of Mandaean mythology, "is the archtype of spiritual humanity and priesthood." As heavenly Man, he is the archtype "of Adam as crowned and anointed

70

mankind." He is the king of the world and the first king, the ruler and father of all other kings and priests. The story of creation is his story, the [172] story of "the Divine Man, Adam as crowned and anointed King-priest" (SOMIMH, pp. 212, 213).

The essential concept of Mandaean ordinances is a personal identity with the archtype--Adam. Their ordinances, once again, parallel Mormon temple worship.

Although baptism had several purposes in the Mandaean religion, the central initiation behind many baptisms appears quite clearly to have been that of initiation, a kind of ordination to the status of a heavenly priest-king . . . types of the Primal Man. Baptism takes place both in heaven and on earth . . . the terrestrial ceremonial involves a celestial reality. The one to be baptized goes down into the Jordan; he is washed (sometimes anointed), signed (sometimes said to become like the divinity in heaven, signed with the name of the divinity and/or said to become a son); he drinks water from the river (sometimes is given a sacred meal of bread and water) and rises up or ascends from the river. He then is invested (made light, endued with radiance, clothed with glory) . . . He is then crowned, hands are laid upon him, and he participates in the ceremony of the ritual handclasp.... Every Mandaean priest is anointed, crowned, and given the insignia of kingship when he is ordained, for he is the earthly representative of the Heavenly Man.... The Mandaeans also wore white robes, and they wore them as signs of their priesthood . . . having become the exalted royal priests of God, representatives of the Adam above (SOMIMH, pp. 210, 211, 220).

Another important source for teachings about the royal "man" figure is the Divine Pymander of Hermes Trismegistus. It is an allegory of sorts, based on the Genesis creation account and influenced heavily by extra biblical elements. This work embodies a myth of the Urmench or primeval man. The story bears a remarkable resemblance to Adam's role in the scheme of eternal progression. The identity of Adam is again fused with that of God. In summary it relates the following:

Mind, the father of all, "gave birth to a man like himself. . . . The Man was very beautiful, bearing the image of his Father." The Man desires to create: he bends to earth, sees his form reflected in the water and unites with Nature. He thus [173] becomes a being of two natures, "mortal because of the body, immortal because of the essential Man." . . . Though he be mortal and set over all things, he nevertheless is made to suffer the conditions of mortals, being subject to destiny. Though descended from the unsleeping one and himself sleepless, he is now overcome by mortal sleepiness.... God sent the Man down to be an ornament of the divine body.... "Man on earth is a mortal God; God in heaven is an immortal Man." As in the Naassene philosophy there seems little doubt that we are dealing with a story concerning one who was sent from heaven to earth. Yet at the core of the legend is this theme of the rebirth and ascent of the Man. It is as though there was a Man both in heaven and on earth whose stories have somehow been combined (SOMIMH, p. 60).

Could it be that the co-mingling of identities and personalities between God and the first man (Adam) has more basis than the chance idea of a cultic myth? Whatever the basis, the influence of these ideologies has left its mark on early Christian thought. Hippolytus (A.D. 170-236), one of the first Christian fathers, penned a refutation of the common heresies of his day. Among those heresies were beliefs and the worship of the "great first man"--Adam.

The Naassenes, we are told, magnified as the originator of all things a man and a son of man. That man was called Adam. The foundation of their doctrine centered in the man Adam. Theysupposed that a knowledge of him is the originating principle of the capacity for a knowledge of God. They believed that the soul of Adam above fell into the Adam below. He is the "blessed Man

71

from above" from whom have come the souls of other men and who is present in all men. He is called the "Rock" and the "Chief Cornerstone," for that which is in the head is the "formative brain from which the entire family is fashioned." That formative brain was considered to be Adam. The rock they reasoned "is awall and fortress in which exists the inner man, who thither has fallen from Adam the primal man above" (Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, book 5, chapters 1-4). [174] Hippolytus also cites parallel Adam-God motifs among the Chaldeans and Samothracians.

Iraneaus in his Against Heresies (book 1) informs us that the Anthropose (Adam) played a role in Valentinian thought (1:1). Followers of Ptolemaeus and Colorbasus are said to have believed in a savior who is a descendant of the Anthropose (12:3). The Barbelo-gnostics spoke of a "perfect and true Man whom they also call Adamus" (29:3). Speculation on the first man was a central theme in the faith of the Ophites or Sethians. He is a "primary light" and is named "the Father of All" (30:1).

In the Bruce Codex there is a striking similarity between the "man" there presented and the Adam worshiped by the Naassenes. He is to be praised, was a cosmic figure, even the prototype of human society. He is androgynous and wise. He is the creator and source of all things. He is called Adam, "who is of the lights" (SOMIMH, p. 63).

Given the widespread nature of these myths concerning the first man, it would be surprising not to find similar motifs in the traditions of ancient Israel. Indeed this is the case especially as they pertain to the role of Israel's kings and their relationship to Yahweh. The reader is referred to the work by Borsch for further documentation and development of this theme within ancient Israel (pp. 106-124). It is sufficient here to note that our biblical portrayal of Adam also reflects his royal image:

In the account of Gen. 2-3 it is yet more certain that we are dealing with a mythical royal First Man. Though made from the earth, he has the divine breath within him. He is given a consort and from their union issue the whole human race. He is thus father and ancestor to all men. This Adam rules over paradise. From this garden of Eden springs the rivers of the world. In Adam's garden there also grows the tree of life and another tree, that of the knowledge of good and evil, a probable variant of the tree of life. Adam, in the pattern of other first kings and first men, sins by aspiring to become a full divinity SOMIMH, p. 113).

The influence of the Royal Man myth is apparent in Jewish Old Testament, apocryphal and pseudepigraph-[175]ical literature. Some of the most pertinent of these sources have already been cited in this chapter. The historical preoccupation with Adam and the "man" myth has caused a contemporary author to query:

Why is Man or Adam occasionally seen as a huge, cosmological giant? Why is he worshipped as a glorified hero and often reckoned as sinless? Why is he sometimes a hermaphrodite, sometimes even as though a kind of sun divinity? How can the Adam of Genesis be regarded as one who has since been represented on earth in others? Why is he born from water? . . . Why does Adam or First Man become so important both within and without Judaism? (SOMIMH, p. 73).

Why indeed! Among all the speculation it is interesting to see a contemporary non-Mormon investigator state that Adam's name can be a name for mankind as well as for a deity of this earth (SOMIMH, p. 112).

The concept of a royal "man" is summarized in the Gospel of Philip where it states: "Adam was begotten again, again became a son, again was anointed, again was ransomed, again paid the price" (199:1ff). Adam is here seen in an atoning capacity twice over, he having performed the divine.

In summary, this chapter has attempted to demonstrate that the Adam-God doctrine is neither novel nor an exclusive idea of early Mormon doctrine have a historical basis thought. Concepts of the doctrine have and reach back through both New and Old Testaments into ancient Israel and "pagan" traditions. Assuming that neither Joseph nor Brigham was familiar with Adam-God mythology, how can

72

we then account for the de novo introduction of these concepts, coincident with the restoration, unless they are part of that restoration?

[177] CHAPTER 13

PEARLS BEFORE SWINE

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you. (Matthew 7:6) Nothing is more difficult, my brethren, than to reason concerning the truth in the presence of a mixed multitude of people. For that which is may not be spoken to all as it is, on account of those who hear wickedly and treacherously; yet it is not proper to deceive, on account of those who desire to hear the truth sincerely. What, then, shall he do who has to address a mixed multitude? Shall he conceal what is true? How, then, shall he instruct those who are worthy? But if he set forth pure truth to those who do not desire to obtain salvation, he does injury to Him by whom he has been sent, and from whom he has received commandment not to throw the pearls of His words before swine and dogs, who, striving against them with arguments and sophisms, roll them in the mud of carnal understanding, and by their barkings and base answers break and weary the preachers of God's word. Wherefore I also, for the most part, by using a certain circumlocution, endeavor to avoid publishing the chief knowledge concerning the Supreme Divinity to unworthy ears.

(Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 3, chapter 1)

. . . the most sublime truths are best honored by means of silence.(Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 1, chapter 23)

If the Adam-God doctrine is true and derives from the restoration, how can we explain the negative attitude of the church toward that doctrine today? The doctrine has not been taught from the Mormon pulpits in modern times. To the contrary, public preaching has been to discourage interest in the doctrine to the point that many [178] of its implications are branded as false. In contrast to former times, there are even many who have been cut off from the church for their belief in Adam-God. This disparity can best be understood by examining the evolutionary proclamation of the doctrine as a tenet of Mormon belief.

The Adam-God doctrine, as implied in previous chapters, has been a doctrine not of public expression but of personal edification--to be taught and embraced through the medium of theHoly Spirit on prepared minds. Hence Joseph's teachings, although public, were understood only by those who had spiritual ears to hear. This same teaching principle was observed by the Savior who, through parables, taught the mysteries of godliness. His disciples, as if to say, "Why teachest thou not openly andin boldness?" said, "Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" The Savior's answer showed insight beyond the comprehension ofhis disciples: "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is not given" (Matt. 13:10-11). Hence, Joseph's teachings were held in reserve for those who gave them reverent heed.". . . And he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he knows them in full" (Alma 12:10).

That not all minds were spiritually prepared to receive the mysteries of godliness is evidenced by Joseph's remark, "Thereare a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake" (T.P.J.S., p. 309).

For this reason, Joseph kept the most sacred truths holy and unspotted from the derision of the world. These mysteries were shared only with the most intimate and trusted friends. With the same dignity and respect, these truths have been and are being taught in the temples. The temple, as a sanctuary,

73

carries with it the confidence that its truths will remain priceless and holy, hidden as it were [179] from worldly contempt. Joseph, who had the heavens opened to him, knew the value of keeping to himself such mysteries "hidden with Christ in God," and as such he achieved the restoration of the gospelbut was unsuccessful in unifying the saints in God. Brigham aspired to accomplish that which Joseph could not. It was within the isolated valleys of the Rocky Mountains that he tried to gather the saints together as one. Here, protected from the scorn and mockery of the Gentiles, Brigham began to preach the sanctifying doctrines he had learned as Joseph's disciple.

It was in 1852 that Adam-God concepts were revealed to the saints at large. Brigham's desire in doing this was undoubtedly the edification and exaltation of an Israelite nation. With this hope, he began to teach and expound the true nature of God. His teachings were promulgated beyond the confines of the temple and private circles to a would-be nation of kings and priests. Brigham, like Enoch, wanted to exalt a nation. And, inasmuch as exaltation can only come through exalting laws and doctrines, Adam-God was made a public teaching. Only Brigham knows how carefully he weighed that decision. In retrospect it may have been a product of misjudgment, for in declaring Adam-God to the saints, the doctrine was exposed to the derision of the world. Pearls were cast before swine. That Brigham had some misgivingsin telling saints too much about God is evident from the following statement:

. . . if guilt before my God and my brethren rests upon men in the least, it is in this one thing--that I have revealed too much concerning God and His kingdom, and the designs of our Father in heaven. If my skirts are stained in the least with wrong, it is because I have been too free in telling what God is, how he lives, the nature of his providences and designs in creating the world in bringing forth the human family on 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 (J.D. 8:58). [180] Was Brigham guilty of telling too much, of casting the priceless and most holy principles before the unbelieving onlyto be trodden under foot? Was Brigham guilty as Joseph said:

The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them, we do not keep our own secrets but reveal our difficulties to the world even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? (T.P.J.S., p. 195).

It is obvious from Brigham's remarks that he pondered these very questions. Only the Lord can and will Judge Brigham for his public disclosure of the Adam-God doctrine. We can only be assured that the intent of his heart was pure. Nevertheless, the doctrine was laid before mocking eyes and hearts of scorn. A holy doctrine had been explained in such lucid detail that not even the Gentiles could fail to understand its meaning. However, they did not have "ears to hear" nor "eyes to see"--"it was notgiven unto them to know the mysteries." Their hearts were not spiritually prepared to honor and cherish the truths which had fallen on their ears. They were in no position to appreciate their true value. Pearls of the greatest price had been cast before swine for whom they had no sanctifying power. They had been rolled in the mud of carnal understanding.

The Savior gave us adequate warning as to what would happen in the event our pearls were cast before swine. First, they are not appreciated and are trodden under foot. Second, the swine will turn and rend the one who casts the pearls.

The first portion of the Savior's prediction has literally been fulfilled. Since its public declaration, the Adam-God doctrine has been held in scorn by unbelievers who have effectively trampled the doctrine under their feet. The Adam-God doctrine has been a point of ridicule and attack for almostevery anti-Mormon writer from the days of Brigham Young to the present. Its absurdity in the mind of the unbeliever is held before the world as an [181] example of Mormon anti-Christian beliefs. It is used to exemplify the fallen and decadent nature of Mormonism. More recently, the apparent reversal in churchattitude toward the doctrine has been interpreted as a denial of the truthfulness of that doctrine. This has not only caused rifts from within but has fueled anti-Mormon factions from without. It has heightened

74

persecutory sentiments both internally and externally. This, indeed, is a paradoxical condition for the true church of Jesus Christ to be in--for a house divided against itself cannot stand. "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." Thus, the doctrine has not only been trampled under foot but has also been used as a tool to divide the church.

This disunity was not produced entirely by persecution from outside the church. It has been caused, in part, by the disbelief of the church members themselves. Brigham's major obstacle was, in fact, the disbelief of the saints—their unwillingness to accept and submit to higher laws and concepts. Said Brigham:

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. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism for 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 (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1861).

Concerning the faithfulness of the saints, Orson Pratt said:

I do not know but that it would be an utter impossibility to commence and carry out some principles pertaining to Zion right in the midst of this people. They have strayed so far that to get a people who would conform to heavenly laws it may be needful to lead some from the midst of this people and commence anew somewhere in the regions round about in these mountains (J.D. 15:361).

[182] More particularly in regard to Adam-God, Apostle Abraham H. Cannon in 1892 made the following notation:

. . . I was at my Quorrum meeting where were present all the Presidency and myself, as also Bro. Lyman; Geo. Gibbs, clerk. Bro. Jos. F. Smith was mouth in prayer. Thereafter some conversation followed as to whether Adam is our God or not. There are some in the Church who do not accept of the statements of Pres. Young that such is the case . . . (Abraham H. Cannon Diary, May 26, 1892).

Persecution, such as that caused by the Adam-God doctrine, has always been withstood by the faithful. However, the entire church has never been faithful. One should recall that when Brigham received, by revelation, the instruction to organize the United Order of Enoch, approximately 40 percent of the church submitted to that revelation. Only 5 percent were faithful enough to embrace the divine principle of plural marriage. What would additional Adam-God persecution do to the unfaithful?Would they be able to withstand, or would they turn and flee from rending swine? Herein has the Savior's prophecy been fulfilled. The Adam-God doctrine has become a rending instrument on the church and faith of the saints. Persecution has, in times past, been so intense that many have been forced to abandon atrue belief in favor of Babylon's standard. The pressures of persecution and disapprobation of the world have been heavy burdens for many members to bear. The faith of many saints has been rent. Many have rejected the teachings of Joseph and Brigham. No more is there public or private support for the doctrine. So obscure has the doctrine become that its very mention is an absurdity in the ear of the Latter-day Saints. The value of Alma's words has been lost:

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless, they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him (Alma 12:9).

75

[183] What of the saints' faith today? Priesthood meetings are a constant harangue to "magnify your priesthood calling by getting 80 percent home teaching." Greater than 50 percent of the church population is inactive. The divorce rate among temple marriages is on the increase and may approach the Gentile standard. Probably less than 20 percent of the church pays a full tithe. The word of wisdom, given not by way of commandment and adapted to the least of the saints, has become one of the most exalted laws of the church (and that is not lived in its entirety by the saints). Only 28 percent of household fathers are active Melchizedek priesthood bearers (Alvin R. Dyer, A Photographic Essay on the Old Lower B. Y. U. Campus).

But the church has grown worldwide, and perhaps this is the price that had to be paid for that adoration. All kinds of fish have been caught in the net. Tares have grown up in the church with the wheat. They will be allowed to grow together until fully ripe, at which time the wheat will be harvested, the tares bound into bundles and burned (D&C 86:7).

In the meantime, one must hold sacred that which is holy. Is it any wonder that little strong doctrine is publicly taught in the church today? Teachings today have been reduced to authoritarian dogmatism with the members being "spoon-fed" because new thoughts and concepts are often met with contempt. A free exchange of ideas is frequently interpreted as a challenge to authority or the expressions of apostate thought. Platitudes such as "avoid the mysteries" are the everyday diet. Herein is the danger--that one loses perspective and fails to give heed and diligence to the word of God--that he becomes complacent with his material blessings, believing "all is well in Zion," while encroaching sectarianism and narrow mindedness reduce his comprehension of the mysteries of godliness.

J. Reuben Clark warned us of these events:

. . . we are beginning to follow along the course of the early Christian church. So long as the church was persecuted from [184] without, it prospered, but when it began to be polluted from within, the church began to wither. There is creeping into our midst, and I warn you brethren about it, and I urge you to meet it, a great host of sectarian doctrines that have no place amongst us. The gospel in its simplicity, is to be found in the revelations, the teachings of the prophet and the early leaders of the Church. We shall make no mistake if we follow them. We shall make mistakes, and we shall lead our youth, or some of them, to apostacy if we try to harmonize our simple beliefs with the philosophy and speculation of sectarian doctrines.... We must not "liberalize" . . . our teachings . . . we must accept them as God gave them to us (Melchizedek Priesthood Lesson Manual 1968-69; p. 156).

In light of the church's position in the world today, and holding a diversity of fish in its nets, its position on doctrine becomes clear. Its objective is to direct its teachings at the masses. The masses today are those being converted from other religions. They must first mature on a diet of milk before the mysteries and strong doctrines can become palatable and nutritious. At the same time, precious pearls must be kept from those who don't have eyes to see and who would otherwise trample them under their feet.

With this in mind, let us review what President Kimball said in 1976:

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 the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrines (Deseret News, Oct. 9, 1976).

The mysteries of godliness have become an individual pursuit. One can only sanctify himself through his own faith. Faith is an independent power within each person. It cannot be acquired by the passive association with an organization or reliance on another. We have the promise that, through the

76

exercise of our faith and [185] sanctification in Christ, all things will be unfolded unto us (Ether 4:7). Our faith may indeed become so strong that we may even rend the veil (Ether 12:19).

It is because of the disbelief and spiritual deterioration in the church that the mysteries have become an individual pursuit. They remain for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, "unto whom it is given to know." Thus, the pearls of the greatest worth have been held from public derision. These pearls are only to be acquired by those who personally give proper "heed and diligence" to the word ofGod. We have by sad experience come to know the value of the Savior's words: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Matt. 7:6).

The pearls of the kingdom of God have been withdrawn from an unbelieving generation only to be discovered by the individual. It was to preserve these very pearls of Adam-God that President Kimball delivered his carefully worded 1976 comments on Adam-God, for analysis of his statement reveals himto have said something quite different from what one would initially conclude. President Kimball's remarks were addressed to an "Adam-God theory" . . . "which is not founded in scripture." The real issue, the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Joseph and Brigham which is founded in scripture, was not aconsideration in President Kimball's remarks for, according to this statement, we should reject all false teachings not founded in scripture. Indeed, this is the same teaching of Brigham and Joseph. Illusion, however, was given to those who didn't understand that the church discredits the Adam-God doctrine. Hecould only have meant to give the illusion of discreditation, for there is no possible way the church could repudiate the restored doctrines of Jesus Christ and maintain its favor with God. This is the circumlocution referred to by Peter. President Kimball's remarks were neither dishonest nor without precedent; they were, in reality, the final steps [186] taken to reclaim the Adam-God pearls which had been cast before the feet of swine.

That there has been a plan to reclaim the Adam-God doctrine is borne out by an analysis of statements made by the General Authorities on Adam-God. It becomes apparent that the plan is togive the impression that the Adam-God doctrine is only speculation and not necessary for our salvation.

With the pronouncement of the Manifesto in 1890, anti-Mormon sentiment became focused on anti-sectarian doctrine of the church, such as the plurality of Gods and the Adam-God doctrine. Persecution over the Adam-God doctrine heightened around the turn of the century and remained intense throughout the 1920s and 1930s. It has tapered to a lower profile through the 1960s and 1970s. The Adam-God fire has been fueled by the Fundamentalists, Josephites (the Reorganized Church of JesusChrist of Latter Day Saints) and virtually every anti-Mormon writer since its announcement in 1852.

The intense persecution brought on the church by the Gentiles has forced the church to give the illusion of retracting the doctrine so that the church might find a more favorable profile in bearing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. For it is only by taking the gospel to all nations that the world can be prepared for the coming of our Savior.

Anti-Adam-God sentiment has influenced the issuance of formal statements which, with the passage of time, have evolved from a "don't worry about it" posture to an overtone of false doctrine. Collectively, these statements reflect an overall plan to gradually and progressively reclaim all that is holy from under the feet of swine. Unfortunately, in reclaiming the pearls from under the feet of swine, one is likely to get muddied or stepped on himself. Nevertheless, this is the price that had to be paid in order to reclaim the Adam-God pearl. For, in so doing, the church has left itself open to criticism for rejecting the teachings of its prophets. Fundamentalists [187] have capitalized on the church's apparent change in doctrinal attitude as evidence for its apostasy from truth. It may well have been the Adam-God agitation caused in recent years by Walter Martin or the Fundamentalists that triggered President Kimball's 1976 statement.

…Historically, at the death of Brigham Young, political pressure was mounting against the church.

