This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Did Not Teach This – Brigham Young did not teach the so-called ‘Adam-God Theory.’ CES Letter took a quote out of context to make it look like he said Adam was “the only God with whom we have to do.” If you read the entire sermon, Brigham Young was referring to God the Father as “the only God with whom we have to do,” not Adam.
In the creation, God the Father, Jehovah, “and Michael, these three forming a quorum,” organized the earth and planted the garden. The context was the question, “who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary,” and created Adam to be “the first of the human family?” Brigham Young answered that it was God the Father. Brigham Young declared Adam had been Michael. “He is Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days.”
“I’m told that prophets are just men who are only prophets when acting as such (whatever that means). I’m told that like all prophets, Brigham Young was a man of his time. For example, I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that Adam is our God and the only God with whom we have to deal with. Never mind that he taught it over the pulpit in not one but two General Conferences and never mind that he introduced this theology into the endowment ceremony in the Temples. Never mind that Brigham Young made it clear that he was speaking as a prophet…” (CES Letter)
Brigham Young in some of his sermons said “I reckon” certain things, which seems pretty clear that he was just stating some opinions of his. The news that Adam took part in the Creation sent shock waves through the Christian world. The ancient Jewish teachings of Michael and Adam’s creation role, or the Egyptian version of Adam–Atum, a god, had not yet been discovered. To the Christian world, Adam was still just a guy who sinned and caused the downfall of the human race. He was scorned for his “original sin.” But Brigham Young learned that Adam was much much more, and everybody was still unclear exactly what his role was.
I have not read every Mormon apologist out there, but I have yet to see anyone claim Brigham Young was speaking “as a man” in his sermons about Adam and God. This is a strawman caricature. Lots of people were confused about what he was talking about at the time, and it still sounds confusing, but Brigham Young made very clear which parts of his sermons were prophets and which parts were just “reckoning.”
An anonymous source recalling third-hand something he thinks he heard many years ago about a very confusing doctrine? Sorry, not very convincing. He probably just got confused by the radically new doctrine that Adam took part in the Creation along with God.
Brigham Young’s transcriber for the temple ceremony L. John Nuttall wrote in his private journal about something Brigham Young taught (via David John Buerger, via FairMormon). This was a private journal entry, nothing official, and it was based on a private meeting. Fred Collier points out that the ink for most of this entry is “much lighter and the same as that used for his diary entry” in later days, which indicates that Nuttall wrote it at least one day after the meeting. This gives time for him to mis-remember.
The meeting he was describing took place on February 7th, 1877. It wasn’t until March 21, months later according to Wilford Woodruff, that they settled on the text of the temple endowment ceremony:
“President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today.”
Overall, the tone of L. John Nuttall’s fourth-hand journal entry from this meeting admittedly makes it sound like Adam takes the role of God the Father:
“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…”
The context of the temple ceremony is how Adam relates to us or how we emulate Adam and Eve. So, like Adam, we were immortal beings who came to earth, and we lived in a pre-mortal spirit world similar to earth and received Priesthood keys and had been faithful to our first estate.
“…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…”
This did not happen previous to Adam being placed in the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, L. John Nuttall would have written “had gained his resurrection and exaltation,” like how he wrote “had lived on an earth.” So pre-existence and exaltation didn’t happen at the same time. The lack of past perfect tense grammar tells us resurrection and exaltation happened after the Garden of Eden. Specifically, after Jesus’ atonement.
“…and had begotten all the spirit 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.”
This is the part that sounds weird. It sounds like Adam, as Michael, had a role in pre-existence creation. Again, if you look at the grammar it makes better sense. At the point in time Adam “became” numbered with the Gods and received his exaltation, he had begotten the people who came to earth, namely as the Father of mankind in the Garden of Eden. But this introduces confusion about the spiritual creation and who did what. Then, Nuttall’s journal entry becomes even more confusing:
“Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) 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.”
As a son or descendant from Adam’s human family, Jesus indeed was the oldest “first begotten in the spirit world,” though of course it wasn’t Adam who begot him in the spirit world. It was God the Father.
Again, this was a private meeting about radically new doctrine about Adam, months before the temple ceremony was prepared and ready, written in a personal journal some time after the meeting took place. He just got some things mixed up. Fact is, Brigham Young never said Adam was God and never taught it as doctrine.
| Radical New Ideas About Adam – Brigham Young’s sermons introduced radical new ideas about Adam. In Mormon doctrine, “Adam” is treated as a priesthood position, a creation role that was ordained in the pre-existence. Pre-mortal Adam helped create the heavens and the earth under the direction of Jehovah, with a “celestial body” of spirit, and went down to the earth and was formed personally by God the Father into the first human being. Are we subject to people who become exalted in heaven? No. We do not pray to Adam even if he is exalted and we do not worship him. He may have been in the quorum of the Genesis creation, but he is not our God. Ancient religions like the Egyptians spoke of Adam (Atum) as a god who should be worshipped. But nobody had ever heard of such a thing in 1800’s America, before archaeology and scholarly research brought it to light, the significance of Adam in Jewish theology and ancient civilizations. Brigham Young broke the news that Adam took part in the Genesis creation, and not only that, he was physically created in the flesh by God which actually makes God the father of mankind. This completely changes our idea of who God is. Adam attained priesthood power and created a universe, he fell but was exalted, and so can we. As with ancient religions, Mormons started to see Adam as a figure to emulate not scorn, a priesthood position to strive towards. Things always seem to get off to a rocky start when some huge new doctrine like this is re-introduced. |
Adam is a complex subject. For the Egyptians, Atum was a self-created being who emerged from the darkness of chaos and created the first humans. Mormon theology is similar, in that Adam had a pre-mortal leadership role in creation, and that his role as “father” of mankind was ordained before the creation. Maybe Brigham Young reckoned that this meant Adam had a role in spiritual creation as well, or maybe the people who quoted him just got confused. All we know and really can understand is that God the Father is the creator of spirits. Nobody renounced what Brigham Young said, just the implication by apostates that this means Adam and God are the same person.
It is fascinating that if we read recently-discovered ancient literature about Adam we find the same doctrine as what Brigham Young taught. How did Brigham Young know that Adam had a role in creation and that he was a figure to be celebrated and emulated, not scorned?
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | Brigham Young did not teach that Adam was God the Father. The premise of this argument is false. Brigham Young was not “disavowed by future Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.” They denounced apostate splinter sects who misinterpreted what Brigham Young had said. |
| Strawman Fallacy | Brigham Young made it clear when he was speaking as a prophet, statesman, or if he was just “reckoning” his personal opinion. CES Letter claims: “I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that Adam is our God.” I’m not sure who told him that, but it isn’t true. Mormons don’t believe Brigham Young taught Adam is our God, as a man or prophet. |
| Complex Question | There is a lot to the question of who Adam was and what his role is. The fact that Adam as Michael had a role in creating the earth does not make him God. |
| Argument From Ignorance | It is not perfectly clear who Brigham Young was referring to as “he.” But if you look at the entire context of the sermon, it becomes clear that he did not mean Adam. We do not have a lot of material to clarify what Brigham Young “reckoned” about Adam, such as when he was resurrected and exalted, and we do not have the original Lecture at the Veil to determine what Brigham Young taught there. |
| Begging The Question | The whole point of “restoring” the church is that apostates in the Dark Ages misinterpreted what an ancient prophet had said and then went astray. It wasn’t perfectly clear to them. That’s the case here as well. If those ancient prophets were true prophets, then wouldn’t people misinterpret and go apostate when it comes to modern prophets as well? How does the fact that people were confused debunk Brigham Young as a prophet? |
| Repetition | CES Letter mentions the Adam-God theory several times. CES Letter repeats their sarcastic slogan: “the doctrine he teaches today will likely be tomorrow’s false doctrine.” |
| Appeal To Ridicule | CES Letter steps up their snarky mocking in this argument as they repeatedly point out alleged contradictions by saying: “Never mind that…” This is the kind of thing a middle schooler says to his scolding mother. “Never mind that you said something different just last week!” It’s a petulant thing to say and incongruent with finding a resolution to any question. Then, CES Letter says: “Why would I want my kids singing ‘Follow the Prophet’ with such a ridiculous 183-year track record? What credibility do the Brethren have? Why would I want them following the prophet when a prophet is just a man of his time teaching his ‘theories’ that will likely be disavowed by future Prophets, Seers, and Revelators?” |
| Red Herring | CES Letter then brings up arguments they already talked about, that have nothing to do with any of this. What does the hoax Adam-God theory have to do with racism and sexism? “If Brigham Young was really a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, would it not be unreasonable to expect that God would give him a hint that racism is not okay, sexism is not okay, blood atonement is not okay and God’s name is not “Adam”?” |
One part of CES Letter‘s outrage over the so-called Adam God theory really stuck out:
“Why would I want them following the prophet when a prophet is just a man of his time teaching his ‘theories’… If his moral blueprint is not much better than their Sunday School teachers?”
Moral blueprint? What does a moral blueprint have to do with this? Even if this argument were correct, what would Brigham Young talking about some personal opinions that turn out to be incorrect have to do with a moral blueprint?
Marxists believe in truth that “science” has “proven.” Well, what about things that science can’t look at under a telescope or prove with mathematic theorems, such as ethics and morality? How does a scientist prove whether abortion is moral or not? Well, Marxists believe morality is determined through dialectic and contradiction. They deconstruct moral untruths by pointing out contradictions and getting to the pure essence of an issue, which is their raw Marxist ideology of universal salvation. The “moral blueprint” that CES Letter refers to here is the relativistic truth at the heart of Mormon ideology that is allegedly contradictory. Apparently, the prophet is supposed to receive superior truth, in CES Letter‘s mind, that makes them superior to Sunday School teachers.
The big difference between Marxists and Mormons is that the only eternal truth for Marxists is the ideology (essentially Satan’s Plan of saving everyone from sin) while for Mormons all doctrinal principles are eternal and unchanging truth. For Marxists, everything except the ideology can shift however it needs to for the sake of propagating Marxism. One day, two plus two could equal five, if it needs to. For Mormons, the only thing that shifts is policy, including commandments. We don’t drink alcohol today even though people did in ancient times, because circumstances have changed. Still, two plus two always equals four. That is our moral blueprint.
So, CES Letter lets the cat out of the bag and reveals what their attacks are really about. This is why they think this Adam-God theory somehow relates to racism and sexism. They are repulsed by our doctrine of exaltation. “God’s name is not “Adam”,” or in other words, mortals cannot become like God. That’s what this is about. The whole reason we can be exalted with our “moral blueprint” is because we believe moral principles, natural law, or God’s law does not change. This is what CES Letter is attacking.
As Mormons, we understand that prophets restore a correct understanding of eternal moral principles, and give updates on commandments and policies from God to suit modern circumstances. Anti-Mormons reject this. Anti-Mormons equate our moral principles with current policy and throw in a bunch of histrionics about racism and sexism to build a case for why their social justice is superior to God’s truth and justice. Marxists show their moral syllogism as superior, where everything but fundamental ideology is relative, by picking apart every part of our doctrine. This is much easier for them to do when they pretend like temporary policy is doctrine, or when some bit of confusion was some profound doctrinal teaching.
So why do we have one “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” speak for God instead of give control to the “people” like Marxists do? Why do we have one unchanging blueprint of justice instead of allowing it to “evolve” as classes in society become more “conscious”, more civilized, and less racist and sexist? I hope every Mormon could easily answer this. It is because mankind is inherently flawed and we could never reach exaltation without divine help. Look where Marxism has led us, each and every time it has been tried out! Widespread death and misery. Still today, there are radical groups like Antifa, rioting and mayhem in the streets. If atheists are right and death is the end and there is no God, then the individual holds no fealty to a “social contract” and there is no reason for personal morality to exist. Why should the moral blueprint be anything but a scheme for robbing banks and plundering wealth? Why do anything except for the sake of momentary pleasure?
This is why CES Letter never comes out and attacks the doctrine of exaltation, and why they never say what a “moral blueprint” should be! They attack Mormons from an ivory tower and hope that their audience will be fooled into believing social justice just as they were. They know deep inside their ideology does not lead to anything like exaltation, and they know their beliefs are on shaky ground, so they need to cover up their ideology and slyly insert it into their anti-Mormon rhetoric.
Attack Patriarchy – CES Letter starts off with intellectual appeals regarding the Book of Mormon. Then they move on to emotional hysterics about polygamy and racism, and now they lay down the hammer with relative truth and social justice. The interesting thing is that now they so strongly attack the idea that man is able to receive revelation from God on behalf of a society. We saw CES Letter scare-monger women about oppressive Mormon males, but now they go on to ridicule the idea that men can be exalted for receive spiritual power. They find it hard to keep their simmering hatred for patriarchy concealed.
This is perhaps the saddest part of the road to apostasy, when a man rejects his rightful potential priesthood role.