Brigham Young and Adam-God theory - Revision history

SpencerMarsh at 15:27, 3 March 2026

2026-03-03T15:27:55Z

SpencerMarsh at 15:25, 3 March 2026

2026-03-03T15:25:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 3 March 2026
Line 104:		Line 104:
	This is the best view to take in light of our understanding of Jesus Christ as Jehovah of the Old Testament (D&C 110:1-4).		This is the best view to take in light of our understanding of Jesus Christ as Jehovah of the Old Testament (D&C 110:1-4).

	{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/Ancient of Days/CriticalSources]]{{blankline}}		{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/Ancient of Days/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

	====Attempts at Reconciling Brigham Young's Adam-God Teachings with Mainstream Latter-day Saint Thought====		====Attempts at Reconciling Brigham Young's Adam-God Teachings with Mainstream Latter-day Saint Thought====

SpencerMarsh at 15:24, 3 March 2026

2026-03-03T15:24:21Z

Show changes

ReedComire at 06:17, 9 December 2025

2025-12-09T06:17:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 9 December 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}		{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}
	{{epigraph\|We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.<br><br>—{{Ensign1\|author=Spencer W. Kimball\|article=Our Own Liahona\|date=November 1976\|start=77}}{{link\|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/our-own-liahona?lang=eng}}
	}}
	~~{{parabreak}}~~

			=What is the Adam-God Theory?=
			==Brigham Young appeared to teach that Adam was God the Father==

			In roughly 20 of Brigham Young's many sermons, he appeared to teach that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet because of this. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe in the Adam-God Theory, and critics accuse the church of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of their prophets.

	=~~What is the~~ Adam-God Theory?=		==The Adam-God Theory is not church doctrine==
	==Brigham Young ~~taught that Adam,~~ the ~~first man~~, was ~~God~~ the ~~Father==~~		Brigham Young was the only president of the church to state such an idea, and it was never church doctrine. Subsequent prophets did not continue to preach this. Spencer W. Kimball made the rare public denouncement of this idea in General Conference in 1976.

	~~Brigham Young taught that Adam,~~ the ~~first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter~~ to the ~~story told in Genesis~~ and ~~commonly accepted~~ by ~~Christians, critics accuse Brigham~~ of ~~being a false prophet~~. ~~Also~~, ~~because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "~~Adam-God~~" teachings, critics accuse Mormons~~ of ~~either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable~~.		{{epigraph\|We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.<br><br>—{{Ensign1\|author=Spencer W. Kimball\|article=Our Own Liahona\|date=November 1976\|start=77}}{{link\|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/our-own-liahona?lang=eng}}
			}}
			{{parabreak}}

	==Brigham ~~never developed~~ the ~~teaching into something~~ that ~~could be reconciled with LDS scripture~~ and ~~presented~~ as ~~official doctrine==~~		==Possible Explanations==
			We do not know what Brigham Young actually believed concerning this. If Brigham actually believed Adam was God the Father, it had to have been an incorrect opinion, which prophets have sometimes, and not a revelation. There is also evidence that some sermons were transcribed incorrectly, and some theorize that Brigham Young used "Adam" as a title in referencing God the Father.

	Brigham Young appears to have believed and taught Adam-God, but he never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. Therefore, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God. Since the Church has rejected it, we won't be able to answer the question until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.

	=~~=The Church's official position is that Adam-God is not the doctrine of the Church==~~		<embedvideo service="youtube">u3DEojfACqY</embedvideo>

	Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: as popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was identical with Elohim/God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church. If there are any particles of truth to anything surrounding the Adam-God doctrine, one would expect those things to harmonize with what has already been revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed would be able to clear up many points surrounding that doctrine.

	~~<embedvideo service~~=~~"youtube">u3DEojfACqY</embedvideo>~~		==What is the history of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory and why was it rejected by the Church?==

	~~=What is the history of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory and why was it rejected by the Church?=~~		Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Over 500 of these [https://brighamyoungcenter.org/s/byp/page/sermons can be read online]. Many of these were published in the ''Journal of Discourses'', the ''Deseret Evening News'', and other Church publications. In 20 of these sermons he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam.<ref>Jonathan A. Stapley, "[https://www-jstor-org.erl.lib.byu.edu/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.47.1.0068?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad4093523b4b1bbc087fcb543cca2117c#metadata_info_tab_contents Brigham Young's Garden Cosmology]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 47, no. 1 (January 2021): 85.</ref> He also brought up the subject in private meetings. Nine accounts record him bringing up issues related to Adam-God to different individuals.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
	~~==Origins==~~
	Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Over 500 of these [https://brighamyoungcenter.org/s/byp/page/sermons can be read online]. Many of these were published in the ''Journal of Discourses'', the ''Deseret Evening News'', and other Church publications. In 20 of these sermons he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam.<ref>Jonathan A. Stapley, "[https://www-jstor-org.erl.lib.byu.edu/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.47.1.0068?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad4093523b4b1bbc087fcb543cca2117c#metadata_info_tab_contents Brigham Young's Garden Cosmology]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 47, no. 1 (January 2021): 85.</ref> He also brought up the subject in private meetings. Nine accounts record him bringing up issues related to Adam-God to different individuals.<ref>Ibid.</ref> ~~Many of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while some have engendered controversy.~~

	He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:		He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:
Line 32:		Line 31:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, ~~it is apparent that~~ Brigham Young ~~believed that~~:		Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, Brigham Young appeared to say:

	*Adam lived on another planet, died, and was resurrected. Adam united with Eve at some point.		*Adam lived on another planet, died, and was resurrected. Adam united with Eve at some point.

