Across the library

The Adam-God doctrine

In April 1852 Brigham Young stood in the Tabernacle and taught that Adam is God the Father. He said it again for the next twenty years. In 1976 a church president denounced it by name as false doctrine. Both halves are on the record — every quote linked to its source.

This is the hardest problem in Latter-day Saint doctrinal history, and it is not hard because the evidence is thin. It is hard because the evidence is abundant and it points two ways. A prophet of the church taught something in general conference, in print, repeatedly, for two decades. A later prophet of the church denounced that same teaching by name. This page lays out what was actually said, in order, with links.

April 1852: the sermon

Brigham Young preached this in general conference on April 9, 1852. It was printed in the Journal of Discourses, the church's own sermon series, and sold to members:

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.

Brigham Young, Self-Government—Mysteries—Recreation and Amusements, Not in Themselves Sinful—Tithing—Adam, Our Father and Our God, Journal of Discourses, Volume 1

Read the sentence that follows it. He is not floating an idea:

Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, Discourse 8

Not a slip of the tongue

The usual defense of a difficult sermon is that the speaker misspoke or was misreported. That defense does not survive the record here, because he returned to it. In 1856:

Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, Discourse 46

In 1857 he acknowledged that his own people found it confusing, and told them the confusion did not matter:

Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is 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—of one family—and Jesus Christ is also of our species.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Discourse 42

And he was not alone. Heber C. Kimball, his counselor in the First Presidency, taught the same thing from the same stand in 1864:

We have been taught that our Father and God, from whom we sprang, called and appointed his servants to go and organize an earth, and, among the rest, he appointed and sent forth our Father Adam.

Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, Discourse 47

The apostle who would not teach it

The clearest evidence that this was a real doctrinal dispute — not a modern misreading — is that it was disputed at the time, publicly, by an apostle. Orson Pratt refused to accept the teaching. He argued against it in council and in print through the 1850s and 1860s, was rebuked for it by Brigham Young more than once, and did not give way. He was never removed from the Quorum of the Twelve over it, and he went on writing and preaching for the rest of his life.

What Pratt did teach about Adam is worth reading alongside it, because it shows how a person could hold the scriptural material without the conclusion. Adam is Michael and the Ancient of Days, an exalted man presiding over his posterity — and not God the Father:

Some of these angels have received their exaltation, and still are called angels. For instance Michael has received his exaltation.

Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Volume 15, Discourse 39

The disagreement between the church's president and one of its apostles, conducted in public over years, is the part of this story most accounts leave out.

What the reference book said

A century later, Bruce R. McConkie handled it in Mormon Doctrine under the heading Adam-God Theory — and the entry does something worth noticing. It treats the idea as an accusation made by enemies of the church rather than as something a church president preached:

Cultists and other enemies of the restored truth, for their own peculiar purposes, sometimes try to make it appear that Latter-day Saints worship Adam as their Father in Heaven.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, “Adam-God Theory”, p. 14

There is a sense, of course, in which Adam is a god. But so also, in the same sense, are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Moses and all the ancient prophets.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, “Adam-God Theory”, p. 14

October 1976: denounced

The plainest statement came from Spencer W. Kimball, in general conference, speaking as president of the church. He named the teaching, named where it came from, and rejected it:

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, Our Own Liahona, General Conference, October 1976

Note the phrasing. Alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations — the denunciation does not say the sermons were misreported, and it does not name Brigham Young. It rejects the doctrine while leaving the question of who taught it unresolved.

Where it stands

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach the Adam-God doctrine and has rejected it in general conference. That is the current position and it is not ambiguous. What remains unresolved — and what the church has never fully addressed — is the other half: a president of the church preached it as revealed truth, in conference, in print, for twenty years, and an apostle who disagreed was rebuked for disagreeing.

Both halves are in this library. The sermons are indexed in full, the reference book entry is indexed, and the 1976 denunciation is indexed. You can read all of it and decide what you think happened.