These pressures heightened during the presidency of John Taylor and reached their zenith in 1890. Persecution brought on by the United States government was overtaxing to the majority of the saints who

77

saw their church disincorporated as a legal entity, saw their leaders imprisoned, and their church properties stolen and plundered by the Congress of the United States. The saints were witnessing the destruction of everything that they had worked to obtain and believe in. John Taylor, whose presidency was overshadowed with anti-polygamy persecution, was himself in hiding from the clutches of an unrighteous law. Polygamy and the unrighteous laws of the land were the overriding issues of John Taylor's day. With the saints' faith being sorely tried on these fundamental issues, the Adam-God doctrine had no significant priority. There was no need for further division over doctrinal issues. John Taylor had witnessed [188] the dissension that Adam-God had caused during Brigham Young's presidency. This is evidenced from Brigham's statement: "Some have grumbled because believed our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true"( J.D. 5:331).

Further evidence of dissension is suggested by a discussion in the Parowan school of prophets, where disbelief in Brigham's god (Adam) was equated to apostasy within the church. The minutes for that meeting (March 25, 1871) read: "S.S. Smith spoke of some of the brethren from the west (Medow Valley).Speaking of the apostacy [sic] in the church, said that there were many who are beginning to think that they do not worship the same God that Brigham Young does."

The Adam-God doctrine had become a common source of contention. The dissension following Brigham's death naturally carried over into John Taylor's presidency. In 1880 there was documented arguing over the doctrine in priesthood quorums:

. . . the High Priests in the Malad Ward were contending one with another concerning some point of doctrine, which they did not understand. The point in dispute being, was Adam our God (Minutes of the High Priests Quorum, Box Elder Stake Feb. 24, 1880).

John Taylor had no intention of continuing this dissension. His was a time for unification. Consequently, there is little if any comment on Adam-God subsequent to the death of Brigham Younguntil after the polygamy crusades had been put to rest by the Manifesto in 1890. With the polygamy issue settled, the minds of the saints again began to reflect on other doctrinal issues. This, in part, was stimulated by anti-Mormon persecution which had shifted from polygamy to doctrinal issues, with Adam-God being the most vulnerable.

The concern of the brethren at this juncture was to cause no further strife, least of all from within, over doctrinal issues. Their faith had been tried; they must [189] now move forward to build a sure foundation on fundamental gospel principles. Consequently, the Adam-God doctrine received littleaffirmative support as it proved to be beyond the spiritual understanding of the average Latter-day Saint. The Adam-God doctrine was not renounced or withdrawn, for this would have caused a divisionary backlash. It was simply put to rest—no longer actively taught. Instead, attention was focused on fundamental unifying doctrines which were within the grasp of every member. They were counseled to refrain from unfruitful contentions over ill-understood issues. They were to found themselves solidly on known issues before they could progress further.

This attitude is reflected in the case of Edward Bunker who for years had contended against the Adam-God doctrine. (This case is discussed in greater detail in chapter 14.) His contention, which resulted in a division among the saints, led to a high council court with the matter ultimately beingdeferred to the First Presidency for resolution. In their deferral, the involved Stake Presidency wrote:

St. George, 22 May 1891To President Wilford Woodruff and Councelors,

Brethren: For some years there has existed a spirit of division on doctrinal points and church teachings, in Bunkersville Ward, this Stake of Zion. It was thought that by gentle correction and teachings of the Stake Presidency to certain of the disputants, the division would gradually die out, and be overcome. Such, we regret to state, has not been the case. Finding the evidence of this division more

78

and more manifest, it was reported to the High Council herein, at its meeting in November last (St. George Historical Record).

The spirit of division over doctrinal points was amicably put to rest by the personal intervention of presidents Woodruff and Cannon on June 11, 1892. President Woodruff described the event in his journal: "We met in the tabernacle at 10 o'clock on the trial of Bishop Bunker on doctrine. We talked to them plainly on the impropriety of indulging in mysteries to create [190] difficulties among the Saints." The doctrinal point or mystery to which President Woodruff had reference was the Adam-God doctrine. The instruction of the general authorities on that occasion did not concern itself with the falseness of theAdam-God doctrine, but dealt more with the need to promote unity by avoiding (not endorsing) ill understood doctrines, which otherwise would cause difficulties and division. Charles L. Walker, who was also present on that occasion, recorded the proceedings thus:

. . . Pres. Woodruff and Cannon showed in a very plain manner . . . that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made; and that the seed of man was of the dust of the earth and that the continuation of seeds in a glorified state was eternal lives . . [and] said it was not wisdom for the Elders to contend about such matters, and things they did not understand, and not to teach such things to the children in Sunday Schools that they could not comprehend them.... Pres. Cannon said that it was not necessary that we should endorse the doctrine that some men taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ. Counsel was given for the Elders to teach that which they knew, not that which they did not (Charles L. Walker Journal, June 11, 1892).

The Adam-God doctrine had become a point of contention causing difficulties and division, not because it was wrong but because it was not understood. Consequently, nonendorsement of the doctrine became the price of unity.

Six years later this same philosophy was again voiced by George Q. Cannon--that the saints should espouse only the tangible truths. It was no longer wise to divide the saints by advocating that Adam was their God.

I was stopped yesterday afternoon by a young man, who wanted to know whether Adam was the Father of our Lord and Savior--whether he was the being we worshipped, etc. Now, we can get ourselves very easily puzzled, if we choose to do so, by speculation 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 [191] Savior, the Prophet Brigham 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 that 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 (Proceedings of the First Sunday School Convention, Salt Lake City, 1898, pp. 88, 89).

President Woodruff in the later years of his presidency again reemphasized this same philosophy--that the saints not be concerned over those things which they do not understand; they should observe only the fundamental principles of the gospel--the common things of the kingdom:

Before I sit down I want to say a word to the Elders of Israel on another subject.... Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has revealed Himself, and when the 121st Section of the Doctrine and Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be one God or many gods they will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers. then why trouble yourselves about these things? God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy

79

Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this. Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a knowledge of the common things of the Kingdom of God. The Lord is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same. He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. 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 the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today and forever, that should be sufficient for us to know (Millennial Star, vol. 57, pp. 355-56).

The above statements collectively express an overall [192] philosophy that Adam-God should not be advocated in preference to understanding gospel fundamentals. These statements also point to the reason for this approach--because the saints were "troubling themselves," "worrying," and "contending" over "doctrines that they did not understand." It is indeed much wiser to proceed and grow by precept on a sure foundation. The disbelief and confusion in the mind of the saints, however, were not the only precipitating factors in the development of a new Adam-God posture. Anti-Mormon writings exposing Adam as God became retardants to church growth. It, too, became a significant factor.

Under President Woodruff, a need for unification shifted the doctrinal focus to more productive and fundamental issues, and hence the evolution away from Adam-God had begun. This was the initial necessary step in retrieving Adam-God from under the feet of the world.

Historical Background and the December 16, 1897, Meeting

Exactly when this plan was formulated is difficult to determine. That such a plan was in effect as a result of the aforementioned circumstances is without question. The stratagem, once firmly entrenched, was most likely freely discussed in the private meetings of the First Presidency and the Quorum of theTwelve.

The meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve on December 16, 1897, in the Salt Lake Temple may well have been the critical meeting wherein it was openly discussed and decided to reclaim Adam-God for the preservation of the faithful. Certainly, without examining all the minutes of the First Presidency for the years 1890 through 1900, one finds it impossible to pinpoint a given meeting wherein this approach was formulated and adopted. The December 1897 meeting, discussed more fully below, does reflect a definite strategem initiated at the highest level of the church to reclaim the Adam-God doctrine. [193] On December 16, 1897, the First Presidency and the Quorumof the Twelve had assembled in the Salt Lake temple to discuss church business. One of the topics of discussion was the Adam-God doctrine. This subject was brought to the attention of the brethren by apostle F. D. Richards in response to a newspaper article written by then California mission PresidentEphraim H. Nye wherein he publicly denied the Adam-God doctrine. The scenario leading up to this meeting is as discussed in the following paragraphs.

Things would appear to have been going well for the church in the California Mission until Saturday, October 30, 1897. On that date, a positive article appeared in the Fresno Morning Republican announcing the proselyting intentions of two young Mormon missionaries, Elders George A. Poulter and Howard B. Bushnell. The article describes their intentions of making a . . . house to house visitation and whenever the inmates will give them a hearing explain their religious views. Tracts are left with everyone who will accept them, and in this manner a systematic and energetic canvass of the town is being made for converts.

The article goes on to describe the missionaries as "plausible; well appearing and neatly dressed." A brief introduction to the gospel then followed.

80

A local reverend, C. A. Munn, apparently incensed over the positive exposure given the missionaries, responded 11 days later by initiating an anti-Mormon campaign, i.e., a series of abusive anti-Mormon articles published in the local newspapers. His November 10 article contains the following on Adam-God: Brigham Young, in a sermon in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City on April 9, 1852, said: "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, and 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." Of "His son, Jesus Christ," [194] Brigham Young said: "I tell you that God was the father of Jesus Christ, just as I am the father of my son" (Fresno Morning Republican, Nov. 10,1897).

The remainder of the article attacks other doctrinal points such as the marriage of Jesus, etc.Reverend Munn followed his initial attack with two more abusive articles printed two days later

in the Fresno Morning Republican and the Fresno Weekly Republican. These articles maligned the characters of Brigham and Joseph, and addressed the "golden bible" as well as polygamy. One of these articles is entitled: "The Mormons: Rev. C. A. Munn Writes about Them--Desires to Warn the People against the Emissaries of Evil." This particular article again held the Adam-God doctrine up for ridicule.

The local elders responded with a capable article printed November 16, 1897, in the Fresno Morning Republican. Their rebuttal was mostly concerned with the scriptural demonstration of an anthropomorphic God. It made no attempt to answer the Adam-God allegations made by Reverend Munn.

Munn was quick to follow up on the elders' article with a subsequent attack printed November 19. This article exposed the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the doctrine of blood atonement.

To counter this venomous campaign, President Nye responded on December 1 in the Fresno Morning Republican with an article in defense of the church and its doctrines. Nye's article wasalso published in the Fresno Weekly Republican on December 3. In this article, Nye frankly denies the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young. He counters Munn by claiming the reverend to have misrepresented Brigham by taking his 1852 discourse out of context.

He [Munn] then quotes that world renowned leader [Brigham Young] as saying that "Adam is our Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do." Why does he not present the whole sermon? Simply because if he did, he would have no case, but to score a point he singles out an isolated sentence and undertakes to make capital of it.[195] Now let us examine it in the light of reason. According to the passages of scripture cited above, God is the Father of the spirits of all men, including Adam. John said: "When Jesus comes we (who obey his laws) shall be like Him, and He is a God." He is our elder brother and as Adam is one of the sons of Cod, he is a brother of Jesus Christ and will be a God. Then as he is the great progenitor and father of the human race, he will stand at the head of his family. The Prophet Daniel says: "The ancient of days shall sit whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame and his wheels as burning fire . . . thousands, ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the judgment was set and the books were opened." So we see Adam, or the Ancient of Days will sit and ten thousand times ten thousand shall stand before him. Then our Father Adam has developed into quite an important personage, with dominion, power and glory. Adam as a son of God and progenitor of the human race will stand at the head of all the generations of man crowned with immortality and eternal life, the great patriarch over all the sons of men, a God among the sons of God. But he is not the God to whom we pray, nor did Brigham Young undertake to convey such an idea. We worship the God who made the heavens, and the earth, the seas and the foundations of water--the Being who placed Adam in the Garden of Eden (E. H. Nye, Fresno Morning Republican, Dec. 1, 1897; emphasis added).

81

Reverend Munn, however, was no pushover and knew his Mormon doctrine. On December 15, he responded to Nye's denial by calling him a liar. Said Munn:

Notwithstanding President Nye to the contrary, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam is God, the supreme God, the Creator of this world, our God, and the only God with whom we have to do, and that Jesus Christ is his son by natural generation. The Mormon Church is polytheistic. It teaches a plurality of Gods, and that these become Gods, having been men. Being men they become Gods by practicing plural or celestial marriage and the Mormon principles. We omit the proofs here for want of time and space (Fresno Morning Republican, Dec. 15, 1897).

Nye's treatment of the Adam-God subject (denial) appears to have been pressured as an expedient answer to [196] anti-Adam-God sentiment. It is also apparent that Nye himselfwas not sure whether his treatment was correct. Thus, with this concern, he wrote Apostle F. D. Richards asking whether or not his article reflected sound doctrinal thinking. President Nye's letter reads as follows:

915 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, Calif. Dec. 4th, 1897Apostle F. D. Richards Ogden City, Utah

Dear Brother;

Herewith I send you a clipping from the Fresno Republican published in Fresno, Fresno County, Cal. When our Elders Poulter and Bushnel went there about the 15th, October, or a little later, the reporter of the Fresno Republican met with them and gave them a good writeup which I think was afterward copied by Ogden Standard. This brought forth a letter from the Rev. C. A. Munn, of Fresno, who said that he had received a lot of "Documents" from a Rev. Mr. McMilton, pastor of a Christian Church in Utah, among which was [sic] the Mormon Articles of faith, Catechism, &c and from which he proceeded to "Expose us to the good people of Fresno" filling up with the Mountain Meadows and other Blood curdling stories. The elders sent me a copy of the paper containing his piece and I answered it. This brought forth another piece from the rev. gentleman, and I answer[ed] again sending the enclosed which they have published. In his attack he has brought up the old story so often flung in our faces especially by the "Josephites" through out this state, and now commonly referred to as "the Adam-God" story. And the opportunity seemed to be so good that I could not resist the temptation to answer him and all the Josephites on that question. I studied the matter cle[a]rly a[n]d very carefully and I felt that I was right so I forged ahead. [W]ill you kindly look over the piece and if I am not correct please point out to me the errors as this is a matter that we have got to meet continually; it is the strong hold of the Josephite and one they never fail to use; and our Elders are all lame on that point a[n]d are afraid to answer upon it. [T]hey there-fore side track it in the most convenient way in each case and the result is, the elders of the "Reorganized" say, "You are affraid to meet it" and [in] fact, as a rule, our young Elders, and all that we have out here, are unable to meet the question and have to "Dodge" it the best they can. I would not that you should suppose from [197] this that we are seeking controversy with the "Reorganized people" or even accepting it, by no means; but, publicly we treat them with silent contempt; they have challenged us again and again to debates, discussions, etc., but we do not notice them publicly; but as our elders go around their respective fields they often find members of the "Reorganized Church" who take them in and treat them well providing for their necessities and with such the elders have to meet the questions raised by them. About three months ago two of their leading elders came to us in Los Angeles and accused us of baptizing 23 of their members, since then we have lead several more into the waters of their people. The story referred to is the quotation from one of Prest. Young's sermon where in he says that Adam is our Father and God and the only God with which we have to do.

82

I fear that my long communications are wearysome to you hence I will close devoutly hoping that you are well. Sister Nye unites in kind regards and best wishes to Dear Sister R. and Yourself. We are well; Very Sincerely Your Brother. E. H. Nye

(B.Y.U. Special Collections, E. H. Nye mission letter book)

Upon receiving this letter, F. D. Richards conferred with Joseph F. Smith. They then decided to take Nye's denial before the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. That fateful day was December 16, 1897. During that meeting (held in the Salt Lake Temple), Nye's letter along with his article to the Fresno newspapers were read. Present at that meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were President Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young, Jr., John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant and Anthon Lund. The private journal entries by these brethren on the date in question shed considerable light on what was discussed in this meeting relative to Adam-God and the Nye situation. They reveal President Nye's treatment of Adam-God to be the real issue of concern. It also becomes obvious that the brethren personally believed and embraced the Adam-God doctrine; however, they found it wisest to leave it as a personal belief.

The diary of John Henry Smith documents the [198] meeting and those in attendance but says nothing about the discussion of Adam-God.

Wilford Woodruff's journal entry for December 16, 1897, reads: "at the office red [sic] a letter from N. attended my usual meeting at the Temple until 2 p.m. afterwards at the office."

The Brigham Young, Jr., journal of December 16, 1897, sheds some light as to what was said in reference to Adam-God:

Meeting at 11 AM in Temple. Pres. W. Geo Q Jos F S. L.S. FDR BY Jno H S. Geo T. HJG A Lund present Question on ceremony of marriage sealing Couples who have never had their endowments; do their children need to be sealed to them in the Temple when they come to have their endowments. Answer No it is all done. Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with Josephites or any one else (Brigham Young, Jr., Journal, under date, CHO; emphasis added).

From the foregoing it would appear that Adam-God was discussed, and the consensus of the brethren was that Adam is indeed our Father and God, but that it was better not to discuss it.

Apostle Franklin D. Richards' diary carries a more complete account of the Adam-God discussion on that day. The completeness of his account is probably owing to the fact that ApostleRichards was the one who brought this matter before the brethren in behalf of President Nye. F. D. Richards was also appointed by the brethren to relay their decision and counsel concerning Adam-God back to President Nye. The F. D. Richards' journal entry for December 16, 1897, reads:

December, Thursday 16, 1897 A pleasant cold day.... At 11 at Council with WW GQC & JFS--LS, FDR, BY, JHS., G.T., HJG, AH Lund. After investigation it was decided by Prest. W. W. that children (of parents who are sealed but not Endowed) are born in the covt. & need not to be sealed to their parents, and voted by all present. Letter and article by E. H. Nye was read & highly [199] approved but no action as to the dealing with Adam our F. & God subject....

It becomes apparent that President Nye's treatment of Adam-God was of some concern; however, "no action was taken," which may mean that no corrections in his article were made.

On December 17, Brother Richards drafted a letter to President Nye conveying the counsel of the brethren in this matter. His journal continues:

83

December, Friday 17, 1897A clear cold dayDrafted a letter for PresidentEphraim H. Nye 915 Golden Gate AvenueFran, Cal.

On December 18, Apostle Richards apparently finished and mailed his letter to President Nye. This letter contained the decision of the council about approving his article to the Fresno Republican.

December, Saturday, 18, 1897 Sent Prest. E. H. Nye letter of Decision of Council about and approving his Article to the Fresno Republican & a copy of Prest. Youngs remarks about Adam our Father as contained in Vol. I of Journal of Discourses (Franklin D. Richards Journal, CHO, under dates).

A copy of the letter containing the decision of the presidency of the church and the Twelve can be found in the letter book of the Richards family collection. The contents of this letter are understandably concerned with Adam-God. It is referred to as a "point of more advanced doctrine, too precious a pearl to be cast before swine." President Nye was further counseled to rescue the Adam-God pearl the best he could. The letter reads as follows:

S.L. City Dec. 18, 1897President E. H. Nye,915 Golden Gate Avenue,San Francisco, Cal.

Dear Brother: On receipt of your letter of the 4th inst., I conferred with Prest. Joseph F. Smith, and we concluded to present the matter to the Council of the First Presidency and [200] Twelve Apostles. Both your letters to me, and the Article to the Fresno Republican, were read. Each of the Presidency and several of the Apostles expressed themselves well pleased with your article, that it evinced skill and valor for the Truth, and they did not see how it could be much improved. The Council did not deem it wise to lay out any line of procedure in which to deal with the subject, but felt that it is best to avoid bringing it up, and to do the best we can and as the Spirit may suggest when it is thrust upon us. Your having got so many of the Josephites was received with marks of particular pleasure. This, like many other points of more advanced doctrine, is too precious a pearl to be cast before swine. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can. Thinking it may be convenient to you to have President Young's sayings on that subject, I enclose a copy from his sermon in the first Volume of the Journal of Discourses. (Letter of F. D. Richards, Richards Family Collection, Franklin Dewey Richards Letterbook, CHO; emphasis added)

That Apostle Richards' letter is dealing almost exclusively with Adam-God becomes obvious in the last paragraph wherein, as indicated, a copy of President Young's sayings on that subject from volume I of the Journal of Discourses was forwarded to President Nye. The reader is well aware that this is the 1852 Adam-God sermon. The letter to President Nye also endorsed his denial of Adam-God as an acceptable means of retracting the doctrine.

The foregoing account of the December 1897 meeting documents the endorsement of President Wilford Woodruff and the Twelve Apostles that Adam is indeed God! However, it was deemed wise not to preach or discuss it. It is a "more advanced doctrine . . . too precious a pearl to be cast before swine."

84

Inasmuch as it had already been cast before the rending beast, the advisable course of action was to rescue that pearl. Any means of retrieving the precious doctrine was acceptable so long as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Subsequent Statements on Adam-God

It becomes obvious that this decisive approach to [201] Adam-God was well worked out under the presidency of Wilford Woodruff. Subsequent statements by the church authorities have only continued to uphold and follow that course. The overall tenor of remarks subsequent to Woodruff, however, demonstrate a more active attitude to withdraw the doctrine by illusion of denial. This was necessitated by exponential church growth and overall difficulty on the part of the members to achieve any degree of excellence in the more advanced doctrines of the gospel. In this way, our leaders have continued to teach the members according to their capacity to understand. Of the church's policy in this regard, President George Q. Cannon said:

There are differences in spirits. There are different grades of intelligences among the spirits of men. We are not all on a dead level.... But the Lord deals with His children mercifully. He gives them intelligences according to their capacity to receive it. Therefore, wise men such as Joseph and others give the counsel that is adapted to the conditions and circumstances of the people though they may see that it is not exactly what ought to be. Better to give the people something they will obey, if it is not the fullness of the law of God; better to lead them on until their capacity is enlarged and they are prepared to receive higher principles and truths. That is the way God has done with His people. There are many shines that the leading men of this Church can see and understand that they cannot impart to the people nor ask the people to do. Why? Because they know that the people would not come up to the requirement and that therefore they would be disobedient. Better to give them line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little than to give them something that they could not receive and that they would rebel against. That is the main manner in which wise men inspired of the Lord deal with their fellow men. Speaking as a First Presidency, if we could have our way, there are many changes that we would make; but you know how difficult it is to have people see alike upon many points (Gospel Truth, vol. 1, pp. 330-31).

After the turn of the century, anti-Mormon writers continued to inflame the Adam-God wound. The presidency, in its desire to apply a soothing plaster, [202] continued to sidestep and skirt the Adam-God issue. Characteristic of this is the following:

Whether the mortal bodies of men evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generation, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are question[s] not fully answered in the revealed word of God (Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era, 1910, 13:570). …in 1916: "Jesus of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, was literally and truly the son of the Father, the Eternal God, not of Adam" (C. W. Penrose, Conference Report, April 1916, p. 23).

Statements such as the above carry a double meaning, depending on one's insight. On the one hand, it is a denial of Adam-God, but to him who has "eyes to see," it is consistent with the Adam-God doctrine, for technically Adam was not the Father of Jesus. Adam, as a title, applies only to a fallenstate. The Father of Jesus was not in a fallen state when he was conceived, and therefore could not have been Adam. It does not speak against the possibility of the being who became Adam as fathering Jesus.

85

In this way, the authorities have done their best to preserve individual agency in accepting such doctrines for personal edification. … They have forced the authorities to retract the Adam-God doctrine at a progressively more fundamental level. They were not content with the statements that they needn't trouble themselves over the doctrine. They forced their leaders to then say that they needn't agree with Brigham, but still this was not sufficient. They continued to harass the authorities to harrow up thedoctrine until President Kimball finally in 1976 gave them what they wanted to hear--that Adam-God was false doctrine. ……

[205] CHAPTER 14

FROM RETICENCE TO MYSTERY

The … the denial explanation, although frequently used within the church today, originated asa response to Adam-God criticism outside the church. Denial was originally intended to fend off external criticism. However, it left the church in a paradoxical situation where teachings that publicly had been denied were privately being taught in the temple. … Consequently, the doctrine was publicly laid aside in favor of more fundamental teachings commensurate with contemporary understanding and progression. In this way the Adam-God doctrine passed from a phase of open proclamation to a period of reticence where it was no longer actively taught. From here it would in time be veiled not only from the unbelievingbut from the church as well. Critical to this veiling was the reconsideration of Adam God as a mystery. The doctrine had passed from a phase of reticence to become a mystery. …A problematic doctrine was placed outside authoritarian purview by its reclassification as a mystery. Inso doing, institutional tranquility, as well as free agency, were preserved in the face of dissent.

It is within this period of doctrinal reclassification that the Edward Bunker case came to light. …It should be stated here that the Adam-God doctrine was not the only issue or doctrine that was in the process of change during this period. The entire period was characterized by change. A final attempt to usher in the millennium by living the United Order had failed. The lure of the West, mining, andindustrialization diluted church population and traditional values with those of the gentile world. The social fabric which had forged out a civilization from a wild frontier had been rent. Church leaders were sought and imprisoned over plural marriage. Finally, the principle of plural marriage, which had been defended as a testimonial of the true religion, passed by the board with the issuance of the Manifesto in 1890. And certainly not the least important change was Utah's maturation into statehood, which required a relinquishment of theocratic control over civil matters. By so bowing to the rule of the United States government, the saints recognized a new "law giver" in their lives. In short, the dawn of the twentiethcentury mandated change and adaptation--or extinction.

… in 1890 …The principal settlers of Bunkerville, Nevada, were the family of Edward Bunker, Sr., and other

faithful members who had been called to the "Dixie Mission" by Brigham Young. They, like the rest of the church, had failed in their attempt to successfully live the United Order. Father Edward Bunker, whoimmediately oversaw the local "order," served as the first bishop of the Bunkerville Ward. Because of ill health, he was released in 1883 to be succeeded by his son Edward Bunker, Jr. [208] The younger Bunker chose as his counselors Myron Abbott and Joseph Ira Earl. With the formation of this bishopric, goodwill must have existed among the bishop and his counselors. Sometime subsequent to 1883, however, a conflict arose between Bishop Bunker and his first counselor Myron Abbott. The conflict, which focused mainly on Adam-God, extended to Edward Bunker, Sr., and other members of the Bunkerville Ward. Theissue polarized the people into two camps--those (the Bunkers) who did not believe that Adam had come to this earth with a resurrected body, that he was neither our spiritual progenitor nor the father of Christ; and those (principally Myron Abbott) who believed these teachings as taught by previous general

86

authorities.Over the years these parties had engaged in numerous confrontations, with each adamantly

adhering to his own views. As the controversy heightened, so did the differences between the parties, as well as the vocalization of the differing views throughout the community. In retaliation, Bishop Bunker, by written request to the stake presidency, made an attempt to have Myron Abbott released as his counselor.

The controversy climaxed in November 1890 with an exchange between Myron Abbott and Edward Bunker, Sr. Within this exchange Bunker contended against salient Adam-God concepts that were taught in the temple veil lecture. Subsequently, Myron Abbott reported the incident to the stake presidency, with the accusation that the Bunkers had been advancing incorrect doctrine.

The stake presidency had followed the brewing conflict for a number of years, and had made several attempts to quell the controversy by "gentle persuasion." These, however, had failed. And upon hearing from Myron Abbott that the intensity of the controversy had increased, a high council court was convened to air the matter. The stage was set for a classic confrontation. The orthodoxy of Adam-God concepts had been actively [209] challenged within the church. That challenge would be heard andacted upon by a priesthood court.

During their November 8, 1890, meeting, the St. George High Council discussed the ongoing contention in Bunkerville. They consented to hear the matter formally. The St. George HistoricalRecord for that date reads: High Council of St. George Stake met in St. George Tabernacle. President Ivins stated that he had learned that Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville in this Stake had been teaching that some of the ceremonies at the Temple were wrong, and erroneous teachings was [sic] given in the lecture at the vail [sic]. As Elder Myron Abbott, 1st Councelor [sic] to the Bishop at Bunkerville had given some information on this matter, it was decided to learn from him, more definitely in relation to this matter.

Saturday, the 13th of December, 1890, was set aside to hear the matter. The presence of the principal parties was requested. Owing to illness, Edward Bunker, Sr., was unable to attend.Thus, the court was able to act only on the case of Edward Bunker, Jr.

The Case of Edward Bunker, Jr.

With the court convened, Myron Abbott was asked to clarify the charges. He began by outlining the differences between the Bunkers and himself, charging that "Father Bunker said he did not believe Adam was our God. He did not worship him as his God and Bp. Bunker said he thought that some of the ceremonies in the Temple were wrong, especially the lecture at the vail [sic]" (St. George High Council minutes, under date, hereinafter HCM). In contrast, Myron Abbott established his views as representative of the orthodox school:

Bro. Abbott's views were that our spirits in the eternal world were begotten in the spirit world the same as we are begotten here and that Adam is the father of our spirits and as he is the father of all flesh he is our father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do. And that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ and that all the ceremonies in the Temple are right (HCM).

[210] The central point of contention, here, is the godship of Adam as the procreator of our spirits and whether or not he (Adam) came to this earth as a resurrected being. Myron Abbott supported his position by demonstrating consistency with the teachings of the temple veil lecture. Bishop Bunker, on theother hand, was charged with disbelief insofar as these temple teachings were concerned. Since the court was essentially dealing with temple doctrines contained in the veil lecture, one can appreciate the sensitivity as well as the importance of their discussion.

The St. George Historical Record summarized the court proceedings:

87

High Council of St. George Stake met at St. George Tabernacle. In response to invitation of the Presidency of the Stake, Bishop Edward Bunker Junr., and Elders Myron Abbott and Joseph I. Earl were present. President McArthur invited the brethren named to express themselves on the issues said to have been expressed in Bunkerville Ward and which are considered by some to be unsound doctrine. Myron Abbott, counselor to Bishop Edward Bunker, Junr., stated that for a number of years, questions on church teachings had been agitated in Bunkerville ward. Bishop Bunker had stated he did not believe Adam was our God and Bishop Bunker had expressed his opinion that some teachings in the temple were wrong,--notably--part of the Lecture at the vail [sic]. That Father Bunker had the same views.... Bp. Edward Bunker, Junr., among other things said: "In regard to the lecture at the vail [sic] in the Temple, it is certainly wrong. It teaches that Eve was an immortal being and was brought here by Adam." Did not believe this. "Thought that Adam was not a resurrected being." In answering questions of Councilor Cannon, expressed his belief that Adam was the Archangel and that Jehovah and Michael were persons of Spirit; that Eloheim was a person of Tabernacle; and the Head of all. After a prolonged second session of the Council Bishop Bunker and his councilor, Myron Abbott felt they had done wrong in contending on the subjects referred to.

[211] The real issue, it appears, is a challenge to the temple veil lecture which in those days taught the express concept that Adam and Eve were the parents of our spirits and, upon coming to this world, possessed resurrected bodies.

The veil lecture was upheld by the high council not only as being correct but as being "church doctrine." Councilor Cannon, after reading the veil lecture, noted that "the lecture says Adam was an immortal being and Eve the Mother of all living bore those spirits in the Celestial World and Adam and Eve came here to form Tabernacles for them to dwell in" (HCM). Councilor Smith said that the lecture at the veil "teaches us that Adam was created on another earth and that he was resurrected and cameupon this earth an immortal being and begat tabernacles for the spirits they had created in the spirit world" (HCM). Councilor Miles said the "lecture was a doctrine of the Church" (HCM).

Bishop Bunker was chastized for his doctrinal variance with established temple doctrines; he was advised that he had no right to question temple doctrines or to challenge church authorities who had "passed" on these doctrines. "Coun[cilor] Cannon said Father Bunker and Bp. Bunker nor any other man has the right to preach doctrine contrary to that which is accepted as doctrine by the Church. And as Father Bunker has privately expressed his belief that the Lecture at the vail [sic] was wrong, he is an unbeliever to that extent" (HCM). Councilor Smith continued:

All the keys revealed to the Prophet Joseph are here now and in the possession of the Apostles and that Bro. Bunker had tread upon ground that is exceeding dangerous. And when a man questions the sacred things in the Temple that had been passed upon by the Apostles who hold the keys of the Kingdom he was on dangerous ground.

In contrast to the strong rebuke leveled at Bishop Bunker, Myron Abbott was advised to temper his zeal and to refrain from Adam-God discussions outside the temple. President McArthur "advised Bro. Abbott to go [212] slow about preaching that Adam was the father of Christ" (HCM). Said Councilor Cannon: "The Lecture at the vail [sic] and the things contained in it should not be mentioned outside of the temple" (HCM). Indeed, in light of their sacred and controversial nature, little good has come of public Adam-God discussions.

It appears that the Adam-God doctrine more correctly belongs within the walls of the temple than in a public forum. This explains the reverent treatment these concepts received by the high council. Anti-Adam-God views were considered false, whereas pro-Adam-God views were considered too sacred

88

to be talked about outside the temple. Extrapolations beyond explicit teachings in the direction of Adam-God were neither encouraged nor condemned, whereas extrapolations in the other direction were condemned. Both Bunker and Abbott were chastized for the dissent and ill will that had been fomented by their contentions. Ultimately, they were reconciled to the fact that "they had done wrong in contending on the subjects referred to."

Formal court action was summarized in the following resolution: "That it is an error to teach that Adam was not an immortal, or, resurrected being when he came to this earth; also that we pray to Adam as our God; and, it is wrong to teach that Adam is one of the Godhead." This resolution, in light of thehigh council minutes, expresses the council's concern over the teaching of divisionary doctrines, and the teaching of those things not explicitly stated in the veil lecture. The high council upheld the teachings that Adam is the father of our spirits and came to the earth with a resurrected body. However, as the temple ceremony had no express teaching concerning the worship of Adam or his standing as a member of the godhead, it is wrong to teach these ideas.

These doctrines, it appears, were intended not for public instruction but for private edification. In fact, George Q. Cannon, notwithstanding his personal belief [213] in the doctrine, went so far as to advocate the suspension of anyone teaching these things in Sunday School.

Elder A. R. Whitehead asked if we should not let these things alone and not talk of them in our Sunday Schools. Prest. Cannon said if he knew of anyone teaching these things in Sunday School he would want to suspend him (St. George High Council Minutes of the Trial of Edward Bunker, Sr., June 11, 1892).

The Bunker affair is of particular importance in Mormon history as a documentary of early Mormon temple doctrine and its emphasis on Adam-God ideologies. As we have seen, many of these teachings were contained in the "Lecture at the Veil." The Bunker high council minutes give us further insight into the development of the veil lecture and its sanction by the general authorities.

After Brigham's death the Quorum of the Twelve apparently reviewed the veil lecture with close scrutiny and an eye toward eliminating inaccuracies and errant ideas. After making one change, they "passed upon" that lecture as correct.

. . . Prest. Young was so careful that he would not allow Bro. Cannon or anyone else to quote it [the veil lecture], but had it written down to be read at the vail [sic]. Coun[cilor] Cannon said the Endowments were organized in Joseph's brick store in Nauvoo. Prest. Young said he wanted. to deliver the Lecture at the vail [sic] and 4 men was [sic] writing. And after they had got through, the mems [sic] were given to Prest. Young to revise and as he revised it, Prest. George Q. Cannon wrote it very slowly and after Prest. Young's death it was sent for by the Twelve Apostles and closely scrutinized and there was only one thing changed in it and then accepted by them and no man has any right to say anything against it (HCM).

Among the teachings which had been "passed upon" by the Twelve Apostles were those under assault by the Bunkers—that Adam and Eve were the parents of our spirits in the celestial world and that they came to this earth with resurrected bodies to create physical [214] tabernacles for their offspring. These, in light of the Bunker case, are explicit concepts of the veil lecture which were introduced by Brigham Young in February of 1877 (see pages 115, 224, 225). Present on that occasion wereDavid H. Cannon (brother of George Q. Cannon), J. D. T. McAllister, Erastus Snow, and James G. Bleak, all of whom were members of the St. George high council at Bunker's trial. Thus, it is not surprising that they aligned themselves with Myron Abbott in support of temple doctrines.

The veil teachings remained intact until just after the turn of the century when major Adam-God concepts were removed. This is substantiated by observations made by Jess Groesbeck who recorded the following in his private Journal:

89

Brother Horne and I chatted again tonight about the Gospel and the Adam-God Doctrine, as we have done many times before. Brother Horne, who grew up in Salt Lake City . . . said--in reference to the Adam-God Doctrine--that when he first went through the Temple (Salt Lake) for his Endowment in 1902 before going on his mission he was surprised to hear the teachings during the Temple ceremony that "Adam was our God" and that "He came here with Eve, one of His wives." Also, it was taught that "Eve bore our spirits" (i.e., the spirits of all men). He asked his father about it but he declined to give any opinion about it. After Brother Horne returned from his mission a few years later, in 1905, he noted these teachings had been removed from the Temple ceremony (C. Jess Groesbeck's Elder's Journal, vol. 1, p. 291).

The dates of 1902-1905 correlate nicely with the Reed Smoot hearings and may suggest a more immediate reason for the removal of Adam-God concepts from the temple. It was during thesehearings that attempts were made to prove that the church was involved in doctrinal duplicity; i.e., openly denying tenets that it privately embraced. The hearings thoroughly exposed the temple ceremony, laying it before the eyes of the world. The Mormon cause would hardly have been furthered by the discovery of secret temple doctrines which years earlier (see page 195) had been publicly denied.[215] There are unmistakable parallels between the management of plural marriage and Adam-God during this period. (See: Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 24-36, "Beyond the Manifesto: Polygamous Cohabitation among LDS General Authorities after 1890"; vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 4-36, "The Taylor-Cowley Affair and the Watershed of Mormon History.") Their relationship to the Reed Smoot hearings is implied by proximity.

The Trial of Edward Bunker, Sr.

A separate high council court was held for Edward Bunker, Sr., on May 15, 1891. At his request Bunker was allowed to submit his views in writing. These views, which paralleled those of his son, were submitted in a ten page hand-written letter addressed to the high council. The elder Bunker's letter datedApril 25, 1891, was read to the high council in its May 15 meeting. Bunker's arguments being dogmatic, comprehensive and well supported warranted a response from a more official and authoritative source. It was decided to forward the matter to the First Presidency, asking its advice as to the course theyshould pursue.

Friday, 15, May--The High Council of St. George Stake took up the case of Edward Bunker, Senior, of Bunkerville Ward, who had been charged with erroneous views and teachings. Father Bunker's views were brought to the attention of the High Council on the 13th of last December. Since then Father Bunker expressed a desire to submit his views to the Council in writing. This was granted, resulting in a statement on ten pages of foolscap. After reading the document and discussion on the case, the Council decided, "That the communication of Edward Bunker on what he believes and does not believe, together with a statement of the causes leading to the investigation which called forth his declaration, also the full action of the Council in this matter be forwarded to the First Presidency of the Church, asking their advice as to the proper course for us to take, as the Presidency and High Council of this Stake." "Councilor David H. Cannon moved that the Presidency [216] of the Stake with Councilor James G. Bleak, and the Clerk of the High Council act as a committee to formulate this statement." Carried. (St. George Historical Record, under date).

Their statement to the First Presidency reads:St. George, 22nd May, 1891To President Wilford Woodruff and Councellors.

90

Brethren:--For some years there has existed a spirit of division on doctrinal points and church teachings, in Bunkerville Ward, this Stake of Zion. It was thought that by the gentle corrections and teachings of the Stake Presidency, to certain of the disputants, the division would gradually die out, and be overcome. Such, we regret to state, has not been the case. Finding the evidences of this division more and more manifest, it was reported to the High Council here, at its meeting in November last. By action of the Presidency and High Council, the chief parties to the division were invited to meet with us in Council that we might learn more definitely their views. At our High Council in December last in response to this invitation Bishop Edward Bunker, Junr., and his counselors, Myron Abbott and Joseph I. Earl met with us. Father Edward Bunker, being in poor health at the time, could not attend. Bishop Bunker and his first counselor, Myron Abbott, who is also his uncle, being representatives of the diverse and unreconciled views prevailing in the Ward, stated some of their respective differences of belief and teachings. Upon hearing these brethren it was found that they were each most pronounced in their respective views. As a result of the investigation the following was passed as the action of the Council: "It is the sense of this Council that it is an error to teach that Adam was not an immortal, or, resurrected, being when he came to this earth; also, that we pray to Adam as our God; and, it is wrong to teach that Adam is one of the Godhead. Father Edward Bunker was present at the High Council in March last, and asked the privilege of expressing his views, in writing, upon doctrines and teachings referred to in the December High Council Meeting. This was granted. The written statement has been presented to and read in, the High Council, and the Council has decided to submit it, and this whole matter, to you. This statement, enclosed herewith, sets forth the points [217] upon which the division in Bunkerville Ward is based, and we submit it to you with a desire to receive instruction as to what you wish us, as a Presidency and High Council, to do in this matter. There is one thing more: You will notice in the beginning of Father Bunker's statement declaring his views relating to Adam, he uses the words: "That the Council has decided upon, as I believe." The only Council action in deciding anything about the points in controversy, is embodied in the quoted action of the Council found at the bottom of page 2 of this letter. Awaiting your instruction, or decision, in this matter.

We remain, dutifully yours,Daniel D. McArthurA. W. Ivins, per DDMAErastus B. Snow

The tone and content of Father Bunker's letter reveals why the "whole matter" was referred to the First Presidency. It was simply too explosive to handle on a local level. Bunker's letter as recorded in his autobiography (pp. 32-49) reads:

After my return from Arizona, a controversy arose in the settlement, on points of doctrine principally between myself and Brother Myron Abbott. We mutually agreed to submit our views to the High Council. I was permitted by the Council to submit mine in writing. Here is their decision which they made before they received my report: Councilor Charles Smith then made the following motion: "That it is the sense of this Council that it is an error to believe or teach that Adam was not an immortal or resurrected being when he came to this earth, also that we pray to Adam as our God and it is wrong to teach that Adam is one of the Godhead." Seconded by Councillor D. H. Cannon. Carried unanimously, J. W. McAllister,

Clerk of Court Council.

91

Report to the Council

To the High Council of Saint George Stake of Zion

Having been represented before you as not believing certain doctrines as held to be correct by Myron Abbott and others; and not being present at the Council when represented because of sickness, and having heard the minutes read since and with your permission to answer the charges in writing, I herewith submit to you my belief and unbelief.[218] 1st I do not believe that Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and the God we worship, and the God of this earth. That the Council has decided on as I believe. Now I wish to present to the Council my views fully on this subject that those who read may not misjudge my views. I herewith submit to you the Scriptural references as I have them in mind. First, I will take the word of the Lord to Abraham. Pearl of Great Price page 52: "And the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately loosed my bands, and his voice was unto me: Abraham! Abraham! behold, my name is Jehovah." Now, who is this God that ministered unto Abraham? The same that ministered unto Moses. Bible, Exodus, 6 chaps. 3 verse. "And I appeared unto Abraham, and Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." This same God that appeared unto Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple D and C Sect. 110, verses 2, 3, 4: "We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit before us, and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire, the hair of his head was white like the pure snow his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun, and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying--I am the first and the last, I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain, I am your advocate with the Father." Now we will let the Book of Mormon make plain who this God Jehovah is. BOM p. 311, v. 5 [3 Nephi 15:5]: "Behold I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfill the law; therefore it hath an end." When did Jesus Christ covenant with them? Hundreds of years before he took a tabernacle of flesh. BOM 503, 14 [3 Nephi 11.14]: "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." Verse 17: "Hosanna! blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him." I will give you a few more references and show that he is the God of Enoch. Pearl of Great Price pg. 31 [Moses 6:43]: "And Enoch continued his speech, the Lord which spake with me, the same is the God of Heaven, and he is my God, and [219] your God, and ye are my brethren, and why counsel ye yourselves, and deny the God of heaven?" Why counsel we ourselves and seek to supplant the God of heaven with some other God? PoGP, p. 45 [Moses 7:69]: "And it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received it up into his own bosom, and from thence went forth the saying, Zion is fled." What God is this that took the Zion of Enoch into his own Bosom? Let the D & C answer, Sec. 38:1-4: "Thus saith the Lord your God even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made; I am the same which have taken the Zion of Enoch into mine own bosom; and verily, I say, even as many as have believed in my name, for I am Christ and in mine own name, by the virtue of the blood which I have spilt, have I pleaded before the Father for them." This ought to settle the question on this item of doctrine to those who believe in revelation. Now in regard to the law of adoption: I believe it is a correct principle and when it runs in the lineage it looks consistent, but the adoption of one man to another out of the lineage, I do not understand

92

and for that reason I would not enter into it. And adopting the dead to the living is as adopting the father to the son. I don't believe there is a man on earth that thoroughly understands the principle. If there is, I have never heard it taught so I could understand it. I believe it is permitted more to satisfy the minds of the people for the present until the Lord reveals more fully on the principle. In regard to Adam coming to this earth in the creation a resurrected Celestial being and a God; having had a second probation on another planet, and that his body was of the dust of another planet. I do not believe this item of doctrine, and I will give you the scriptural references as I believe them. First, the sacred record as given to us is for the earth and the heavens belonging to this earth. Here is what the Lord said to Moses. PoGP p. 7 [Moses 2:1]: "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God, by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest." [220] Now this record has come to us direct from the heavens through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Shall we receive it in whole or in part? If it is not all correct, what confidence can we have in any other communication which has come from the same source? Here is what the Brother of Jared says. BOM p. 577, 12 [Ether 3:12] "And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth and canst not lie." D & C Sect. 3, v. 22 [Third Lecture on Faith, paragraph 22], The words of the Prophet Joseph: "And again, the idea that he is a God of truth and cannot lie, is equally as necessary to the exercise of faith in him, as the idea of his unchangeableness." We will now take the record of the creation PoGP p. 68 [Abraham 5:7]: "And the gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." This is plain to me that Adam came to this earth a personage of Spirit. He might have been Celestial spirit, because he kept a Celestial law in his first estate. What ground was Adam's body taken from? That which he was sent forth from the garden of Eden to till. PoGP p. 17 [Moses 4.29]. "I the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Bible, Gen. 3:23: "Therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." BoM p. 306, 3 [Alma 42:2]: "For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence they were taken." According to the words of the Prophet Joseph the ground that Adam tilled was in Jackson Co. Mo. or not far from there. What God formed men from the dust of the earth? The Lord that created him. D & C Sect. 29, 34 v.: "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created." How could Jesus Christ have created Adam in the garden of Eden if he came to the earth with a resurrected Celestial body; and Jesus Christ the God of heaven and of the whole earth and a personage of spirit in the creation? Some may think that Jesus had a resurrected body when he came down to create the earth. If he did, what did he do with it [221] when he was born of the Virgin Mary? For the body that was crucified was the one he took to heaven with him. Here is what he said in Third Nephi p. 476, v. 13 [3 Nephi 1:13]: "Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfill all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets." That was on this continent, and on the morrow he was going to enter the infant tabernacle, that was to be born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem Judea. Now if Jesus could come down in the creation a personage of spirit why not Adam also? I understand that the family of spirits--Jesus Christ at their head--had not received a second estate and that was why this earth was created. I believe Adam's body was an immortal body before the

93

fall, and the same law that produced his body in the creation is the same law by which the whole human family will obtain their resurrection. Question. Is it possible for a resurrected being, having received an exaltation to lay off that body and become a fallen being? To me it is not possible. Here is my proof. BoM 267, 45 v. [Alma 12:45]: "Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption." Now, I will give you my views in regards to father Adam. I will first take the four leading spirits in heaven. PoGP p. 63 [Abraham 3:27, 28]: "And the Lord said, who shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man, here am I, send me. And another answered and said, here am I, send me. And the Lord said, I will send the first. And the second was angry and kept not his first estate, and, at that day, many followed after him." Now, who was the first? Jesus Christ. Who the second? The devil. Who the third? Adam. See D & C Sect. 29:36: "And it came to pass that Adam being tempted of the devil (for behold the devil was before Adam) for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency." Noah was fourth. The devil fell and lost his birthright, and Adam took it and came next to the Savior.[222] In the sermons and writings of the Prophet Joseph in the Contributor vol. 3, 2p. [p. 33]: "The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority. Daniel vii, 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 prepare 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. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him 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. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next." Adam is the Archangel of Jesus Christ. D & C Sect. 29, 26: "But behold, verily I say unto you, before the earth shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth--yea, even all." Adam is a prince forever. D & C Sect. 78, v. 16: "Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet and set him upon high, and given unto him the days of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life." He is the first and seventh angel. D & C Sect. 88:113: "And Michael, the seventh angel, even the archangel, shall gather his armies, even the hosts of heaven." Adam will reign and rule on the earth as a mighty prince in the Millennium under Jesus Christ as God, King and law giver. Now, in regard to Adam being a God here is what the Lord said concerning Abraham. D & C Sect. 132, 37: "They have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods." Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are Gods. Surely Noah and Adam are Gods. Do the children of Abraham worship and pray to him? I think not. Noah was the father of all living in his day. Neither do the children of Noah worship him, or Adam's children worship him. To me there is a great difference between those Gods and the God Jesus Christ who created the earth and redeemed it.[223] Every God in his own order: Honor to whom honor is due; a place for everything and everything in its place.

94

There are no dark sayings or mysteries in the communications of God to man. If there is darkness, it is in man because he will not receive the truth from heaven in the plainness that God does give it. Here are the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Contributor vol. 3, p. 35: "We may come to Jesus and ask him; he will know all about it; if he comes to a little child, he will adapt himself to the language and capacity of a little child." The words of 2nd Nephi BoM 123 [2 Nephi 31:3): "For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." Here is the admonition of the Prophet Joseph to us and to all Saints. Compendium p. 270, Keys--"July 2, 1839, At a meeting of the Twelve and some of the Seventies. President Joseph Smith made the following remarks. `O ye Twelve! and all Saints! prophit by this important key--that in all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God, whether in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given or revealed to man in this world. Yea in all your kickings and flounderings see to it that you do not do this thing, lest innocent blood be found on your skirts, and you go down to hell. All other sins are not to be compared to the sinning against the Holy Ghost and proving a traitor to thy brethren.'" With due respect to the Council and to all my brethren, I cannot, I dare not ignore the written word of God. I subscribe myself your friend and brother in the Gospel of Christ.

Edward BunkerThis is likely the first time that the Adam-God doctrine had been challenged in such depth. The

very nature of this letter demands a doctrinal response of at least equal credibility. On this basis alone, one can be assured that the letter received due consideration by the general authorities. The minutes of the meetings wherein this letter was discussed by the First Presidency would [224] indeed be informative.Unfortunately, these records are not available for research. From other records, however, we can conclude that the issue was of sufficient import that it required not only the personal attention of the president of the church but his personal intervention, for the matter was settled at a high council court at which presidents Woodruff and Cannon were present.

Although we do not have access to the records of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, there is indication that in contemplation of the upcoming confrontation with Edward Bunker, the Adam-God doctrine was discussed in these councils. It would be informative to know whether these discussions were as a sounding forum or were actually influential in adopting a doctrinal posture. At any rate, apostle Abraham H. Cannon's journal entry for May 26, 1892, indicates that there had been a discussion among the general authorities relative to the Adam-God doctrine.

. . . I was at my quorum meeting where were present all the presidency and myself, as also Bro. Lyman; Geo. Gibbs, clerk. Bro. Jos. F. Smith was mouth in prayer. Thereafter some conversation followed as to whether Adam is our God or not. There are some in the Church who do not accept of the statements of Pres. Young that such is the case....

Since this discussion took place twelve days prior to President Woodruff's departure to St. George, the discussion was most likely in response to the Bunker confrontation. Apostle Cannon probably had direct reference to Edward Bunker as one within the church who did not accept Brigham Young's statements that Adam is our God.

Further behind-the-scenes activity on Adam-God is evidenced by L. John Nuttall's memorandum of June 3, 1892, to the First Presidency which appears to be part of President Woodruff's

95

preparation for the Bunker court. Nuttall, having been requested to recount the origin of the veil lecture gave in his memorandum a brief history of the introduction of that lecture by Brigham Young in 1877. It was as Brigham's secretary that Nuttall accom-[225]panied the president to St. George where in Februaryof 1877 President Young introduced "the lecture at the veil to be observed in the temple." Acting as Brigham's scribe, Nuttall recorded Brigham's words and helped prepare that lecture in final form. His memorandum to the First Presidency reads:

In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave direction to have the same put in writing. Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple. A copy of the lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation and etc. (L. John Nuttall Papers, Letter Press Book No. 4, p. 290).

Since the majority of the elder Bunker's views stems from a divergence over the veil lecture, the First Presidency more than likely requested the foregoing information from Nuttall in preparation for the meeting that followed on June 11. This information was probably requested on the morning of June 3,when Nuttall spent more than three hours with Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon. The timing of these events on the eve of President Woodruff's departure to St. George precludes coincidence. Quite clearly, President Woodruff's intention was to document the origin of the veil lecture as authoritative.

It was on June 11, 1892, that a High Council court was convened to hear the case of Edward Bunker, Sr. Present on that occasion were President Wilford Woodruff and his first counselor George Q. Cannon. The [226] private journals of those present contain some interesting reflections on that meeting. Wilford Woodruff summarized the meeting this way: "We met in the tabernacle at 10 o'clock on the trial of Bishop Bunker [Senior] on Doctrine. We talked to them plainly on the impropriety of indulging in mysteries to create difficulties among the Saints. They purposed to be satisfied."

From this we understand the discussion to be a censure for exploiting the mysteries and thereby creating difficulties among the saints. With this censure, Bunker purposed to be satisfied. However, from the tone of his letter it is difficult to believe that this was actually the case. His letter clearly demonstratesan interest in doctrinal polemics, not platitudes. Indeed, his letter demands polemic consideration. From the Charles Walker journal we learn that this is exactly what he received. The Bunker letter was read in detail, with some discussion given to each point of doctrine. The Walker journal for June 11, 1892,reads:

St. George, June 11th--92--Attended the High Council at Which Pres. Woodruff presided G. Q. Cannon was present also and a large body of the leading men of this Stake. Br. Edward Bunker Sen. and others of Bunkerville Nevada had been advancing false doctrine, one item . . . was that Adam was made of the dust of the earth contained in the Garden of Eden. He had also advanced some erroneous ideas concerning the resurrection. Pres. Woodruff and Cannon showed . . . that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made; and that the seed of man was of the dust of the earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was Eternal Lives. And after this Mortal tabernacle had crumbled to dust in the grave that God would in the time of the resurrection by his Matchless Power would bring together again in the form of a glorified and an imortal [sic] to the Righteous to dwell with Him for ever. Also that those that were not righteous would also be resurrected, but not with a glorified body. Said it was not wisdom for the Elders to contend about

96

such matters, and things they did not understand, and not to teach such things to the children in the Sunday schools they could not comprehend them. Pres Woodruff spoke of . . . the false teachings of the late [227] Orson Pratt one of the twelve.... Pres. Woodruff told of Orson's unyielding stubborness . . . spoke of the firmness of Pres Young in correcting Orson Pratt and setting him aright. . . . Had it not been for firmness of Pres Young in maintaining the Right . . . Orson would have been out of the Church. Showed the folly of some men because they cannot look up and prove by the Bible the glorious Revelations that God has given they receive them doubtfully. Showed that God had, and would yet reveal many glorious things men could not prove, and Search out of the old Bible. Pres Cannon said that it was not necessary that we should or endorse the doctrine that some men taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ. Counsel was given for the Elders to teach that which they Knew, not that which they did not. The meeting was in session over three hours, and such good counsel was given to the Elders present on these things by Pres. Woodruff and Cannon. To me it was a feast for I had been pondering over some of these things of late.

Since this journal entry was made after the fact, Charles Walker was writing from the perspective of the meeting's final conclusions. While this may not be as informative as a developmental transcript, his conclusions are worthy of review by comparison with the high council minutes.

The summary conclusion was that Father Bunker had advanced false doctrine. Although other peripheral issues were also involved, Bunker's doctrine consisted in the main of two themes: 1) that Adam is neither the Father of Christ nor the God of the earth, and 2) that Adam did not come to this earth with aresurrected body, having passed through a second probation on another planet. These views, representing the major thrust of his contention, are well represented in his letter. Justification for his views was found in the scriptures where Christ (Jesus), being identified with God the Father of Israel, is pictured in a position of precedence over Adam.

Scriptural conflict was the basis for Father Bunker's disbelief in the temple veil teachings. It would appear that he had more faith in his private scriptural interpretations than in the revelations of Brigham Young or the doctrines of the temple. Bunker's views were systematically [228] refuted; first byundermining the scriptures as a basis for contradiction, then assailing his scriptural misinterpretations, and finally, he was called to repentance through the instruction of correct doctrine.

Concerning scriptural contradiction as a basis for disbelief, Bunker was shown the folly of his way for trying to scripturally disprove a doctrine that had little scriptural basis. His was the same "folly of some [other] men because they cannot look up and prove by the Bible the glorious Revelations that God has given, they receive them doubtfully" (HCM). He was shown "that God had, and would yet reveal many glorious things that men could not prove, and search out of the old Bible" (emphasis added).

In support of this view George Q. Cannon quoted: "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). President Woodruff then quoted: "A time to come in which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest" (D&C 121:28), and said: "Now when that time comes Father Bunker and I will know all about these things"(HCM).

The implication is perfectly clear: God, in former dispensations, had not fully revealed these things such that one could turn to the scriptures and find absolute evidence of their truth. Therefore, to base one's faith on scriptures which reflect a period when doctrines "were kept hid" and have no tangible bearing on contemporary teachings is folly. The Adam-God teachings of the temple, by way of inference, were additional revealments (or in the words of Wilford Woodruff "glorious revelations") that pertain to "the dispensation of the fullness of times" and cannot be proved out of the scriptures.

Further revealments as they reflect a fuller embodiment, however, should not conflict with former revelation. Father Bunker, it is noted, had some serious scriptural arguments that conflicted with temple doctrine. [229] These also had to be dealt with and were resolved by George Q. Cannon with President Woodruff's approval.

97

Most of Bunker's arguments are based on scriptures which depict Christ (Jesus) in a position of precedence over Adam. Jesus, for example, is identified as the Old Testament Jehovah, the creator of Adam, the Beginning and the End, etc. While these scriptures are correct, Bunker's interpretation of them was not. What Bunker failed to understand was that Jesus, in identifying himself by these various titles and capacities, spoke not in reference to his personal being but as a representative of the very eternal God or godhead. Misunderstanding here is the pivotal point of confusion. In his refutation President Cannonexplained:

"I am the beginning and the end." Jesus speaks for the Godhead, the personages who compose the Godhead, and that must be kept in mind all the time, not speaking for himself, but for the father. It is over looking this that leads to confusion. Men thinking that Jesus speaks for himself (HCM, emphasis added).

President Cannon continued saying: "Father Bunker labors to show that the God of this earth is the Savior . . . we worship, the Father in the name of Jesus. If Jesus is the object of our worship, who was left in charge when He tabernacled in the flesh? It was the Father" (HCM).

Father Bunker's views, diverging from the orthodox, were curiously reminiscent of Orson Pratt's errant views. So close were the parallels between them that Bunker was compared to Pratt and, through comparison, cautioned that his course could lead to darkness and loss of church membership.

Father Bunker holds different views and Bro. Orson Pratt also had different views from this and as a consequence he nearly went out of the Church for it. And he [George Q. Cannon] once heard him [Orson Pratt] say, that whenever he contended with Prest. Young, his mind was darkened, and he said he was going to stop (HCM).

President Young's firmness in maintaining "the right" against Orson Pratt was also recounted (see [230] chapters 10, p. 109, 113, 129 and 11, p. 137; also Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. XIII, no. 2, p. 7). That "right" among other things was that Adam is our God and that he came to thisearth as an immortal resurrected being, having passed through a second probation on another world.

"Father Bunker believed that Adam was a spirit before he came here or in other words that there was a separate creation when he came here." Bunker was asked if, according to his views, he could "explain the process by which man was formed" but he could not.

By way of instruction the creation of man was lucidly explained: "Adam," said President Cannon, "was created like we are." George Q. Cannon testified "in the name of Jesus Christ that Adam was born just as we are born. The lecture at the vail [sic] is true" (HCM).

To Latter-day Saints, apostolic pronouncements in the name of Jesus Christ are considered to reflect the mind of the Lord as "absolute truth." President Cannon's words, here, deserve this same emphasis, for it is within this immediate context, "in the name of Jesus Christ," that Adam was "born just as we are born (by procreation)" and that "the lecture at the [veil] is true." A more direct statement in support of the Adam-God ideology probably does not exist. The veil lecture, as we saw in the trial of Edward Bunker, Jr., taught that Adam and Eve are the parents of our spirits and came to this earth withresurrected bodies.

President Cannon continued his explanation, stating that "procreation is the gift of eternal lives, and if we are faithful we shall create worlds and people them just as Adam has done" (HCM).

It must be remembered that presidents Cannon and Woodruff came to St. George as God's personal representatives to authoritatively settle the Bunker controversy; and that President Cannon's words, spoken in the presence of President Woodruff, carried the authority of church orthodoxy.

President Cannon's words and their meaning on this [231] occasion speak for themselves. Obviously, if we in mortality have the potential of obtaining eternal lives and are able to create and people worlds "just as Adam has done," then Adam must necessarily have passed through a mortal probation

98

prior to creating and peopling this world. Adam, according to the presiding authorities, must have lived and died on a previous world, been resurrected, obtained his crown, been made a King and Lord, received eternal lives, and then must have come to this world with a resurrected body. Charles Walker amplifiedthis point by quoting President Young's words from the Millennial Star: "After men have got their crowns and are made king of Kings and lord of Lords, they then have the power of creating worlds" (HCM, emphasis added).

Within this same context of godhood and progression, President Woodruff defined the relationship between Adam and Christ. "President Wilford Woodruff said Adam stood ahead of this world and Jesus was born long after. Now this is the key to the whole matter" (HCM).

This is part of the veil lecture message which was introduced by Brigham Young within his calling as president and prophet to the church. In essence, the message is that Adam lived a prior existence, was resurrected, begat us as spirits, and came to this world as a glorified, resurrected being tofurther the progression of spirit children. This is also the essential concept of what is called "the Adam-God doctrine," If this central concept--as taught in the temple--is true, then all other tenets and ramifications of that doctrine naturally follow as conclusions.

With these teachings documented as being endorsed by presidents Woodruff and Cannon, there can be little question as to their orthodoxy in early Mormon thought. This documentation not only verifies the personal views of George Q. Cannon (see page 114) but explains why Wilford Woodruff and the othergeneral authorities in 1897 found Adam-God to be a "point of advanced [232] doctrine, too precious a pearl to be cast before swine" (see page 200). It was, in fact, too precious a pearl to be forced upon the church in literal form.

The value of a pearl being of a subjective nature can only be established by personal conviction. Consequently, and as a reflection of his lack of understanding, the elder Bunker was advised "to let these things alone." President Woodruff counseled: "We should not spend time over these mysteries. Letthem alone. [He] said all beings were created as we are created. Let them alone and don't quarrel over them" (HCM). Charles Walker recorded that Bunker was told that he needn't "endorse the doctrine taught by some that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ." Counsel was wisely given to teach only that which heclearly understood.

With Bunker's doctrine shown to be in error, Myron Abbott's views, at long last, were vindicated. He may well have been tasting the sweetness of victory when he was cautioned not tobecome "puffed up in pride" over that victory. President Cannon said that he "did not want anyone to feel a triumph, through what has been said here today, for if we do we will lose the spirit of God. These words were more particularly addressed to Myron Abbott" (HCM).

From the records it appears that the entire spectrum of Edward Bunker's views was assailed by presidents Woodruff and Cannon. Indeed, this is the impression left by J. D. T. McAllister who attended the three-hour meeting. He summarized the trial thus:

10 a.m. Attended High Council. Presidents Woodruff and Cannon present. The doctrine preached and contended for by Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville Ward was investigated, condemned and Father Bunker set right. It was a nice time. Much instruction was given by the First Presidency present (J. D. T. McAllister journal, June 11, 1891, emphasis added).

The doctrine for which Bunker had contended is clearly set forth in his letter to the high council. His doctrine, according to McAllister, was condemned. The word "condemned" carries a dynamic emphasis, suggesting a [233] categorical absolutism about Bunker's doctrine. It is, in the very least, a strong wordladen with religious implications. We can only believe McAllister to have reported what he witnessed--a strong refutation of beliefs and ideas that contended against Adam-God themes. It is difficult to believe that Bunker's doctrine would have been similarly condemned had it contended against ideas that were considered false or even enigmatic.

99

While the Bunker affair does demonstrate Adam-God support on behalf of the president of the church and his first counselor as well as the St. George high council, another significant point to be made is the treatment of Adam-God (at least in this bipartisan setting) as a mystery. President Woodruff wrote that he had talked to Bunker "on the impropriety of indulging in the mysteries . . ." The minutes state that Bunker was advised that he "should let these things alone. We should not spend time over these mysteries." This treatment, despite the personal belief of church authorities, stands in stark contrast to the treatment the doctrine received by Brigham Young. As such, it reflects a change in attitudes.

It is apparent that presidents Woodruff and Cannon considered Adam-God to be significantly less a mystery for themselves than it was for Bunker. Its classification as a mystery did not appear to influence their personal beliefs. Therefore, the change in attitude--considering Adam-God a mystery--must be viewed as a formal or impersonal policy for bipartisan consumption within the church. This also stands in contrast to the church's response (denial) of the Adam-God doctrine to deal with criticism from outside the church.

Adam-God ideologies had faded from an era when they were taught in full proclamation to a period of reticence where publicly they were neither taught, defended, nor dismissed. The withdrawal of leadership put the doctrine adrift. It predictably bobbed with every storm, only to be ruled by confusion,disagreement, and [234] misunderstanding. Drifting with popular, or more appropriately, unpopular caprice, the doctrine had become a mystery. From here it could only become an enigma.

The change from doctrine to mystery should not be seen as an isolated phenomenon. In a more comprehensive context, it was merely a single episode in a broader scenario of change which assured twentieth century viability. Survival was best guaranteed through unity. Doctrinal dissonance over the nature and identity of God, within the gospel of Jesus Christ, is a conflict of major proportions. If the church was to survive, that conflict had to be resolved. The reclassification of Adam-God from doctrine to mystery appears to have been a major mechanism whereby that conflict could be resolved.

Resolution, in this way, placed the doctrine beyond institutional proscription while at the same time maintaining individual and personal integrity. The institution absolved itself from the responsibility of judgment by placing the issue outside its purview. Since a mystery is anything which one does not know or understand, Adam-God ideologies could be neither condemned nor sanctioned. The value of an idea classified as a mystery could be made only by the individual.

In this way the conflict produced by doctrinal dissonance was resolved by removing the doctrine from a framework of definition. The solution was directed at the symptom (dissonance) rather than the doctrine that produced it. The involved parties, by this solution, have simply learned to live more comfortably with the problem by changing definitions.

These are the dynamics reflected by the Bunker affair. The Bunkers were not forced to abandon or align their beliefs with those of the general authorities. They were told simply to leave alone those things they did not understand. They did not have to endorse the doctrine that Adam was the father of Christ. In fact, a subsequent letter by Edward Bunker, Jr., indicates little if any change in his doctrinal views. [235] In 1902, Edward Bunker, Jr., perhaps in an attempt to yet win his point, again harassed the authorities with his disbelief. His purpose may have been to "try" or "test" another president. At any rate he wrote to Joseph F. Smith a personal letter inviting another Adam-God confrontation.

Bunkerville Feb 9th 1902President Joseph F SmithDear Bro. One of our recently returned missionary from the North Western States is advicating

[sic] the Doctorn [sic] that Adam is the very eternal Father in the Godhead and the Father of Jesus Christ and that Pres Kelch so taught the Elders in that mission. I say the Doctorn is Faulse and while every Person enjoying the spirit of the Lord may know of a Doctorn whether it is true or faulse; but that they have no right (Except the President of the Church) to advance any Doctorn not clearly set forth and defined in the written Law, and in doing so they stand on dangerous ground, and until we are able to live up to the reveled Law in the spirit thereof, can we hope to enjoy suficient of the spirit of the Lord to

100

understand fully the plan of life and salvation. As a Bp my position cared if not where in amI in error. Your answer through the meidim of the Juvenil instructor [Juvenile Instructor] or other wise will be greatly apreasiated by your Brothr in the Gospel.

Edw Bunker Jr

Had Bunker been correct in his assertion that the Adam-God doctrine was false or that his views coincided with President Smith's, there would have been little need for further discussion. In response, however, President Smith demonstrates a need for further discussion which borders on counterpoint. He replied to Bunker's letter along the same lines set down by President Woodruff--establishing the impropriety of dwelling upon divisionary themes and dealing with Adam-God as a mystery.

President Smith, however, goes one step further to unequivocally cast the doctrine as a categorical mystery. The following letter is found in Joseph F. Smith, personal letter book, pp. 26, 27.

[236] Feb. 27, 1902Bishop Edward BunkerBunkerville, Lincoln Co., NevadaDear Brother--

Your letter of the 9th inst. reached me on the 14th, and in reply to the question therein contained, I have this to say: It is certainly unwise for the elders or any other member of the Church to advocate doctrines that are not clearly set forth in the revealed word of God, and concerning which, in consequence, difference of opinion exist. No good can come from it, but on the contrary, much evil may result. Had the Lord desired or designed that such doctrines should be promulgated, He would have clearly and fully defined them, as he has those beautiful and simple laws and ordinances known as "the first principles of the Gospel." 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 nevertheless 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 abtruse themes, these partly revealed principles, respecting which there are such wide differences of belief. What is called the Adam God doctrine may properly be classed among the mysteries. The full truth concerning it has not been revealed to us; and until it is revealed all wild speculations, sweeping assertions and dogmatic declarations relative thereto, are out of place and improper. We disapprove of them and especially the public expression of such views. In the absence of Elder K____, and without any oral or written statement by him as to his belief regarding this doctrine, we do not feel called upon, nor would it be right to pass judgement in his case; but we will simply say that the accepted doctrine concerning our father Adam, the great sire of the human race, is as follows: He is Michael, the Ancient of Days, the future God of this earth, when it shall become celestialized and shine like unto a sea of glass mingled with fire, the glorified home of celestial beings for ever. Hence Adam stands at the head of the human family, presides over them spiritually and temporally, and will come in due time as the Ancient of Days to call his children together, according to the scriptures, both ancient and modern. He will preside over them for ever, and be their God eternally; this, of course, after the Millennial reign of Christ. Christ is not Adam, nor is Adam Christ, but both are eternal Gods, and it [237] may even be said Fathers, since they are the parents of eternal or spiritual children. As to the personality and position of each God, and as to which of all is the greater, these are matters immaterial at the present time, and are best but an unprofitable speculation. Let us be content with what is plainly revealed on 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. With kind regards, I am your brother, and friend,

Jos. F. Smith

101

This letter clearly reflects President Smith's concern with the conflict which Adam-God ideologies had produced. He cautioned against advocating doctrines about which differences of opinion exist. His plea was to return to principles that were as explicitly defined as are the first principles of the gospel. He continued by outlining accepted doctrine as it relates to Adam. One should notice that he artfully avoided any statement which would shut the door on the doctrine, and refused to define the relationship between Adam and Christ.

His statements, on the other hand, leave a great deal for fuller interpretation. Was it a Freudian slip to say that Adam is the future god of this earth? The only condition in which present and future tenses can simultaneously exist is in eternity. This would imply that Adam is the eternal God of this earth. But perhaps this was a mere misstatement. The concept that Adam will be the god of this earth when it becomes celestialized (the celestial kingdom), however, is no error. This statement has some interesting implications, for it is understood that the god of the celestial kingdom will be God, the Father, our spiritual progenitor.

Above all, what President Smith's letter does is maintain a balance between constrained orthodoxy and free agency. He has maintained the essential feature of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the need for each person to derive truth for himself. What more could he have told Bunker that he had not already rejected?

President Smith's treatment of Adam-God suggests a mystery that was held in reserve for the worthy. "These [238] teachings are only for the tried and worthy; preach other words to thechurches" (Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, edited by Rahmani, p. xviii). He appears to be echoing the sentiments of an early church father who, when asked to comment on the mysteries, said: "I would like to write to you of heavenly things (or of things more full of mystery), but I fear to do so, lest I should inflict injury on you who are but babes . . . you would be strangled by such things" (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, chapter 5).

Bishop Bunker like so many others had choked on Adam-God. Further preaching on the subject would only have led to strangulation. In consequence, Adam-God was declared to be a mystery. This act relieved the general membership of any responsibility to uphold the doctrine. It is only binding uponthose who test its tenets and believe.

It [the Adam-God doctrine] is . . . in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof, except perhaps only so far as some have confidence in President Young, believing that he had light on the subject.... Anyone thus endowed [with the Holy Ghost] may apply the tests by the light of the good spirit (Letter from Joseph F. Smith to Hon A. Saxey, 1897, Joseph F. Smith Letterbook, C.H.O).

Although openly treated as a mystery, Adam-God does not appear to have been a mystery to those who were "thus endowed" with the Holy Ghost and believed. Yet to avoid inflicting injury, the apostles who were obviously well informed did not teach everywhere promiscuously. They taught one thing about the nature of God in public and another thing about the nature of God in secret. Some things they taught to everyone, but some things they taught only to a few. (See: Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 25.)

[239] CHAPTER 15 IS JESUS CHRIST THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?

In completing this profile on the Adam-God doctrine, one must address the doctrine of Jesus Christ as being the Jehovah of the Old Testament. In theory, this doctrine runs contrary to the Adam-God doctrine because the Old Testament depicts Jehovah as the God Adam worshiped. The reader, however,

102

should be aware that this doctrine has not always been advocated by the church. It began to emerge as a formal church doctrine around the turn of the century.

The suppression of the Adam-God doctrine, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, was not without theologic ramifications. The identity of the Old Testament Jehovah is an integral part of the restored concept of deity. The suppression of the Adam-God doctrine created a theologic void concerning the God of Israel. A stopgap measure began to emerge around the turn of the century which has become formally adopted as church doctrine. This stopgap measure is the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

While there are scriptural references which associate Jesus Christ in function and power with the Old Testament Jehovah, a more thorough scriptural investigation shows the Old Testament Jehovah to be the Father of Jesus Christ. This indeed was the church's teaching prior to 1900. This former position of thechurch is brought out by the following teachings of the early church leaders:

[240] We may ask them the question, "Do you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob?" So do the Latter-day Saints. If they believe in the God who told Moses to say to Pharaoh that He was a man of war; so do the Saints. I say, O Israel, ancient Israel do you believe in the God who brought the children of Israel out of Egypt with a high hand and an outstretched arm! "Yes," say they; and so do the Latter-day Saints. Have you faith, that if necessary, He would again shower manna from Heaven and send flocks of quails to allay your hunger and cause water to burst from the rock to quench your thirst as He did when the Children of Israel were passing through the Wilderness? Do you believe that He is the God whom Moses followed and by whom he was directed? "Yes," says the whole house of Israel. Well, that is the very God that we--the Latter-day Saints--are serving. He is our Father, He is our God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ--whom the tribe of Judah discard, heaping ridicule upon his name. He is the Father of our Spirits, everyone of us, Jew and Gentile, bond or free, white or black (Brigham Young, August 4, 1867, Utah Historical Quarterly 29:68).

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is obviously the Old Testament Jehovah, for as such He announced himself to Moses (Exo. 6:3). In the foregoing, Brigham Young said that the Old Testament Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ. On another occasion, he was even more specific in identifying the god of the Old Testament as the Father, and went further to say that He was Michael, Adam, the Ancient of Days.

We begin with the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our spirits--who is he? Do you know anything about him? Can you find out who he is? Suppose we go to the scriptures and enquire who he is. At one time he says "I am that I am," at another time when the question was proposed by somebody, he replied, "I am the Lord your God"; at another time he is spoken of as a Man of War, a General and so on. You may trace the scriptures through, and you will find that he is known to one people by one title today, and tomorrow by another, and the next day by another, and there he leaves it.... I tell you this as my belief about that personage [father of Christ, The Prince, Man of War, I AM--the Jehovah of the Old [241] Testament] who is called the Ancient of Days, the Prince, and so on" (M.A.B.Y. April 25, 1855).

The following article taken from the Millennial Star in 1842 reflects the church's doctrine as contemporary with Joseph Smith:

The Old and New Testament everywhere reveals a God with body, parts, and passions. The following are a few of the many texts which speak of his body and parts:

Image--Gen. 1st, 27th.Eyes--Prov. xv. 3rd.

103

Mouth--Isaiah lv. 11th.Nose--Isaiah lxv. 5th.

Lips and tongue--Isaiah xxx. 27th.Ear--2nd Kings xix. 16th.Soles of his feet--Ezekiel xliii. 7th.Arm--Jeremiah xxi. 5th

Finger--Exod. xxxi. 18th.Fingers--Psalms viii. 3rd.Loins--Ezek. i. 27th.

Heart--Gen. vi. 6th.Nostrils--Exod. xv. 8th.Hand, face, and back parts--Exod. xxxiii. 22nd.

The foregoing abundantly show that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ had both body and parts, to say nothing of Jesus Christ.... Hence, what can we say of this sectarian "God without body, parts, or passions!!!" as compared with Jehovah and Jesus Christ, or with Scripture and reason (Millennial Star, vol. 2, p. 184).

It will be noted that the body parts above described as belonging to the Father of Jesus are those of the Old Testament Jehovah.

Again in 1842, the Millennial Star said:

Let us now inquire after the true God and after the manner of worshipping him. The eternal Jehovah has revealed himself to man as enthroned in the heavens while the earth is his footstool, and Jesus Christ as his son seated at his right hand.... He [Jehovah] created the worlds, He stopped the mouths of lions. He quenched the violence of fire. He manipulated the [242] widow's meal and oil. He overturned kingdoms and defended his people. He smote the rock and the water gushes out (Millennial Star, vol. 2, p. 187).

The Old Testament Jehovah could not be more clearly distinguished from Jesus than He is in the foregoing. Indeed, in the minds of early church leaders, Jesus was clearly distinguished from the Old Testament Jehovah. The following, wherein Jehovah makes reference to Jesus, received Joseph's highest approbation:

The Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken through Isaiah (4:1), saying "Behold my servant whom I upheld--mine elect in whom my soul delighteth," evidently referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God chosen, or elected, by the Father (DHC, vol. 4, p. 256; also Millennial Star, vol. 1, p. 217; Times and Seasons 2:524).

Throughout early Mormon (pre-1900) literature, Jesus is repeatedly distinguished as the Son of the Old Testament Jehovah. This is apparent in the 1845 "Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles . . . to the People of All Nations" (Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 1, p. 253), wherein Jesus is identified with the Son of the Great Eloheem Jehovah.

Also of interest is the first doctrinal compendium on Mormon theology (A Compendium of the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Apostle F. D. Richards, 1857). This work was published for the express purpose of setting forth and proving "the truth of the doctrines of

104

Latter-day Saints" (p. iii). It is a laborious accumulation of scriptural references in support of Mormon doctrine. It is unique in that it carries a section dedicated to the explanation and documentation of Jesus' various titles and roles. The section titled "The Names, Titles and Characters Given to Jesus" (p. 150) is a comprehensive list of some fifty titles that apply to Jesus which are of both major and minor significance. The name "Jehovah" is not listed among the titles that apply to Jesus. The comprehensive nature of this list suggests that if "Jehovah" had been an important name or title for [243] Christ it would have been included in this doctrinal list of Jesus' names.

In the minds of early church leaders, however, "Jehovah" had reference to a being other than Jesus. This being, according to early statements, is Christ's (Jesus') superior--God. President John Taylor made this distinction when he wrote:

He [Jesus] bore the sins of the world and suffered in His own person the consequences of an eternal law of God broken by man. Hence His profound grief, His indescribable anguish, His overpowering torture, all experienced in the submission to the eternal fiat of Jehovah . . . (The Mediation and Atonement, p. 150).

Other church leaders similarly made this distinction, e.g., Orson Pratt (J.D. 21:197) and Daniel Wells (J.D. 18:368). None, however, were so explicit as Brigham Young who on another occasion said:

He [the Lord Almighty] said, "Have you confidence in me, my son Abraham?" "Yes," said Abraham. "Well, I will prove you. Bring up your son Isaac to Mount Moriah, build an altar there, place the wood on the altar and bind your son and place him on the altar and sacrifice him to me, and this will prove whether you have faith in me or not." The sacrifice was offered and accepted, and the Lord provided a way whereby Isaac could live. We are just so foolish, and unwise and shortsighted, and so wanting in philosophy that we actually believe God told Abraham to do this very thing. Who is that God? He is my Father. He is your Father; we are His offspring (J.D. 8:236).

Here Brigham plainly identifies Jehovah who spoke to Abraham as our procreative Father. Jesus Christ was not our procreative Father.

The distinction between Jehovah and Jesus appears to have been so clear and commonplace that it found frequent expression in early Mormon song. In most of the early hymnals, songs which either distinguish Jesus as Jehovah's son or treat both as separate beings can be found. Consider the following from Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day [244] Saints. (Although any pre-1900 edition of this work will serve to demonstrate the point, the 1891 edition iscited here.)

See! Jehovah's banner's furled,Sheathed His sword, He speaks, 'tis done!

Now the kingdoms of this worldAre the kingdoms of His Son.(Hymn 97, verse 2)

John Taylor penned: As in the heavens they all agree, The record's given there by Three, On earth three witnesses are given, To lead the sons of earth to heaven.

Jehovah, God the Father is one [witness], Another [witness], His Eternal Son Jesus],

105

The Spirit does with them agree, The witnesses in heaven are three. (Hymn 262, verses 2 and 3)

One would certainly expect John Taylor to know correct doctrine. Here he asserts that the trinity of witnesses consists of Jehovah (God the Father), Jesus (His Eternal Son) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).

Other hymns which similarly distinguish Christ from Jehovah are numbers 53, 97, 129, 236, 260, and 336. Unfortunately, with the passage of time and the adoption of new doctrine most of these have either been deleted or changed in more recent hymnals. By 1912 the word Jehovah had been deleted from the third verse of John Taylor's hymn (above). Even more typical of such changes is the popular "While of These Emblems We Partake." Most members are familiar with the four verses in the current hymnal. What they don't realize, however, is that the original version had five verses. Verse three which distinguished Jehovah and Jesus as two separate beings has been deleted. It reads:

Man broke the law of His estate And Jesus came to expiate, Atone and rescue fallen man According to Jehovah's plan.

(Hymn 336, verse 3).

[245] Jesus, the reader will recall, came to fulfill His Father's plan (correlate with The Mediation and Atonement by John Taylor, pp. 123, 127).

Similar examples of change are best demonstrated by alterations in Parley P. Pratt's Key to the Science of Theology. Originally, Apostle Pratt wrote:

By this science he [Abraham] conversed with angels, and was favored with a personal interview with the Great Head and Founder of the science, who became his guest, and, after eating and drinking with him, blessed him and his wife, promised them an heir in their old age, and finally, on parting, told him His design on Sodom and its neighbourhood (Key to the Science of Theology, original 1855 edition, p. 6).

This Great Head and Founder of science is identified in Genesis 18:1 as "LORD" or the Jehovah of the Old Testament. The Savior, then being in the spirit, could hardly have been the deity who supped with Abraham.

The adoption of a new doctrine as a stopgap measure has led to the necessity of covering former tracks. Hence, the phrase "became his guest, and, after eating and drinking with him" was, without notation, edited from later editions of Apostle Pratt's book so as to help "smooth out" the transition.

With the publication of Jesus the Christ by James Talmage (a major proponent of the doctrinal change) the Savior had become firmly traditionalized as the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the God of Adam and of Noah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God at whose instance the prophets of the ages have spoken, the God of all nations, and He who shall yet reign on earth as King of kings and Lord of lords (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 4). We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses [246] to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record, and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One (p. 32).

106

Although Brother Talmage claims scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ is the

God of Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob (i.e., the God of the Old Testament), his scriptural authority is not forthcoming. To the contrary, the scriptures show the Old Testament Jehovah not to be Jesus Christ. (For the correlation of other doctrinal changes by Dr. Talmage, see "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," Sunstone, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 24.)

Jehovah is an "artificial" name of the Old Testament deity. It resulted from the addition of vowels (from the word Adonai) to the tetragrammaton YHWH during the sixth-seventh centuries A.D. After the exile, the sacred name Yahweh was withdrawn from usage for the fear that it would be profaned. It was substituted by other names for God, usually Adonai (Lord). It is this latter name that has been consistently rendered as "LORD" instead of YHWH or Yahweh in the King James Version and the RVS Bibles. (See The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 817.) The term Jehovah

. . . bears the meaning of continuing being, a personal, absolute, self-determining Existence. It is very likely best translated as in Exodus 3:14, where the Lord said to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM"--"this you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you...." Because of the vagueness of the Hebrew tense (which is the same in both parts of the sentence) other renderings are possible, but none better than "I AM THAT I AM" (J. Green, The Interlinear Hebrew/Greek English Bible, vol. 1, p. 11).

From its literal meaning, Jehovah may be applied to any God. However, the scriptures bear out that the Jehovah or God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not Jesus Christ as claimed by Brother Talmage, but is the Savior's Father. [247] Brother Talmage claims that the Savior Jesus Christ is the God (Jehovah) who revealed himself to Adam, Enoch and every patriarch down to Noah. The Book of Mormon indicates otherwise, for the Savior, in appearing to the brother of Jared, stated that this was His first appearance unto mankind.

Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh (Ether 3:14-16; emphasis added).

The brother of Jared's vision took place at the confusion of the tongues which was approximately 2,000 years into the earth's history. Who then was the Jehovah who appeared to manprior to this time? Jehovah had appeared on multiple occasions prior to appearing to the brother of Jared (Gen. 3:8; Moses 6:3, 39; 7:16; D&C 107:53, 54). Who was the Lord that dwelt with Enoch and the city of Zion (Insp. Version, Gen. 7:77)? These and many, many more references point to another as being the Old Testament God of Israel.

The Savior Himself pointed to another as being the Old Testament Jehovah. The Savior in discussing His parentage with the Pharisees stated that He, in effect, was not the literal son of David because David called Him (Jesus) Lord. He had specific reference to David's Psalm 110:1 wherein David said: "The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies my footstool." The reader should remember that the Hebrew equivalent of Jehovah has been rendered LORD in the KingJames Bible. David is here saying that [248] the LORD (Jehovah) spoke unto his Lord (Jesus Christ) telling him to sit at His Jehovah's) right hand. Christ, in Matt. 22, identifies himself as David's Lord, thus differentiating himself from Jehovah (LORD).

107

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, the Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord saying, the LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son (Matt. 22:41-45)?

And indeed this is exactly what Joseph Smith saw and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants: "For we saw him [Jesus] even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father" (76:23). In his extraordinary vision, Joseph Smith saw the Savior sitting on the right hand of Jehovah, just as David had been privileged to see.

It would appear that Joseph Smith knew the true relationship and identity of both the Father and the Son, for Joseph identified the Father as Jehovah. In his Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer (D&C 109), Joseph addressed the "Lord God of Israel" (verse 1) who, in verse 4, is identified as the Fatherof Jesus Christ. Throughout this prayer, Joseph clearly is addressing the Eternal Father who, in verses 34 and 42, is identified as Jehovah! Even unto the last years of his life, Joseph continued to distinguish Jehovah as the father of Jesus. In an 1842 prayer Joseph equaled Jehovah with the Eternal God, the Old Testament God of Israel and the Father of Jesus.

O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men--Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah--God--Thou Eloheim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, "enthroned in heaven," look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him . . . (D.H.C. 5:127).

This citation does more than just distinguish Jesus from the Old Testament Jehovah, it defines their [249] relationship as father (Jehovah) and son (Jesus). Again in 1842 Joseph equated Jehovah with Eloheim. ". . . [L]et us plead the justice of our cause; trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim whosits enthroned in the heavens" (D.H.C. 5:94).

As a prophet of God, Joseph was not at variance with the scriptures which also identify Jehovah (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) as the Father of Christ. "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified His Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him"(Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14).

The God (Jehovah) who spoke to the Old Testament fathers is defined by Paul as the Father of Christ:

God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (Hebrews 1:1 and 2).

Thus, we see that the God of Israel, as a separate physical being, was the Father of Jesus Christ (also compare Heb. 1:5 with Psalms 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:11-16; 1 Cor. 10:4 with 2 Sam. 23:2-3; 3 Nephi 20:27 with Genesis 22:16-18 and Acts 3:25-26). Yet there are many instances (of apparent contradiction) wherein our Savior (as a deity) is ascribed attributes, qualities, and functions that parallel those of the Old Testament Jehovah. This has caused a great deal of confusion in the minds of men and led to the justification that Jesus Christ is indeed the Jehovah of the Old Testament. In resolving these apparent contradictions, one must come to an understanding of the nature of God and the relationship of the Son to the Father's will.

These apparent scriptural contradictions are that both the Jehovah of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ are scripturally described as the "The First and the Last," "The Judge," "The Almighty," "The Rock," "The Redeemer," "The Savior," "The Creator," "King of Israel" and "The One and Only God." The difficulty here lies in our interpretation of these qualities [250] as names, rather than qualities or a

108

description of God. For example, the Savior in the Doctrine and Covenants (19:1) calls himself "Alpha and Omega," "the Beginning and the End." These mean "to be," "to exist," "the self-existent one," "I-Am"or, in other words, "Jehovah." The reader will recall that the Savior in John 8:58 calls himself the great I-Am whom the Jews interpreted to be the same as the I-Am who appeared to Moses in Exodus 3:14. The real question is how is Jesus a Jehovah? How is He the "beginning and the end"? In what way is Jesus the"self-existent one"?

Latter-day Saints accept Jesus by the foregoing titles. However, these are more descriptive of his majesty, power and glory than as personal names. These titles do not apply to him in the individual sense for we know that He, as a being, is not without beginning of days or end of years. He progressed togodhood and His present glory through a series of beginnings as a spirit, a mortal, etc. Then to call him the "unchangeable," "self-existent one," "the very eternal God" would be incorrect as they literally apply to him as a personal being. However, as a description of his present majesty and glory, they are accurate.

This same concept is also applied to the creation. According to the scriptures, Jesus is the creator of the worlds (D&C 76:24; Heb. 1:2), all things in heaven (Col. 1:16), all things in earth (Col. 1:16; Alma 1:4), all things from the beginning (Mosiah 3:8), and the spirit of man (Ether 3:16). While we believe that Christ did have a personal role in the creation, that role, particularly in the face of the foregoingscriptures, is ill defined. A literal interpretation of these scriptures is difficult to accept because they conflict with the revealed plan of eternal progression.

The scriptures say that Jesus created "all things"; yet, he could not have created himself or that which existed prior to his own creation. What "all things" did he, then, create? [251] The scriptures tell us that Jesus created "all things in heaven"; yet, the Moses account of the spiritual creation (Moses 2) places man in the last of God's creative periods; i.e., after the creation of the heavens, earth, vegetation and animal life. Since Jesus was a product of the last creative period, how could he have created those entities "of heaven" which were created prior to his own creation? In which respect, then, did Jesus create "all things in heaven"?

The scriptures say that Jesus created the spirits of man (Ether 3:16). This would imply that he is our Father, whereas we know Him to be our spiritual brother (of the same generation of spirits). In which respect, then, is Jesus the "creator of man"?

And similarly, in which respect is Christ the creator of "the world and all things therein" (Col. 1:16)?

There are many answers to these questions.First, Jesus could not have created anything prior to his own creation. With this in mind, it is

possible that the order of creation may not have taken place as documented in our written accounts. Another order of creation (i.e., with man created in the first period) would be consistent with Jesus'participation in the creation of successive periods.

When the only Begotten Son of God was upon the earth, he understood the nature of those elements, how they were brought together to make this world and all things that are thereon, for he helped to make them . . . (Brigham Young, J.D. 1:270).

Second, Jesus is the creator by bringing to fruition the salvation for "all things in heaven and in earth." From this frame of reference, there is no creation without His atonement, for it is by virtue of his atonement that all things for us exist.

Christ is the author of this Gospel, of this earth, of men and women, of all the posterity of Adam and Eve, and of every living creature that lives upon the face of the earth, that flies in the heavens, that swims in the waters, or dwells in the field. Christ is the author of salvation to all this creation, to all things [252] pertaining to this terrestrial globe we occupy.... When he [Christ] has raised up this kingdom, and finished his work which the Father gave him to do, and presents it to his Father saying: "I have done the work, I have finished it; I have not only created the world, but I have redeemed it; I have watched over

109

it, and I have given to those intelligent beings that you created by me, their agency, and it has been held with perfection to every creature of intelligence, to every grade of mankind" (Brigham Young, J.D. 3:80-81).

Third, and the most comprehensive answer, which is not to the exclusion of the first two, is the doctrine of "oneness and unity of God." Every title or expression of deity as applied to Christ is a reflection of the Savior's glory, power and dominion which He inherited from the Father. Christ is an incarnate personification of the Fullness of the Father, in power, glory, and perfection. In this sense, the Christ represents not himself but is the identity of God the Eternal. Thus, every title and concept of deity by which the Father is known may also be applied to Christ. Every common reference between the Father and the Son is a reflection of a common power and glory which emanate from God. President John Taylor stated it this way:

"His name shall be called Immanuel," which being interpreted is, God with us. Hence He is not only called the Son of God, the First Begotten of the Father, the Well Beloved, the Head, and Ruler, and Dictator of all things, Jehovah, the I Am, the Alpha and Omega, but He is also called the Very Eternal Father. Does not this mean that in Him were the attributes and power of the Very Eternal Father? For the angel to Adam said that all things should be done in His name (The Mediation and Atonement, p. 138).

Thus Jesus is known by all of the titles that characterize God because in Jesus dwell "the attributes and power of the Very Eternal Father." Christ inherited these qualities of deity by submission to the greater will (that of the Father) which thereby came to dwell in the personage of Jesus. It is the existence of the principles and qualities of God within Jesus that united Him as a deity with the [253] Very Eternal God. Said President Taylor: "He is called in Scripture the I AM, in other words, I AM THAT I AM, because of those inherent principles, which are also eternal and unchangeable; for where those principles exist, He exists. . .(The Mediation and Atonement, p. 166).

The Father, then, quite literally dwells in the Son. In this way through a common spirit of principle and quality, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one and the same God: "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God infinite and eternal, without end" (D&C 20:28).

Thus, although these three beings may have a separate physical identity, they have only one identity as a God. Each has allowed His will to be "swallowed up" by the will of the "Eternal God of all other Gods" (D&C 121:32). Thus, there is only one God in the eternities: "God the Almighty," "the veryEternal One," "the self-existent one." It is of this God that we hope to become an extension--losing our will and identity in His. Indeed this was the Savior's prayer that we become one in God through Him:

I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one (D&C 35:2).

Becoming one with God is more than mere submission to gospel principles. It requires a sanctified being worthy of receiving the Father that he might dwell in us, for this is the way that Christ became the Father by receiving His fullness unto Himself. Abinidi in Mosiah 15 explains the Savior's dual role as the Son and Father. He was the Son because He was the physical progeny of God: "and because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God" (verse 2). Christ became the Father by receiving the fullness of the Father, by subjecting His will to that of the Father. Hence, Christ is "the Father, because He was conceived by the power of God . . . and [254] thus the flesh became subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God" (Mosiah 15:3 and 5).

The Savior himself tells us that He is "the Father because He (the Father) gave me of his fullness" (D&C 93:4). The testament of John tells us that He grew "grace by grace" until such time He could receive of the Father's fullness.

110

And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that he received a fullness of the glory of the Father.... And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him for He dwelt in him (D&C 93:15-17).

It is of special note that by receiving the Father's fullness, the Father dwelt in the Savior. In this same way, we may become Gods. "And the Father and I are one, I am in the Father and the Father in me; and inasmuch as ye have received me, ye are in me and I in you" (D&C 50:43). The ultimate reception of the Savior is to receive His fullness. Then will the Father and the Son dwell in us as a "God unity," having received of their glory and power.

This concept, notes Hugh Nibley, was familiar to the ancient Egyptians:

The idea that the Ba [soul] of one exalted being may unite with that of another is the ultimate expression of the mystery of identity but is no more baffling than the total fusion of persons and pronouns in the Gospel of John, chapters 14 through 17, or in 3 Nephi 19.... It is only by becoming a "living Ba" that one is finally free from all limitations of time and place and can take any form one pleases. The forms taken by the living Ba are its khprw . . . and just as the Gods can share their Ba's with each other, "so gods who have their khprw in another god are that god. . ." (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 82 & 231).

This doctrine, "the unity and oneness of God," transcends that of divine investiture and more correctly defines the relationship of the Father to, and in, the Son.

The Son, whose will became swallowed up in that of [255] the Father, has in effect become an extension of the Father. The Savior achieved an independent union (not domination) with the Father. Thus when the Savior speaks, He may speak as the Father, for truly He is the Father, having received of His fullness such that the Father dwells in Him. Hence, when He speaks, He speaks as the Father, the Son and/or the Holy Ghost, which is one God centered in the personage of Jesus Christ, revealing the divinemind, majesty, power and glory of the Eternal Self-existent, Almighty God.

As such, any name, quality, or title that ever applied to God also applies to Jesus Christ--the Father and the Son. Hence they are the "Great I-Am," the Creator of heaven and "earth," "the beginning and the end," "the Almighty God," "the Rock," "the Only Lord," and so forth, because they are one God.

The Savior spoke to Joseph on multiple occasions in his dual role as the Father and the Son:

Thus saith the Lord, for I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world, and have decreed that he that receiveth him shall be saved, and he that receiveth him not shall be damned (D&C 49:5).

Although it appears that the Father has voice in this revelation, it is Jesus who is speaking, for it ends: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ and I come quickly" (D&C 49:28). Therefore, Christ was speaking as the Father.

In section 29 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Savior reveals Himself as "Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I-Am," which is an authentication of the in-dwelling relationship He has with the Father. In verse 34, the Savior speaks as Elohim by saying that He created Adam: "Not at any time have I given unto you a law which is temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created." That the Savior is not speaking as Himself becomes evident in verse 42 where He says: "I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and [256] redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son."

111

The Savior also spoke to the Nephites as the Father when he said: "Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel" (3 Nephi 15:5). Moroni corroborates this in-dwelling relationship by saying that he could testify to "Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, theEternal God, manifesting Himself unto all nations" (Book of Mormon, title page). Also, this in-dwelling relationship was revealed by the Savior to his disciples in John 14:8-11 when Jesus asked them:

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works. Believeth me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (emphasis added).

Zenoch, in 1 Nephi 19:10, understood this relationship so literally that at the Savior's crucifixion he believed he was witnessing the crucifixion of God the Father, for truly the crucifixion of the Son after he had received a fullness of the Father was also a crucifixion of the Father.

Another substantiation can be found in section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants where the Savior speaks as the Father by referring to a priesthood after the order of His Only Begotten Son (verse 123).

Summary

This chapter has shown us that Jesus Christ is the Father through having become one with the Father in power, glory, and mind and through having received of His fullness, for the Father dwells in Christ. As such all titles of deity are equally applicable to all that have become one with God. Thus the Savior may speak in the first person as the Father because "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself but the Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works" (John 14:10).

However, the scriptures differentiate more specifically between Jesus and the Jehovah of the Old Testa-[257]ment and as individual beings. The biblical parallels between the God of Israel and the Savior are explained by the "unity and oneness" of God, where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--the OldTestament Jehovah--is the Father of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of divine investiture more specifically relates to those who have not received the Father's fullness, in whom authority is vested to act in behalf of the Father; therefore, the Father's authority is not merely vested in Jesus Christ . . . He (Jesus) is the Father.

[259] CHAPTER 16

JESUS CHRIST, OUR ATONING SAVIOR

. . . We have proof that God lives and that he has a body; that he has eyes, and ears to hear, that he has arms, hands and feet; that he can walk and does walk. He has declared himself to be a man of war--Jehovah, the great I Am, the Lord Almighty, and many other titles of alike import are used in reference to him in the Scriptures. But take away the atonement of the Son of God and the Scriptures fall useless to the ground (Brigham Young, J.D. 14:41).

. . . I cannot do without the Lord Jesus! He is the man for me. That God who holds the keys of life and death, and who has suffered and died for the children of men, is he who must rule in the hearts of the children of obedience, and his kingdom will stand forever (Brigham Young, J.D. 14:75).

Lest the continued focus of this work on Adam as our God be interpreted as taking away from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, space at this point should be given to recognizing our atoning Savior and His gospel.

112

The Adam-God doctrine as emphasized by the 1897 First Presidency and Council of Twelve is "a point of more advanced doctrine." It transcends the preparatory principles that characterize the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Adam-God doctrine is of little value conceptually or doctrinally to the members inthe preparatory stages of salvation. It belongs to a class of "mysteries," i.e., more advanced doctrines that pertain to the Father and His works.

Paul commented that we, as Israel, would not be [260] fully enlightened until the Gentiles were apprised of the truth, for he said: "Blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (Romans 11:25). Therefore, until that time we must concern ourselves more tangibly with the gospel of Christ and its saving principles: Jesus is our God and Father and is the only portal through which we can pass to stand in the presence of God the Father. And for a man to become a king, a priest, and a god in the heavenly society, he must first obtain a fullness of the glory of the Father.

Because all powers of truth, life, and salvation are centered in Christ, He, through His atonement, has become the Mediator between us and the Father: "If you keep my commandments you shall receive of His [the Father's] fullness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father" (D&C 93:20).

The gospel as taught by Jesus is to develop attributes of truth and light that comprise the glory and power of God. These attributes are centered in, and flow from, the Savior. It is His mission to develop the truth and light of the Father's glory in us. For this reason, we have received the eternal principles of His gospel to bring our lives in harmony with ultimate truth, light, and intelligence. As we align our lives with the eternal truth, we receive the "quickening life" that leads to celestial glory and the Father's presence. Those who receive Christ and obey His will in all things are given the attributes and the power of eternal life. It is for these reasons Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) and "the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25).

Thus, the focus of the gospel of Jesus is to develop the Holy Spirit and the "quickening power of Christ" (D&C 33:16) that we may be filled with His light, being sanctified through His blood (Moses 6:60), that we may be co-heirs of the glory, power, mind, and intelligence of our Father, Adam, through our Savior Jesus Christ.[261] If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us (T.P.J.S., pp 343, 345-46)

[263] APPENDIX A

BRIGHAM YOUNG'S OCTOBER 8, 1854, DISCOURSE

The following discourse (found in the church archives) is taken from a hand-written transcript recorded by Brigham Young's scribe, George D. Watt. It was acclaimed by those who heard it as "the greatest sermon that ever was delivered to the Latter-day Saints since they have become a people" (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Oct. 8, 1854). The Journal of the Southern Indian Mission hails it as "a discourse equaled by none."

Because it was delivered at general conference its message was intended to be general instruction for the church membership at large.…[287] APPENDIX B

MISCELLANEOUS ADAM-GOD CORRELATES

113

Michael's charge over the angels was assumed in the preexistence where He, as the Archangel, fulfilled another of his important callings--general or captain of the armies of righteousness. The scriptures bear out Michael's responsibility to defend the righteous from satanic oppression. In thiscapacity, Michael is involved in a personal conflict with Satan over the dominion of this earth and its people. This conflict repeatedly demonstrates the majesty and superiority of Adam's authority over that of Satan.

Adam Has Power Over Satan

Scripturally this conflict began in the preexistence where Michael asserted his authority as head of the human family to champion the cause of righteousness in quashing the preexistent rebellion and casting Lucifer out.

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought against Michael; and the dragon prevailed not against Michael.... Neither was their place found any more in heaven for the great dragon, who was cast out; that old serpent called devil, and also called satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth; and his angels were cast out with him (Rev. 12:7-9).

As the stage of conflict moved to this earth, Michael continued to assert his role as captain of the Lord of [288] Hosts. It was Michael who, while contending with the devil over the body of Moses, triumphed over Satan by dismissing him under his (Michael's) own power.

Michael as the defender of Israel has always rallied to the righteous cause of His people. It was in this capacity that He, as general of the Lord's army, appeared to Joshua and laid the strategy for the fall of Jericho.

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so (Joshua 5:13-15).

Note especially that this captain of the Lord's host is fulfilling Michael's role as defender of Israel. He was recognized by Joshua as a man, but upon learning his divine identity, Joshua fell down and worshiped him, calling him Lord. As evidence of His deity, the captain of the Lord commanded Joshua--as He previously commanded Moses--to "loose his shoes from off his feet." As was pointed out in a previous chapter, angels are not to be worshiped unless they are deity (see Rev. 22:8-9).

Daniel also identified Michael as the defender of Israel: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" (Dan. 12:1).

It is Michael who, in coming to the defense of His people, will ultimately overturn the kingdom of the devil which will prevail against the saints of God in the last days. Michael, in dethroning Satan, will establish righteousness and return the kingdom of God to the saints.

I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days [Adam] came, and judgement was given to the saints of the most High; and [289] the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom (Dan. 7:21-22).

In the end, final ruin and expulsion of the devil from this earth in the battle of the great God will be effected by that God--Michael--as an angel functionary.

114

. . . satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years. And then he shall be loosed for a little season, that he may gather together his armies. And Michael, the seventh angel, even the archangel, shall gather together his armies, even the hosts of heaven. And the devil shall gather together his armies; even the hosts of hell, and shall come to battle against Michael and his armies. And then cometh the battle of the great God; and the devil and his armies shall be cast away into their own place, that they shall not have power over the saints any more at all. For Michael shall fight their battles. . . .(D&C 88:110-115).

At this point, comment should be made on Jude 9 as it is often cited as an example of Michael's limited powers over Satan because he "durst" not bring a railing accusation against him. "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 9).

The difficulty with this passage lies in the interpretation of the word "durst" which is assumed to mean "dare" as though to say that Michael was intimidated by Lucifer's powers. The word "durst" is more accurately interpreted as "did not presume" as is brought out by the context of immediate passages in Jude. The verse of Jude 9 is sandwiched between two verses which decry the ungodliness of men who speak evil of dignities, and speak evil of those things which they know not. Michael in verse 9 issingled out as an example of righteousness for not having brought a railing accusation against Satan. The New English translation clearly defines the doctrine under consideration to be one of railing insults and not of power and authority.

[290] So too with these men today. Their dreams lead them to defile the body, to flout authority, and to insult celestial beings. In contrast, when the archangel Michaelwas in debate with the devil, disputing the possession of Moses' body, he did not presume to condemn him in insultingwords, but said, "May the Lord rebuke you! But these men pour abuse upon things they do not understand, by instinct like brute beasts" (Jude 8-10).

The issue here is not Michael's power over Satan which he decidedly had as he effectively rebuked Satan. In Zechariah 3:2, a parallel account, Jehovah rebukes Satan with the same words as used by Michael. This is clearly not a contest of authority. The issue in Jude 9 is the spirit of railing contention which is not of God. "Avoid contentions and vain disputes with men of corrupt minds" (T.P.J.S., p. 43). "And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness" (D&C 50:23). "Be patient in afflictions, revile not against those that revile" (D&C 31:9).

Adam (Michael) did not presume to bring a railing accusation against Satan as it is not in the character of God to imbibe such a spirit. Michael as a champion of righteousness is seen merely to rebuke Satan.

Formal church explanation of Jude 9 is found in the Millennial Star, vol. 17, p. 787, and reflects the above thoughts:

. . We read in Jude 9: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

Before leaving this part of our subject, we will add, that in reviewing it, it is evident that the mission of Satan on the earth is a necessary one, that he has been especially raised up to fill the place which he now occupies, that the great plan of redemption and exaltation of man could not have existed according to the order of creation without him, and that he is one of the dignitaries against whom men should not bring a railing accusation, lest they partake of his spirit.

Thus we find that Adam--the Michael who warred against Satan in the spirit world--is our mortal as well as [291] immortal Father. He had power aver Satan then and has power over him now.

115

Adam Holds Keys under the Direction of the Holy One

Some have interpreted the following citation to read that Adam's keys to the salvation of mankind come under the immediate direction and council of Jesus Christ--the Holy One. If this be true, then Adam would appear to be subordinate to the Savior, which is contrary to the Adam-God doctrine.

That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who 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).

A more objective analysis of this scripture discloses the Holy One not to be Jesus Christ but, rather, Adam's superior or Father who certainly may also be called a "Holy One." The Savior introduced himself in verse 20 of the 78th section as the personage speaking for and in behalf of the "Lord God" (verse 2). However, in verse 15 he is speaking in the second person by quoting the Lord (Elohim) who said that we "may come up unto the crown prepared . . . and be made rulers over many kingdoms." It is this Lord (Elohim) who hath appointed Michael our prince and established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman. It is this Lord (Elohim) who hath given Michael the keys to salvation under His (The Holy One's) direction. This interpretation was understood by the authorities who compiled the Doctrine and Covenants with its footnotes. The footnote "n" in verse 16 identifies the Holy One as the Holy One of Zion. (This appears only natural as the giver of the keys is superior and ultimately responsible forthose keys.)

The title "Holy One of Zion" is found nowhere else in revealed scripture; therefore, to associate this title with [292] the Savior without further information would be speculative. Verse 15 does, however, give us further information concerning the Holy One of Zion. He (the Holy One of Zion) appointed Michael our prince and established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman. Reference to this account is found in section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

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. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever (D&C 107:53-55).

Inasmuch as the Lord in verse 54 is here establishing the foundation of Adam-ondi-Ahman and is establishing Michael as a prince, He (the Lord identified in verse 55) must be the Holy One of Zion. True enough; but, is this not Jesus Christ just the same? One should recall the words of the Savior in appearing to the brother of Jared when he said: "And never [before] have I showed myself unto man . . ." (Ether 3:15). Who, then, was the Lord who appeared to, spoke with, and blessed Adam? By theSavior's own words, it was not He, for the brother of Jared was the first man unto whom Christ had personally revealed Himself. The Savior, therefore, is not the Holy One of Zion under whose direction Adam received the keys of salvation. The Holy One of Zion must have been Adam's priesthood superior--or Father.

Did Adam Sin? His Baptism

116

Some interpret the scriptures so as to have us believe that Adam, in bringing about the fall, committed a sin. This would mitigate against Adam's divinity as it is against God's nature to sin. These advocates confuse sin with transgression. A transgression is a violation of a [293] natural law, whereas asin is a transgression of a law of God and is an offense in His eyes. The scriptures bear out that Adam committed no offense in God's eyes but, rather, transgressed a law and suffered its attendant consequences (Moses 6:53).

The doctrine of baptism is explained by the Lord in Moses 6:53-55. In response to Adam's inquiry as to why man must repent and become baptized, the Lord answered: "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts . . ." (Moses 6:55). Adam was not conceived in sin and therefore needed no baptism for remission of sins. With his baptism, Adam did not receive remission of his sins but rather rectification for a transgression. The baptism for forgiveness of sins is applicable to Adam's posterity who are conceived in and wax in sin. Adam was not baptized for forgiveness as he was a perfect man (D&C 107:43). Perfect men have little need to repent of sin. Adam, like Christ, was baptized to submit to the law to fulfill all righteousness and like Christ be a perfect example to his posterity in the ordinances. As is brought out in the temple,Adam is our archtype.

Brigham viewed Adam's transgression thus: "How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord,and through that transgression sin came into the world" (J.D. 10:312). Joseph Fielding Smith also viewed the fall as a transgression rather than a sin:

I never speak of the part Eve took in the fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin . . . it is not always a sin to transgress a law.... Well, Adam's transgression was of a similar nature, that is, his transgression was in accordance with law.... This was a transgression of law, but not a sin in the strict sense, for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do! I am sure that neither Adam nor Eve looked upon it as a sin.... We can hardly look upon anything resulting in such benefits as being a sin, in the sense in which we consider sin (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-15).

[294] It has been the contention of some that the Adam-God concepts as discussed in this book and advanced by Brigham Young are in reality only theory and never actually advanced as doctrine.

Adam-God--Doctrine or Theory?

It is frequently argued that the Adam-God teachings of early church leaders were not doctrine. This argument at best is artificial and is seen as an attempt to diffuse the impact of those teachings by classifying them with the specious. It assumes a distinction between truth (doctrine) and fallacy whichin reality does not exist. It totally neglects the pale of truth outside stylized ritual. The real issue is not the acceptance of an idea as rigid orthodoxy, but whether or not it is true (see page 108). It really matters little how these teachings are defined or categorized. It is the teachings themselves and their intended impact on the lives of the saints that deserves attention, not their definition.

As we have seen, Adam-God ideologies were taught by prophets of God within their prophetic callings. They were defended and endorsed by the general authorities (with the exception of Orson Pratt) until after the turn of the century. They were considered pearls too precious to be cast before swine. They permeated virtually every facet of doctrinal input and were clearly intended to be part of the Latter-day Saint belief system. They were even taught as part of the temple ceremony. Whether or not these facts satisfy the requirements of a doctrine is of little further importance. In conclusion, it might be instructive to see whether or not Brigham considered his teachings as "doctrine."

Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1861).

117

How much belief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regards 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).[295] Some have grumbled because I believe God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true (J.D. 5:331).

He is Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days.... He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.... 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 (J.D. 1:50-51).

[297] APPENDIX C

THE SOPHISTRY OF MAN or THEY SPLIT THE ADAM

PETER: "What is it you preach?" LUCIFER: "We teach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture."

Temple Endowment Ceremony

As previously inferred, the Adam-God doctrine has met with opposition since its first declaration. Opposition has been and is manifest throughout the church from the lowest to the highestquorum. "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" (Brigham Young, J.D. 7:3).

How much unbelief exists 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 (Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873, p. 308).

Despite the encountered opposition, Brigham continued to teach the Adam-God doctrine with such outspoken explicitness that even the Gentiles understood the doctrine. Speculation on Brigham Young's concept of Adam-God is a pastime of disbelief and a necessary product of opposition. It is an intellectual vehicle through which one attempts to allay anxiety and conflict that arise through a personal disbelief. One has only to create [298] enough peripheral contingencies whereby he can miraculously make any doctrine conform to his personal ideas. Isaiah, in seeing the conditions of our day, called suchspeculators on doctrine rebellious children. He saw them requesting their prophets to speak unto them "smooth things" (Isaiah 30:10); or in other words: preach unto us those palatable, orthodox doctrines we are willing to accept.

The most recent attempt to harmonize Brigham Young's teachings with our more contemporary concepts has resulted in the invention of an intermediary Adam to whom all concepts of deity are ascribed. Thus, a distinction is made between a mortal Adam and a glorified, resurrected Adam. This may be called the two-Adam theory. In the mind of this author, it reflects the frustration modern theorists have in acquiescing to the teachings of Brigham Young. It is an attempt to reduce the anxiety caused by their own disbelief in the revelations of God.

118

The authors of the two-Adam theory would be the first to point out that it should be considered speculation rather than theory. It should be recognized that speculation, by definition, need have no foundation in truth; nor is it subject to analytical testing. Speculation, as a principle of investigativemethod, must be advanced as a hypothesis. This hypothesis must then be tested against known data. With this approach, let us compare "the speculation on Brigham Young's concept of Adam-God" to Brigham Young's own teachings.

Speculation on Brigham Young's concepts of Adam consists of the following 18 points as quoted by its author (the reader must remember these are speculation):

1. God the Eternal Father, the Great Elohim, the Father of our spirits in the preexistence, once (in ages long past) lived upon an earth like this in similar (mortal) circumstances. 2. He, the Father, worked out his exaltation with fear and trembling, obeyed the necessary command-[299]ments and ordinances, achieved a glorious resurrection and, with his companion, obtained his exaltation in the celestial realm. 3. During the process of his exaltation, God the Father received the new name Adam (one of many names which apply to him), and his wife received the name of Eve. In connection with their new names they received the blessing of eternal lives. 4. God the Eternal Father (Adam) and his wife (Eve) continued to dwell in their celestial home until they had begotten all of those children, as spirits, who would be given the opportunity to continue their progression by receiving mortal bodies on this earth. 5. As on all earths, the spirit children of God (Adam) and his wife (Eve) were assembled in a grand council and the Plan of Salvation was presented to them. The eldest worthy spirit child (Jehovah) was selected to be the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and his brother (Michael) was selectedto be the first to partake of mortality and thus initiate the mortal phase of the progression of God's (Adam's) children. 6. Approximately a third of the spirit children of the Father designated for this earth rebelled against the Plan of Salvation and hence against God (Adam). The eldest of the rebels (Lucifer) was designated Satan and the rebellious were cast out of heaven and were denied theprivilege of partaking of mortality and obtaining physical bodies. 7. By command of God the Father (Adam) and under the immediate supervision of Jehovah and Michael, this earth with all its contents was created physically, and was placed in its present location within the solar system.[300] 8. A garden was planted eastward in Eden, and into that garden Adam and Eve came to dwell for a season. They partook of the physical (but not mortal) fruit of the trees which were in the garden and thus charged their bodies with physical (but not mortal) elements. Hence, when in the process of procreation Eve's body prepared the tabernacle of a child within her womb, that tabernacle was formed of the physical elements and became the physical (but not mortal) body for Michael. 9. Michael's spirit and physical body thus united became a living soul, a child which the parents named (after the father) Adam (we shall henceforth use italicized names to denote Adam and Eve senior). In a similar manner Eve was begotten as a physical (but not mortal) creation of the union between Adam and Eve. She was similarly named after her mother. The physical body veiled from them their memories of their previous habitation and experiences. 10. Adam and Eve were raised from childhood in the Garden of Eden. At some indeterminable time after their birth, Jehovah came to them (Adam and Eve) and gave them a law that they should not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge which was in the midst of the garden. If they did partake of it, they would become mortal. They might choose for themselves whether or not to partake of the fruit, but is was distinctly forbidden them. 11. In accordance with the Plan of Salvation (which had been veiled from their memories) Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in direct violation of the commandment which had been given them. Satan was instrumental in initiating the transgression. As a

119

direct result of the transgression, Adam and [301] Eve became mortal and received the ability to procreate. 12. After a period of instruction on how to get along in a mortal world, Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve (God the Father and his wife) left the earth and returned to the former dwelling place, the earth and all its contents became mortal in consequence of Adam's transgression, and man became carnal, sensual and devilish. 13. The Plan of Salvation was taught Adam by an angel, and he was given the keys and authority required for the salvation of his posterity on the earth. Whenever priesthood authority is given to man on the earth, it is under the direction of Adam, who in turn is under the direction of Jehovah. 14. In the 927th year after the fall, Adam called all of the righteous together and gave them a blessing and prophesied whatsoever should befall his posterity to the latest generation. 15. Jehovah periodically revealed knowledge concerning the Plan of Salvation to the prophets whom he selected, and instructed that they be given authority to administer in the saving ordinances of the gospel, as he (Jehovah) saw fit. 16. In the meridian of time (in accordance with the Plan of Salvation) God the Father (Adam) returned briefly to the earth and took to wife the Virgin Mary (although she was engaged to Joseph). Through sexual intercourse with the Father, she became pregnant and produced within her womb the physical body for Jehovah who, in his semi-mortal state, was named Jesus Christ. 17. Jesus, fulfilling his mission in the Plan of Salvation, unconditionally redeemed all men from the fall [302] of Adam, and redeemed all men from their own sins upon conditions of (a) faith in Jesus Christ, (b) repentance, (c) authoritative baptism which is followed by the gift of the Holy Ghost. His sacrifice also made exaltation possible on condition of participation in the higher priesthood ordinances and observation of the covenants thus entered into in faithful endurance to the end of mortal probation. 18. Every individual who thus endures to the end will receive a glorious resurrection, with his companion, and they will receive the blessing of eternal life together with the new names of Adam and Eve, thus reinitiating the cycle of events in a new generation.

As is the case with most speculation, the foregoing points raise more questions than they answer. Each significant speculative point will now be briefly discussed and compared to the teachings of Brigham Young or other authoritative source.

1. According to the first speculation, God the Eternal Father (Elohim) is depicted as the father of our spirits. Indeed, in a patriarchal sense, He is the Father of our spirits. As explained in chapter 2, we have many fathers of our spirits. Each superior in the patriarchal chain is the father of ourspirits in the same sense that our natural grandfathers are the literal fathers of our flesh. In view of the eternities, the titles of deity would appear to carry no generation distinction as do the mortal terms of grandfather and great-grandfather. Brigham Young expanded on this concept when he said:

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

[303] That species, according to Brigham Young, is a race of fathers or gods, each ruling over His own posterity as their patriarchal and literal fathers from generation to generation. According to this concept of godhood, we have many fathers. Elohim's standing as the father of our spirits does not precludeMichael from being a more immediate father of our spirits, i.e., Michael as the procreative father and Elohim as the patriarchal father, for in either case they are both our fathers and our God.

120

2. The second point worthy of discussion is that Brigham's usage of the titles Elohim, Father, and Adam were often nonspecific and interchangeable. This usage implies that Brigham considered all of these titles to be personally applicable to Michael, the man Adam. Our mortal minds tend to limit thedescription of a god to one title. However, what is to prohibit a god from having more than one title? Is Adam not our father as well? Why then could he not also be referred to as Elohim? Why, too, might there not be more than one Elohim, for Joseph informs us that Elohim is not a personal noun but rather a word of a plural connotation. "Eloheim [sic] is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word helm, it renders it Gods" (T.P.J.S., p. 371)."The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods" (T.P.J.S., p. 372). The implication here is that the exact usage of titles of deity aspersonal nouns is poorly adhered to as they apply to one being. In a broader sense, they may apply to several persons. The following statement of Brigham Young demonstrates this concept. "We obey the Lord, Him who is called Jehovah, the Great I Am, I am a man of war, Eloheim, etc." (J.D. 12:99). Here Brigham identifies one God by various titles--yet the temple treats Elohim and Jehovah as two beings. In his 1854 discourse, Brigham refers to Michael as Yahovah Michael: "Yahovah Michael goes downas he is told." On another occasion Brigham Young identified the Jehovah (of the Old Testament--[304] the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) as the Father of our spirits.

Do you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. "Yes" says the whole house of Israel. Well, that is the very God that we--the Latter-day Saints--are serving. He is our Father, He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.... He is the Father of our spirits.... He is the framer and finisher of our bodies, and He set this machine in motion that has brought forth the whole human family (Utah Historical Quarterly, 29:68).That Brigham is here referring to Adam is understood, because Adam was the framer and finisher of our bodies. It was also Adam who set the machinery in motion, via the fall, to bring forth the human family.

On other occasions, Brigham distinguished between the Lord and Adam: "In my fullest belief, it was designed of the Lord that Adam should partake of the forbidden fruit" (J.D. 2:302). Yet on other occasions it would appear that Brigham referred to Adam as Elohim. Brigham's discourse of February 8, 1857, reproduced on page 215 of volume 4 of the Journal of Discourses, is a case in point. Brigham introduces this discourse by explaining the need for becoming acquainted with "our Father and God.... It is one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation to become acquainted with our Father and our God . . . this is as much to say that no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge" (p. 215). Brigham then begins to acquaint the saints with their "God, our heavenlyFather, or the great Elohim" (p. 216).

In the course of his remarks, Adam is described as the father or the great Elohim. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many.... The Father, after He had once been in the flesh, and lived as we lived, 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 [305] after His ascension, or 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 flesh, and again obtained their bodies. Then He was prepared to commence the work of creation, as the Scriptures teach.... 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 creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in the flesh himself, by partaking of the course 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 (J.D. 4:217-18).

121

The Father (the great Elohim) is here equated with the Father who created tabernacles for his children the same as he had been created (by procreation). This was accomplished by the Father partaking of the mortal elements of this earth—the material of which we are organized in the flesh. This is a vividdescription of Adam and his fall, who according to Brigham Young is also the spiritual and temporal procreator of Christ.

To the casual observer, Brigham's usage of these titles may seem indiscriminate. It is this indiscriminate usage which has given rise to differences of opinion as to Brigham's true meaning. This usage implies that Brigham had a broader concept of God than do we today. The scope of his concept includes the patriarchal nature of godhood and polytheism. While the usage of multiple titles for one being may lead to confusion of the issue, they do not refute the consistency of his specific references to Adam's being our God. Nor do they support the concept of two Adams. To Brigham, Adam was Jehovah as well as an Elohim.

3. The third speculative point claims that the father of Michael received the new name of Adam in connection with receiving the blessing of eternal lives. Unfortunately, we are without any documentation wherein the great Elohim (the father of Michael) received the new name of [306] Adam. We are, however, informed that Michael received this new name (T.P.J.S., p. 157). Brigham taught that the meaning of the title Adam is descriptive of its rightful bearer. "Every world had had an Adamand an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman Eve" (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854). "Adam signifying the first man. . ." (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball Journal, Oct. 28, 1845). Under the speculative theory, Elohim-Adam, by remaining a deity, charged only with non-mortal elements, would not qualify as the first man. Michael-Adam, on the other hand, fell to become the progenitor of the human race and, in so doing, became the first man, or "Adam," meaning man, and is therefore not a title applicable to Elohim.

The blessings of endless lives are given to us when we become sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, not with the receipt of the new name "Adam." The Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, states that if a man fulfill the new and everlasting covenant and is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promiseand his name written in the Lamb's Book of Life, he shall see a fullness and a continuation of his seeds forever and ever (verse 19). "Then shall they be Gods because they have no end" (verse 20). "But if ye receive me in the world, then ye shall know me" (verse 23). "This is eternal lives--to know the only wise and true God" (verse 24). Elohim had already received of his godhood and fathered spirits (endless lives) prior to receiving his new name which, according to speculation, should accompany the name Adam.

4. The fourth point of speculation assumes that Brigham really meant Elohim when he said that Adam was the father of our spirits. The continuity of Brigham's remarks effectively rules this possibility out (quotations found hereinafter).

5. The fifth speculation errs in assuming that Michael and Jesus Christ were of the same spiritual [307] generation. This assumption is without documentation. Brigham taught that Adam, rather than being chosen to be the first man, was merely fulfilling his privileged responsibility.

Then he (Adam) 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 (Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873).

6. The speculation that Lucifer was the eldest of the preexistent rebels or their spiritual brother is without documentation.

122

7. This speculation conflicts with Brigham Young who taught that the earth fell to its present solar location with the fall of Adam--not at the creation.

This earth when it fell went millions of miles from the presence of God and when it returns back, it will go millions of miles from its present position to where it came from (Wilford Woodruff Journal, July 13, 1865). When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven; and when man fell . . . the earth fell into space and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light (J.D. 17:143).

8. This speculative point asserts that Adam and Eve came to earth where they partook of the food which changed their bodies to an intermediate state such that they might conceive the bodies of Michael and his wife. Although novel, the concept of an intermediate state wherein a deity is rendered "physical but not mortal" is unrealistic. Were not Adam and Eve already physical? Is the celestial existence from where they came not physical? What is the nature of this "physical but not mortal"state? Where have we ever had indication that such a state or condition exists or ever did exist? Such a speculative proposal should be based on something more tangible [308] than a need to explain away a doctrine. Not only does Brigham not speak of such intermediate physical matter, he does not speak of Elohim coming to the earth to become an Adam. Brigham clearly identifies the being who came to this earth with a resurrected body as Michael:

Michael was a resurrected being and he left Eloheim and came to this earth and with an immortal body continued so till he partook of earthly food and begot children who were mortal (keep this to yourselves) then they died" (Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff Journal, Jan. 27, 1860). Adam and Eve had lived upon another earth, were immortal when they came here. Adam assisted in forming this earth and agreed to fall when he came here, and he fell that men might be.... [A]s soon as they began to eat of the fruit of the earth, they received into their system the seeds of mortality (Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff Journal, May 6, 1855).

There is no question but what Brigham here identifies Adam as the same being who helped create the earth (Michael) and who fell to become mortal (the first man).

When father Adam and mother Eve became mortal by eating of the fruits of this earth, they were then prepared to organize the mortal tabernacle and they were prepared to organize and form living spirits long before that. Now they are prepared to form mortal bodies for their spiritual children to dwell in. His former words and experiences Adam had forgotten a great deal of, but he once knew it all beforehand (M.A.B.Y., Aug. 25, 1867).

It is here obvious that Brigham is talking about Michael-Adam, inasmuch as it was Michael who lost his memory and became as a little child. Brigham ascribes to Michael-Adam the capacity to have formed or begotten spirit children in the preexistence and taught that in becoming mortal he (Adam) was merely preparing a way to form mortal tabernacles for his spirit children.

Well he [Adam] was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth.... Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth. He . . . had begotten all the spirits that were to [309] come to this earth.... [U]pon 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 the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life (Brigham Young, L. John Nuttal Journal, Feb. 7, 1877).

123

Again it will be noted that Brigham continually identifies Adam as an immortal being, who came to the earth where he partook of the elements of the earth with its consequences of mortality, with blood coursing through his veins. This being can be none other than Adam, the first man who was Michael, the co-creator of the earth. The above precludes any Adam-senior speculation.

Furthermore, God told Adam that he was "born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so become of dust a living soul . . . (Moses 6:59). Which meansthat Adam, having been born of blood (mortal), would have had to have been born on another earth in a mortal state. Blood is a product of mortality. Mortals give birth by blood. This is not the case with immortal beings. This scripture precludes the possibility of Adam's parents having been in any other than a mortal state when Adam received his physical body (born by blood). Further, had Adam been born by blood (i.e., mortal) on this earth, he would have been subject to death before the fall.

9. Here it is proposed that a senior Adam and Eve propagated a junior Adam and Eve. As seen in the discussion under item 8, the possibility of there being an Adam (senior) and an Adam (junior) is ruled out by the continuity of Brigham Young's teaching. He consistently identifies Michael as thespecific father of our spirits. He identifies Michael as having been created from the dust of another world where he worked out this exaltation and received a resurrected body. It was this same Michael who came to this earth to partake of its mortal elements, only to fall and become the first man, as means forpreparing tabernacles for his spirit children. [310] If Brigham's usage of the name Adam has inspired theconstruction of a double-Adam theory, then his usage of "the Ancient of Days" tears it down. According to Mormon theology, the Ancient of Days is exclusively associated with the man Adam. The usage of this title, or name, does not lend itself to the interpretation of another being beyond him whose days arenumbered after our time; i.e., standing at the head of time--Adam, the Head or Ancient of Days. It is this figure that Brigham recognized as our spiritual progenitor and the physical procreator of the Savior.

. . . the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our spirits, who is he? . . . At one time he says "I am that I am," at another time . . . "I am the Lord your God." At another time he is spoken of as a man of war, a general, and so on.. . . If we can get to him, the Ancient of Days whose hair is like wool, a man of age, a man of experience, and can learn of him to understand, I am that I am, we shall then hear him say, I am your father and leader, I will be your front and your rearward . . . I am in the whirlwind, at my pleasure I ride upon the storms, and I govern worlds. I set up one being and put another down, and organize empires and overthrow them at my pleasure, I the Lord do all these things. When we get to that great and wise and glorious being that the Children of Israel were afraid of, whose countenance shone so that they could not look upon him, to that man . . . [when we] get there into his society then we can say that to us there is but one living and true God and he is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our spirits.... I tell you this as my belief about that personage who is called the Ancient of Days, the prince, and so on . . . (M.A.B.Y., April 25, 1855; emphasis added). Who was it that spoke from the heavens and said "This is my beloved son hear ye him?" Was it God the Father? It was. . . . Who did beget him Jesus]? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days (M.A.B.Y., February 19, 1854). 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 (J.D. 1:50).

[311] Thus we see that Brigham's specific identification of the father of Jesus as Michael, Adam, and the Ancient of Days is to the exclusion of another being.

Furthermore, the scriptures show Adam to have been placed in the Garden of Eden as an adult. Upon being placed there, Adam was commanded to dress it. This command must have been received

124

by a sufficiently mature being, capable of dressing the garden. Another of Adam's first tasks was to give names to all the animals of the earth (Moses 3:19-20). Not a task for an infant or child.

The temple ceremony, being consistent with scripture, also teaches the doctrine of Adam coming to this earth as an adult. When Adam came to the earth, a veil was dropped over his memory and he "became as a little child." He could not have become as a little child if he were already a child. The creation account graphically portrays Adam as being placed in the Garden of Eden with an adult body. The temple account is only figurative and is not to be taken literally, you say? Brigham, in his teachings,seems to have found it more literal than figurative.

Under the speculative theory, one wonders what would have happened to Adam and Eve had they partaken of the "forbidden fruit" prior to being otherwise commanded. This author is also curious as to who cared for and dressed the garden while Adam (junior) and Eve (junior) were being reared from their infancy. It is curious that someone else should have to care for and dress the garden when it was created expressly for Adam and Eve, for it was their specific command to dress the garden.

The above are only minor problems, however. The major problem here is that Adam (junior) through having been begotten by Elohim in the flesh would be the "First born of the Father," whereas, we know this appellation to belong to Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Adam would have been begotten by two celestial parents, which in effect [312] would make Adam a celestial being--a God of greater stature than Jesus Christ, who is a God by virtue of only one celestial parent.

10. This point portrays Jehovah as being the teacher of Adam and Eve. Assuming the consistency of this speculation one wonders at the necessity of having Jehovah assume Adam's responsibility as a father to teach Adam-Michael the plan of salvation. One must assume that Adam and Eve reared Adam and Eve. One would think gospel instruction to be the very essence of Adam's parental responsibility. Was Adam then derelict in not teaching Adam the gospel plan? What need was there for Jehovah, an underling to Elohim, to carry out Elohim's responsibility? It has always been the pattern for the father to teach his children.

11. This point denies the procreative power of Adam and Eve prior to their fall. This speculation is contrary to church doctrine found in the Elders' Journal.

As Adam was an immortal being when placed here on earth and commanded to multiply, would not his offspring have been immortal but for the fall (MPF, Logan, Utah)? Yes. But they would have had spiritual bodies only, and not bodies of flesh, blood and bone. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the garden of Eden, they had resurrected bodies in which there was no blood. A spiritual fluid or substance circulated in their veins instead of blood. Consequently, they had not power to beget children with tabernacles of flesh, such as human beings possess. The fall caused a change in their bodies, which, while it rendered them mortal, at the same time gave them power to create mortal bodies of flesh, blood and bone for their offspring. This is a very brief explanation of a very important subject (Liahona, The Elders' Journal, vol. 6, p. 33).

Here, again, we see the exclusion of an intermediate Adam. The Adam here had a resurrected body and subsequently became mortal, with blood in his veins. He had procreative capacity prior to the fall. It is also [313] interesting to note at this point that nowhere else in Mormon history had anyone everconsidered a two-Adam theory. Whose need is now being served by its introduction?

13. This speculation contradicts Joseph Smith who states that Adam had received his keys in the creation prior to becoming mortal. "The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed" (T.P.J.S., p. 157). Furthermore, Adam is not under the directionof Jehovah. Adam is under the direction of the Holy One of Zion as taught in the Doctrine and Covenants 78:16 (see page 291).

125

16. This point claims Adam (senior) as the father of Christ. However, Brigham Young left no room for speculation when he said:

Who did beget him [Jesus]? 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 (Feb. 19, 1854, University of Utah Library; also Wilford Woodruff Journal).

Some of the above Brigham Young statements have been synopsized for the sake of brevity and therefore may have lost some of their clarity. Therefore, let us take a more comprehensive look at some of Brigham Young's sermons to the exclusion of the Adam senior theory.

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve--how they were formed and some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was [314] 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 celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael who is Adam our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. Consequently he came tothis 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 historianthat 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.... 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 the Only Begotten as it is written. In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world. And came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came. I [L. John Nuttall] felt myself much blessed in being permitted to associate with such men and hear such instructions as they savored of life to me (L. John Nuttall Journal, Feb. 7, 1877).

Brigham here distinguishes Adam-Michael from Elohim. He identifies this same Adam as the Father of Jesus Christ and who came to the earth with a resurrected body.

Each person will reign over his posterity. Adam, Michael, the Ancient of Days, will sit as the judge of quick and dead, for he is the father of all living, and Eve is the mother of all living, pertaining to the human family, and he is their king, their Lord, their God (M.A.B.Y., Nov. 30, 1862).

Could the Adam-God doctrine be more explicitly taught than in the foregoing?

Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. [315] 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

126

Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass"; and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass"; then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam. 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 hast sent" (J.D. 5:331-32).

Adam is here identified as Michael who is "Our God."

"Then the Lord did not make Adam out of the dust of the earth." Yes he did, but I have not got to that part of my discourse yet. Adam was made of the dust of the earth.

"Was he made of the dust of this earth?" No, but of the dust of the earth whereon he was born in the flesh, that is the way he was made--he was made of dust.

"Did the Lord put into him his spirit?" Yes, as the Lord put into you your spirit, he was begotten of a father, and brought forth as you and I were; and so are all intelligent beings brought forth from eternity to eternity. Man was not made the same as you make an adobe to put in a wall. Moses said Adam was made of the dust of the ground, but he did not say of what ground. 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 saviour, or elder brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed and got a glorious resurrection.... I tell you more--Adam is the father of our spirits. He 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 (M.A.B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854).

Brigham Young, here, is talking about only one Adam whom Moses said was made of the dust of the [316] ground and who Brigham identifies as the father of our spirits. Elohim, here, is distinguished from Adam as the Lord who put into Adam his spirit.

Summary

In summary, the doctrine taught by Brigham Young discredits the Adam senior-Adam junior hypothesis on the basis of the following contradictory doctrinal points:

1. Michael is identified as the father of Christ. 2. Michael is identified as the resurrected being who was born on another world. 3. Michael became Adam, the first man and the Ancient of Days, who is our God. 4. The Ancient of Days is the father of Christ. 5. From his discourses, it is apparent that Brigham Young only recognizes the existence of one Adam. 6. Brigham Young repeatedly taught the mortal/godhood/mortal cycle of gods to the exclusion of an intermediate Adam. 7. No contemporaries of Brigham Young, for or in opposition to the Adam-God doctrine, concocted or conceived of a double-Adam standard. 8. The two-Adam theory being of recent introduction is without historical basis.

127

Defenders of the split Adam theory may argue that many of the quotations in this appendix came from obscure sources such as the manuscript sermons of Brigham Young and the journals of L. John Nuttall and Wilford Woodruff.

Brigham Young's statements, as recorded by L. John Nuttall in his journal, were written under directive from Brigham Young as the recorder of the St. George Temple. It was Nuttall's faithfulness and accuracy as a reporter that qualified him as the personal secretary to presidents John Taylor and WilfordWoodruff. What [317] reason or excuse would a faithful and qualified recorder have to misinterpret or misrepresent God's prophet? The doctrine of Adam-God as taught in the St. George Temple was too important an issue to be misunderstood. We can only believe that Nuttall faithfully recorded what he heard Brigham Young say.

The Wilford Woodruff journals contain the most accurate accounts of early church history. It is from these journals that much of early church history has been reconstructed. Have we any reason to believe that Woodruff would be any less accurate in recording Brigham Young's statements on Adam-God than he was on any other issue? Have we any reason to believe that Woodruff, a prophet of God and personal confidante of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, would either misunderstand or misrepresent their teachings?

As for the manuscript sermons of Brigham Young, they were recorded and stored by the church for the purpose of documenting historical events.

The doctrinal consistency of these sources negates any possibility for misinterpretation. The doctrinal parallels in these sources all validate their authenticity and accuracy as primary sources. They all speak with a single voice as to what Brigham Young actually taught: that Michael (Adam) is our Godand the only God with whom we have to do. Brigham Young has made his own history; we have only to accept it or reject it. Let us not mongrelize or take from our history "many plain and precious truths" as has done the Christian world with the doctrines and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This treatment of the double-Adam theory is not expected to sound its death knell, for there must be opposition in all things--even doctrine. With a little work and revision, the double-Adam standard can be expected to be polished to a more appealing and deceptive luster, for if we desire to be lulled away, the Lord will allow us to create our own delusions (2 Thes. 2:11).

[319] Bibliography

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CITED WORKS

BOOKS

Andrus, Hyrum L. God, Man and the Universe. Bookcraft. Salt LakeCity, Utah. 1968.

Arrington, J. Leonard. Charles C. Rich, Mormon General andWestern Frontiersman. Brigham Young University Press. Provo,Utah.

Borsch, Frederick Houk. Son of Man in Myth and History.Westminster Press. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1967.

Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgen, ed. TheologicalDictionary of the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmas PublishingCompany. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1974.

128

Brooks, Juanita, ed. Journal of the Southern Indian Mission,Diary of Thomas D. Brown. Utah State University Press. Logan,Utah. 1972.

Cadman, William. Faith and Doctrines of the Church of JesusChrist. Roscoe ledger Print. Roscoe, Pennsylvania. 1902.

Clark, James R. Messages of the First Presidency of the Churchof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 6 volumes. Bookcraft Inc.Salt Lake City, Utah. 1965.

Clement. "Recognitions of Clement," The Ante-Nicene Fathers,volume 8.Wm. B. Eerdmas Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1978.

Contributor, The. 17 volumes. Deseret News Publishing Company.Salt Lake City, Utah.

Cowley, Matthias F. Wilford Woodruff, History of His Life andLabors. Bookcraft. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1964.

Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels. The Free Press. NewYork. 1967.

DeBuck, A. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 6 volumes. University ofChicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. 1935.

Divine Pymander of Hermes Trismegistus. The Shire of Wisdom.London, England. 1948.

[320]Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.F. G. Williams and Company. Kirtland, Ohio. 1835

Hippolytus. "The Refutation of All Heresies," The Ante-NiceneFathers, volume 5. Wm. B. Eerdmas Publishing Co. Grand Rapids,Michigan. 1978.

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Abingdon Press.Nashville, Tennessee. 1962.

Iraneas. Against Heresies, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, volume 1.Wm. B. Eerdmas Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1978.

Liahona The Elder's Journal. 42 volumes. Zion's Printing andPublishing Company. Independence, Missouri. 1907-1944.

Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study 1969-1970, Immortalityand Eternal Life. Deseret News Press. Salt Lake City, Utah.1969.

129

Musser, Joseph W. Michael Our Father and Our God TruthPublishing Co. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1963.

Newquist, Jerreld L., ed. Gospel Truth, Discourses and Writingsof President George Q Cannon. 2 volumes. Deseret Book Co. SaltLake City, Utah. 1974.

Nibley, Hugh. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri an EgyptianEndowment. Deseret News Press. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1975.

_____ Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless. Publishers Press.Salt Lake City, Utah. 1978.

Norris, Elwood G. Be Not Deceived Horizon Publishers andDistributors. Bountiful Utah. 1978.

Patai, Raphael. The Messiah Texts. Avon Books. New York, NewYork. 1979.

Pratt, Parley P. Key to the Science of Theology. Liverpool,England. 1855.

Richards, Franklin D. A Compendium of the Faith and Doctrines ofthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Liverpool,England. 1855.

Roberts, Brigham H., ed. History of the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints. 6 volumes. Deseret Book Company. Salt LakeCity, Utah.

Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library. Harper and Row,San Francisco, California. 1977.

Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints. Deseret News Co. Salt Lake City, Utah.1891.

Smith, Joseph F. Jr. Origin of the "Reorganized" Church. TheDeseret News Press. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1909.

[321]Snow, Eliza R. Poems, Religious, Historical, and Political.Latter-Day Saints Printing and Publishing Establishment. SaltLake City, Utah. 1877.

Taylor, John. The Meditation and Atonement. Deseret NewsCompany. Salt Lake City, Utah. 1882.

Tertullian. "On Prescription Against Heretics. " The Ante-Nicene

130

Fathers, volume 3. W. B. Eerdmas Publishing Co. Grand Rapids,Michigan. 1978.

Times and Seasons. 6 volumes. Published by the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-Day Saints. Nauvoo, Illinois. 1839-1846.

Turner, Rodney. "The Position of Adam in Latter-Day SaintScripture and Theology" (Master's Thesis, Brigham YoungUniversity. 1953).

Tullidge, Edward W. The Women of Mormondom. New York. 1877.

Whitney, Helen Mar. Plural Marriage as Taught by the ProphetJoseph Smith. Salt Lake City. 1882.

Widtsoe, John A. Discourses of Brigham Young. Deseret BookCompany, Salt Lake City, Utah.

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS OR MAGAZINES

Allen, James B. "The Significance of Joseph Smith's `FirstVision' in Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of MormonThought, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 29-45.

Alexander, Thomas G. "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine:From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology," Sunstone, vol. 5,no. 4, pp. 24-33.

Bergera, Gary James. "The Orson Pratt-Brigham YoungControversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868,"Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. XIII, no. 2, pp.7-49.

Cannon, Kenneth L. II. "Beyond the Manifesto: PolygamousCohabitation Among LDS General Authorities After 1890," UtahHistorical Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 24-36.

"Discourse by President Brigham Young Delivered in the Bowery,Great Salt Lake City, Utah, August 4, 1867," Utah HistoricalQuarterly, vol. 29, pp. 63-67.

Dyer, Alvin R. "Education: Moving Toward and Under the Law ofConsecration," A Photographic Essay on the Old Lower B. Y. UCampus, by Douglas Hill.

Esplin, Ronald K. "Brigham Young and Priesthood Denial to theBlacks; An Alternate View," B.Y.U Studies, vol. 19, pp. 394-402.

Hale, Van. "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse,"B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 18, pp. 209-223.

131

Jessee, Dean C. "The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's FirstVision," B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 9, pp. 275-300.

Jorgensen, Victor W. and B. Carmon Hardy. "The Taylor-CowleyAffair and the Watershed of Mormon History," Utah HistoricalQuarterly, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 4-36.

Lyon, Edgar T. "Doctrinal Development of the Church During theNauvoo Sojourn, 1839-1846," B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 15, pp.435-446.

Smith, Joseph F. "Origin of Man," Improvement Era, vol. 13, p.570.

[322]Smith, Joseph F., A. Lund and C. Penrose. "Pre-existent Status,"Improvement Era, vol. 15, p. 417.

"The Mormon Endowment Ceremony," The World Today, vol. 8, no. 2,February 1905, p. 166.

Whitney, Orson F. "Significance of the Fall," Improvement Era,vol. 19, pp. 402-403.

LETTERS, MINUTES, AND MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS

Brigham Young Manuscript Addresses. Church Historian's Office.Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bunker, Edward Jr. Letter to President Joseph F. Smith. Feb. 9,1902. Church Historian's Office. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Coltrin, Zebedee. Papers. Church Historian's Office. Salt LakeCity, Utah.

Johnson, Benjamin F. Letter to George S. Gibbs. B.Y.U. SpecialCollections. Provo, Utah.

Journal History of the Church. Church Historian's Office. SaltLake City, Utah.

Minutes of High Priests Quorum, Box Elder Stake. ChurchHistorian's Office. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Minutes of Bishops Court, Eleventh Ward School House. Jan. 20,1885. Church Historian's Office. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Minutes of Meetings held in the Historian's Office, April 4thand 5th, 1860. Brigham Young Papers. Church Historian's Office.

132

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Minutes of Parowan School of Prophets. Church Historian'sOffice. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Minutes of St. George High Council of the Trial of Edward BunkerJr. Dec. 13, 1890. Church Historian's Office. Salt Lake City,Utah.

Minutes of St. George High Council of the Trial of Edward BunkerSr., June 11, 1892. Church Historian's Office. Salt Lake City,Utah.

Minutes of the St. George High council. Church Historian's OfOffice. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Nuttall, L. John. Papers. B.Y.U. Special Collections. Provo,Utah.

Nye, E. H. Letter to F. D. Richards. Dec. 4, 1897. E. H. NyeMission Letter Book. B.Y.U. Collections. Provo, Utah.

Penrose, Charles. Conference Address. April 6, 1916. ChurchHistorian's Office. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Proceedings of the First Sunday School Convention. ChurchHistorian's Office. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Richards, F. D. Letter to E. H. Nye, Dec. 18, 1897. F. D.Richards Letter Book. Church Historian's Office. Salt Lake City,Utah.

Smith, Joseph F. Letter to Edward Bunker Jr. Feb. 27, 1902.Joseph F. Smith Letter Book. Church Historian's Office. SaltLake City, Utah.

_____. Letter to Hon. A. Saxey of Provo. Jan. 7, 1897. Joseph F.Smith Letter Book. Church Historian's Office. Salt Lake City,Utah.

St. George Historical Record. Church Historian's Office. SaltLake City, Utah.

Schmidt, Donald T. Letter to Mr. Dirlan. April 14, 1977.

[323]DIARIES AND PRIVATE JOURNALS

Bunker, Edward, Sn. Church Historian's Office. Salt Lake City,Utah.

133

Cannon, Abraham H. Diary. Church Historian's Office. Salt LakeCity, Utah.

Groesbeck, C. Jess. Elder's Journal. Woodland, California.

Huntington, Oliver B. Diary Brigham Young University SpecialCollections. Provo, Utah.

McAllister, J. D. T. Journal. Church Historian's Office. SaltLake City, Utah.

Nuttall, L. John. Journal. 1834-1901. Brigham Young UniversitySpecial Collections. Provo, Utah.

Richards, Franklin D. Journal. Church Historian's Office. SaltLake City, Utah.

Walker, Charles L. Journal. Church Historian's Office. Salt LakeCity, Utah.

Woodruff, Wilford. Journal. Church Historian's Office. Salt LakeCity, Utah.

Young, Brigham Jr. Journal. Church Historian's Office. Salt LakeCity, Utah.

NEWSPAPERS

Deseret News; Salt Lake City, Utah.Deseret Weekly News, Salt Lake City, Utah.Fresno Morning Republican; Fresno, California.Fresno Weekly Republican; Fresno, California.Nauvoo Expositor; Nauvoo, Illinois. 1844.Truth Teller; Bloomington, Illinois. 1864.Warsaw Message; Warsaw, Illinois. 1843-1844.

134

EXTRA CANONICAL TEXTS

Ascension of IsaiahBook of EnochDeuteronomy RabbahGospel of PhilipJubilees

Manual of DisciplePalestinian TargumTestament of Our Lord Jesus Christ

The Shepherd of Hermas VisionThe Testament of AbrahamWar Scroll

135