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.
False
“President Brigham Young taught what is now known as ‘Adam-God theory.’ He taught that Adam is ‘our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.’”
(CES Letter)
Brigham Young did not teach this. Brigham Young’s quotes are taken out of context to falsely portray Adam as God. We get important context for what Brigham Young meant and what LDS doctrine is about Adam and Even from the LDS temple endowment. But temple teachings belong in the temple, so I will instead consider the full context for Brigham Young’s sermon. It is clear that he was referring to God the Father as “the only God with whom we have to do,” not Adam.
The purpose of the sermon was to explain who was the father of Jesus. Brigham Young said “the question” was “who was it that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary”? Was he an “illegitimate son” who descended from Adam? To answer this, we have to understand the creation. Look at the entire context of his answer. He introduces “God the Father,” “His Son Jesus Christ,” and the “Holy Ghost” as the godhood. But then he points out that in the creation after the Father created our spirits, a fourth person, Michael (later became Adam), helped create the world. “They came here, organized the raw material.” So the question becomes, when it comes to godliness what about Michael?
Brigham Young declared: “He”–referring to Adam–“is Michael the Archangel.” Then he says: “He”–referring back to God the Father–“is our Father and our God.” So, as the first of the human family and ancestor of the Virgin Mary, Jesus is descended from Adam, and Adam certainly took part in the creation. But Jesus was begotten by God the Father, in the same way the “first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father.” The answer is God the Father begat both Jesus and Adam.
Now, there are a lot of “he”s thrown around in this sermon, and when a sentence gets quoted out of context it gets confusing who “he” refers to. It sounds like “he is our Father and our God” could refer to Adam since Brigham Young had just been talking about Adam in the preceding phrase. But when you look at the entire context, you see Brigham Young introduced the godhead, introduced the roles of God the Father and Adam separately in the creation, and then immediately after concludes: “they came here, organized the raw material.” Brigham Young was stressing the difference between God and Adam.
Transcribers did not have any way to clarify who Brigham Young was referring to by “he,” even though it must have been clear by his tone of voice. ‘He is Michael, about whom holy men have spoken. He is our Father and the only God with whom we have to do.’ “Our God and Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle, or, in other words, He has a body, with parts the same as you and I have; and is capable of showing forth His works to organized beings, as, for instance, in the world in which we live, it is the result of the knowledge and infinite wisdom that dwell in His organized body. His son Jesus Christ has become a personage of tabernacle, and has a body like his father. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Lord, and issues forth from Himself, and may properly be called God’s minister to execute His will in immensity; being called to govern by His influence and power; but He is not a person of tabernacle as we are, and as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ are. The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct, then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal. 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 or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten 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, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing. It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”(Brigham Young)
Adam-God Narrative Makes Less Sense – If you try reading it the other way around where Brigham Young meant they were the same person, this sermon makes absolutely no sense. He was saying Adam created himself? How can a person be their own Father in Heaven and beget themself? Not only that, this would mean Brigham Young also thought Adam was also Jesus–since God created Jesus as He created Adam–and that would mean Jesus created himself. How does that make sense? How can one person be three people and make a quorum? How does that answer the question of discussion–how Jesus was conceived? The simple and reasonable answer was that God the Father conceived the body of Jesus the same way He conceived Adam. If you read like this, it makes sense. If you read it thinking Adam is God, Brigham Young’s sermon makes no sense.
Radical New Ideas About Adam – Even the Adam-God thing is false, it is true that Brigham Young’s sermons appalled audiences with his radical new ideas about Adam. Brigham Young’s 19th century audience was shocked by all of this, because the ancient Jewish teachings of Michael and Adam’s creation role, and the Egyptian version of Adam–Atum as a god, had not yet been discovered by archaeologists. 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 ancient teachings have been uncovered that prove many ancient cultures believed much the same thing 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. How far did Adam’s creation role go? What all did he do as Michael? Brigham Young “reckoned,” or made guesses, about all that the priesthood position “Adam” entailed, but those were just guesses, and he always considered God the Father as the originator of the universe, and a separate being.
So why did Brigham Young clarify that God the Father is the only god we have to do with? Does that mean there are multiple gods? Well, it is semantics. It depends on your definition of “god.” In D&C 132, exalted beings in heaven are defined as gods: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them.”(D&C 132)
Are we subject to people like Adam who become exalted in heaven? No. Adam is not God. 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 together with Elohim and Jehovah, but he is not our God. This is what Brigham Young was explaining.