GregSmith at 23:00, 21 May 2024

2024-05-21T23:00:34Z

Show changes

GregSmith: GregSmith moved page Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory to Brigham Young and Adam-God theory

2024-05-21T22:55:39Z

GregSmith moved page Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory to Brigham Young and Adam-God theory

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:55, 21 May 2024
(No difference)

GregSmith at 22:55, 21 May 2024

2024-05-21T22:55:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 21 May 2024
Line 17:		Line 17:
	}}		}}
	{{parabreak}}		{{parabreak}}
	~~{{:Question: What is the Adam-God Theory?}}~~
	~~{{:Question: What is the history of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory and why was it rejected by the Church?}}~~
	~~{{:Source:Robinson:The Exclusion by Misrepresentation:the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church}}~~
	~~{{:Source:Brown:Brigham Young’s Teachings on Adam:2009 FAIR Conference:Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years}}~~
	~~{{:Question: If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D&C 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel 7?}}~~
	~~{{:Question: What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?}}~~
	~~{{:Question: Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?}}~~

	{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/CriticalSources}}		{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/CriticalSources}}

GregSmith at 02:39, 27 April 2024

2024-04-27T02:39:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:39, 27 April 2024
Line 25:		Line 25:
	{{:Question: Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?}}		{{:Question: Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?}}

	{{CriticalSources}}		{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/CriticalSources}}
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}
	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T21:01:44Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FairMormon~~}}		{{Main Page}}
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
	{{H2		{{H2

RogerNicholson at 22:13, 4 August 2017

2017-08-04T22:13:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 4 August 2017
Line 11:		Line 11:
	\|L5=Question: If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D&C 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel 7?		\|L5=Question: If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D&C 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel 7?
	\|L6=Question: What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?		\|L6=Question: What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?
			\|L7=Question: Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?
	}}		}}
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>
Line 22:		Line 23:
	{{:Question: If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D&C 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel 7?}}		{{:Question: If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D&C 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel 7?}}
	{{:Question: What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?}}		{{:Question: What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?}}
			{{:Question: Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?}}

	{{CriticalSources}}		{{CriticalSources}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 3 March 2026
Line 90:		Line 90:

	This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days," (''attiq yômîn'') as one non-Latter-day-Saint source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, ''only'' God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts. <ref>{{EerdmansBD1\|author=Daniel L. Smith-Christopher\|article=Ancient of Days\|start=62}}</ref> Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.		This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days," (''attiq yômîn'') as one non-Latter-day-Saint source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, ''only'' God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts. <ref>{{EerdmansBD1\|author=Daniel L. Smith-Christopher\|article=Ancient of Days\|start=62}}</ref> Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.


	=====Doctrine and Covenants 27:11 and Doctrine and Covenants 116 associate Adam with the ancient of days spoken of in Daniel, but this needs elaboration=====		=====Doctrine and Covenants 27:11 and Doctrine and Covenants 116 associate Adam with the ancient of days spoken of in Daniel, but this needs elaboration=====
Line 109:		Line 110:

	There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream Latter-day Saint thought. Following are some of the better-known approaches.		There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream Latter-day Saint thought. Following are some of the better-known approaches.


	=====Approach #1: Adam as the patriarch of the human family=====		=====Approach #1: Adam as the patriarch of the human family=====
Line 118:		Line 120:

	It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.		It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.


	=====Approach #2: Scribal error=====		=====Approach #2: Scribal error=====
	A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.		A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.


	=====Approach #3: "Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."=====		=====Approach #3: "Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."=====
Line 128:		Line 132:

	Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression.		Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression.


	=====Approach #4: Brigham was wrong=====		=====Approach #4: Brigham was wrong=====
Line 135:		Line 140:
	Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.<ref>Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6.</ref>		Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.<ref>Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6.</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>


	=====Approach #5: We don't know the reason=====		=====Approach #5: We don't know the reason=====
Line 145:		Line 151:
	====Brigham Young's Attempt at Incorporating Adam-God in the "Lecture at the Veil"====		====Brigham Young's Attempt at Incorporating Adam-God in the "Lecture at the Veil"====
	The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into Latter-day Saint doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from Latter-day Saint doctrine. If there is anything true in that doctrine, one would expect that truth to be in harmony with what is already revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed can clear up the matter.		The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into Latter-day Saint doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from Latter-day Saint doctrine. If there is anything true in that doctrine, one would expect that truth to be in harmony with what is already revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed can clear up the matter.


	=====The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood, and the endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century=====		=====The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood, and the endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century=====
Line 152:		Line 159:
	#The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood. What he taught appears to have been a failed attempt to establish a new doctrinal belief. He did not live to reconcile it with Latter-day Saint scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on [[Adam-God]].)		#The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood. What he taught appears to have been a failed attempt to establish a new doctrinal belief. He did not live to reconcile it with Latter-day Saint scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on [[Adam-God]].)
	#The endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century. Before and since that time, it was and has been modified occasionally by Church leaders to clarify and refine the presentation. (See the main article on [[temple endowment changes]].)		#The endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century. Before and since that time, it was and has been modified occasionally by Church leaders to clarify and refine the presentation. (See the main article on [[temple endowment changes]].)


	=====How the endowment came to be written, and how Adam-God become part of it=====		=====How the endowment came to be written, and how Adam-God become part of it=====