Ancient religions like the Egyptians spoke of Adam (Atum) as a god of creation that people should worship. But nobody had ever heard of such a thing in 1800’s America, before archaeology and scholarly research brought to light the full significance of Adam, nor did they know 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. For the Egyptians and other ancient cultures, this made him a god that they worshipped. Mormons believe 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 for us 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. Another example is the doctrine of eternal progression that has led to false rumors that we think we’ll rule a planet in the afterlife. Anti-Mormons are always quick to twist our doctrine to sound confusing and ridiculous. Our doctrine of Adam is that he took part in the Creation as Michael, and he is the father of mankind. But God the Father is the father of Jesus and our spirits, making Him the only God with whom we have to do.
LDS Leaders Denounced Apostate Interpretations
CES Letter claims LDS leaders “renounced Adam-God theory as false doctrine.” But they didn’t “renounce” anything. They “denounced.” Huge difference, as the Adam-God theory was never doctrine and never part of any ordinance or teaching. President Spencer W. Kimball warned against false doctrine being passed around by apostate splinter sects that was “alleged” to have come from general conference but didn’t: “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.”(Spencer W. Kimball)
Bruce R. McConkie denounced splinter cult teachings of Adam-God. He did not denounce or renounce anything Brigham Young said: “The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it.”(Bruce R. McConkie)
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | Brigham Young did not teach that Adam was God the Father. The premise of this argument is false. Mormon leaders did not “renounce” the Adam-God theory as CES Letter claims: “Prophets and apostles after Young renounced Adam-God theory as false doctrine.” Not true. Mormon leaders denounced apostate splinter sects who misinterpreted what Brigham Young had said. |
| Strawman Fallacy | CES Letter takes a snippet of quote out of context to misportray Brigham Young’s teachings. 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. |
| 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? |
| Repetition | CES Letter mentions the Adam-God theory again on p. 37 and p.78. Within this argument, CES Letter repeats “Adam-God theory” 6 times. |
Changeable Truth – CES Letter sarcastically says:
“Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine and yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic.”
(CES Letter)
They repeat this slogan slightly re-worded several times. CES Letter questions whether Bruce R. McKonie and Spencer W. Kimball can be trusted “as today’s living prophet,” but it is important to remember this is not so much an attack on modern prophets as it is an attack on our methodology for truth. That’s what this is about. How do we gain our testimonies and how do we decide what is true?
Anti-Mormons do not believe truth is constant. The only thing constant to them is their ideology of compulsion and universal salvation. Everything else is a narrative that can shift at any moment as needed to propagate the ideology. In following their contradiction strategy, they seek to prove that truth is changeable by holding Mormons to an unrealistic rigid standard. Ever single prophetic statement in history must line up perfectly, or else truth must be changeable. If one day Joseph Smith told people about “the Lord” visiting him in the First Vision, and then the next day he talked about the Lord and God the Father, then that is different, and that means it’s a contradiction and truth changed.
The same applies here. If anyone can possibly misconstrue something to sound different than what other church leaders have said, then Anti-Mormons will use that to reaffirm their belief in relative truth.
Victimization Culture – This slogan “yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic” reinforces the victimization culture among Anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons, where everything bad in life is the fault of Mormons and the LDS church. If Mormons don’t agree with their shifting truth–this narrative that truth changes as needed–then that means Mormons are branding them “heretics,” holding some kind of Dark Age inquisition like the witch-burners of old. Suddenly, disagreement with anything an Anti-Mormon says is an act of aggression and intolerance.
This is where we get today’s popular cultural appeal to accept degeneracy and apostasy, relative truth, in the name of “tolerance” and “equality.” It is really just intolerance of Mormon beliefs.
This narrative introduces a false dichotomy between continuing revelation and eternal rigid truth. How is truth supposed to be eternal when we have all these new prophets saying different things than ancient prophets? Why do we need modern prophets if truth is eternal? Satan’s followers believe church policy is the same thing as doctrine, and that doctrine is therefore always changing. But the reality is policy is different than doctrine, and while doctrine is unchanging, policy is always changing to fit with modern circumstances. We don’t drink wine in modern times because drinking is a much more dangerous vice than it was in ancient times, for example.
Big Lie Tactic – CES Letter used three Big Lies in previous arguments regarding the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and polygamy–lies which compounded in more lies with further arguments down the road. With so many lies and resultant lies, it is easy for them to use the same kind of faulty logic here to slip in another lie.
They follow the same modus operandi, of taking a snippet of text wildly out of context and trying to show a contradiction with other church teachings. They use this to imply that the church is performing some kind of immoral behavior–branding people as heretics and shutting their speech down. People fall for this illusion because it is the easier path. It takes work to read an entire sermon and try to understand its 19th century language and complex message.
As a believing Mormon being attacked, it is easier to just give in and “admit” Brigham Young taught this false doctrine. Many Mormons already do! It is shocking how many scholars and faithful Mormon apologists allow the false narrative to continue. It isn’t a big deal if Brigham Young did teach it, after all, because everybody is human and sometimes we say things that are just wrong–even prophets. But the problem is this concession gives the Big Lie legitimacy and allows further lies to fester. Suddenly, all the other lies about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and polygamy become legitimate too because they were built on the same modus operandi. Suddenly, we can’t trust anything a prophet says.
You could take this easy path or taken the other path which is the lengthy task of answering every single nit-picked question that Anti-Mormons throw at you. Often, the answer cannot be known because it is lost history. We don’t know for sure who Brigham Young was referring to as “he.” There aren’t any recordings. Either make the easy assumption or be forced to back up every detail of your beliefs from attack. That is your choice.
The author of CES Letter apparently made the easy decision, and that is why they expect members of the church to answer every single little challenge instead of discovering the truth for themselves. They want easy beliefs. Of course, they do not say what it is they believe in, so we can’t return challenges in kind to their faith. They never say “instead of this we believe in this.” I think this is why Anti-Mormons typically don’t bring up the real reasons why they left the church when they ask their “questions.” No mention of gay marriage, feminism, or the other social issues they typically complain about. They want to snipe from a safe position where they don’t have to talk about their own beliefs.
What actually obliterates a person’s testimony of the gospel? Is it the groundbreaking discovery about Brigham Young’s sermons–which actually have been talked about for hundreds of years? No, I think there is a lot that leads up to a lost testimony. Of course it is difficult to open up and discuss these painful experiences, but I wish Anti-Mormons would talk about it instead of making up these justifications.
| See also: | CES Letter Contradiction Strategy |
Contradiction Strategy – The human mind is trained to find patterns and dissimilarities. It is easy–lazy really–to cherry-pick a short phrase from a random sermon, and dress up the narrative around it. This is the same argument that Leftists use against the bible. “The bible teaches people to own slaves!”
When it comes to history, there is so much we don’t know and will never know. All we have are some transcripts that someone quick-handed down from some sermons. We don’t even know if Brigham Young said this; it’s just what transcribers wrote, which was supposedly passed down to us today. If there is vague evidence for something but we mostly don’t know what really happened because it is ancient history, Anti-Mormons will jump to lazy conclusions, whatever narrative is hyped in the media and dressed up in emotional language. It is easy to manipulate Anti-Mormons when it comes to history because they rely only on what they can see and put no true faith in anything.
This propaganda technique is especially insidious as it defines Mormons in a constrained and unfair frame, and it rallies non-Mormons or anybody who was sitting on the fence in solidarity against Mormons and their beliefs.
Use Opponent As Authority Tactic – This is a popular tactic that Anti-Mormons use. They use Mormonism’s own authorities to discredit the faith, such as an alleged Mormon scholar. What makes this argument powerful is:
- Deceptively discredits the vast libraries of study on Book of Abraham by LDS professionals.
- Gives more focus to a phony frame that attacks the Mormon church.
- Divides the ranks of the church.
- Establishes a frame that demands a clear, modern explanation in the Book of Abraham for every religious issue in existence, and that it be exactly corroborated by every other Mormon source.
Brigham Young and Joseph Smith restored important doctrine that had been lost since ancient times but is still important for us today. We need to know who Adam was, that he wasn’t just some guy who screwed everything up for everybody. Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy. Adam sacrificed and increased in faith to gain repentance and re-admittance into heaven, and we can take the same holy path.
See Also: Did Adam Act As Prophet Or Man When He Taught The ‘Adam-God’ Theory?Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: