Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 18

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to claims made in "Chapter 18: The Church and Its Leadership"

Chapter 17: Joseph Smith

A FAIR Analysis of: Mormonism 101 A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Claim

• The authors spend the first five or six pages of this chapter quoting former leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These quoted statements exhort members of the Church to trust their leaders (accepted by Church members as apostles and prophets, just as those who wrote the Bible) and follow their teachings. The point, the authors conclude, is that trusting in these men, their teachings and their counsel, is a foolish and destructive path. Literally, 90 percent of these first pages are quotes from Church leaders. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley, is quoted by the authors:

Never let yourselves be found in the position of fighting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You cling to it and be faithful to it. You uphold and sustain it. You teach its doctrines and live by it. And I do not hesitate to say that your lives will be the richer and happier because of that. You cannot find happiness fighting the work of God.

Author's source(s)

• Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:32.
• Gordon B. Hinckley, address to Ricks College regional conference, 29 October 1995, quoted in Ensign (April 1996), 73.
• "Mormon President Warns Students of Pornography, Criticizing Church Leaders," Salt Lake Tribune, 27 January 1996, p. C1.
• Ensign (May 1996), 4.

Response

• On the one hand, the authors profess a belief, trust and faith in the writings of apostles and prophets. Yet, on the other hand, the authors take a position in direct opposition to the first, by suggesting that we should not put our lives in the prophets' hands; implying that the writers of the Bible would not want us to trust what they say.
• If a Baptist leader were to make this statement regarding the Baptist church, would a Baptist find cause for concern? Of course not. Should a Methodist leader teach that it is acceptable to fight against the Methodist church? Would it be appropriate for this Methodist leader to teach anything less than faithfulness to the church's teachings? No, of course not. The fact that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that its teachings are true and that its members should follow its teachings only demonstrates the faith of the leaders in the accuracy of its teachings. Shouldn't every member of a church believe in the teachings of that church?
• For a detailed response, see: Authoritarianism and Church leaders

Claim

• In the area of doctrine and interpreting scripture for doctrinal purposes, the authors attempt to paint a picture of restriction for members of the Church. They frame this painting with the idea that members are not allowed to "[trust] in their own rationale." The authors portray Church leaders as those who do not permit freethinking in scripture interpretation and do not allow the members to declare doctrine for themselves.

Author's source(s)

• Ensign, (November 1994), 63,65.

Response

• The authors cite Aldin Porter in documenting this view, as saying:

While we are members of the Church, we are not authorized to publicly declare our speculations as doctrine nor to extend doctrinal positions to other conclusions based upon the reasoning of men and women, even by the brightest and most well-read among us. ...When you see any document, any address, any letter, any instruction that is issued by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, it should be recognized for what it surely is-the mind and the will of the Lord to his people in this day.

• Once again, the authors would have their readers believe that the members of the Church are to be blind sheep, just doing what they are told and nothing else. And, true to form, these critical authors follow the same pattern as do others. While quoting leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, critical authors like to omit sections that would, if read, shed additional light. Let's see what we find when we look at the entire quote as opposed to the edited version the authors provided for us above. Looking at the entire statement, we find Aldin Porter making the following statement. The bold sections are what the authors excised from their version of the quote:

While we are members of the Church, we are not authorized to publicly declare our speculations as doctrine nor to extend doctrinal positions to other conclusions based upon the reasoning of men and women, even by the brightest and most well-read among us. On one occasion during the Savior's mortal ministry, he was challenged by those who were opposing him. They wondered how a person could speak with such certainty without the education of the world. When you see any document, any address, any letter, any instruction that is issued by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, it should be recognized for what it surely is-the mind and the will of the Lord to his people in this day. "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16-17) We must learn the will of our Father in Heaven by earnest study. Next, we must act upon it. Study alone is not sufficient; we must act upon the words of revelation before we know of a surety of the truthfulness of the doctrines…If we will follow, with diligence, the counsel and instruction that is the united voice of these Brethren, we will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether they speak of themselves.

• There is no suggestion of any blind-sheep mentality in this statement. We find a scriptural example of how we are to know the doctrine of Jesus, even the doctrine of God. This is the counsel of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, you won't find this in the authors' book. Rather, they would have their readers believe that the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a cultish "put on your blinders, follow, and don't ask any questions," approach. That is not the case. The authors apparently determined the need to omit this portion of the statement, because it doesn't square with their agenda. It actually demonstrates how wrong they are. So, their solution is to take that portion out altogether, they take the corners off this square peg, so they can fit it into their round hole.

Claim

• Continuing on this subject, the authors refer to a quote from Church leader, Ezra Taft Benson, as follows:

Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church.

Author's source(s)

• Ezra Taft Benson, "The Gospel Teacher and His Message," 51-52, quoted in Teachings of the Living Prophets, 25.

Response

• The authors question the "role of such authority," and wonder how people can "trust these men." One ought to ask the question…is it so difficult to believe that a religious leader would counsel the adherents of the religion to follow the teachings of the religion? Would Billy Graham be found preaching his interpretation of the word of God, yet following up his sermons with a statement, "but you folks interpret this stuff however you want…don't mind me…this is just a guess…faith, works, baptism…your guess is as good as mine?" Of course not! Would Jerry Falwell teach his doctrine and his interpretation of scripture, but say to his teachers, "Go teach what you want…you can change anything you see fit because the doctrine I declare isn't any better than what you could come up with…feel free to declare whatever you think." Ridiculous, isn't it? Yet, the authors put forth such an argument.

Claim

• The authors follow the Ezra Taft Benson quote with the following remark:

"Do most Mormons accept this role of such authority, even to trust these men to lead them to eternal life? Apparently so. What if they are wrong?"

Response

• The authors ask a fair question here. Put yourself in Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, witnessing the preaching of Peter unto people of Jerusalem as recorded in the second chapter of Acts. The people are "pricked in their heart," (Acts 2꞉37) and ask Peter and the other apostles, "what shall we do?" (Acts 2꞉37) Peter answers with three simple, yet direct commands, "Repent," "be baptized," and "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2꞉38) Did the people trust Peter and the apostles? Should they have trusted them? What if Peter was wrong? These are the questions the authors would have us ask.
• Let's ask the same question that the authors ask, in a more current setting, yet referring to these words of Peter: Do most Christians, today, "accept this role of such authority" (of Peter and the apostles), "even to trust these men" (Peter and the apostles) "to lead them to eternal life?" Apparently so ( if one believes in the Bible). "What if they are wrong?"
• Brigham Young, himself, delivered wisdom on this subject. Now, you will find this statement to be contrary to what the authors want their readers to believe but, nonetheless, it demonstrates how the Latter-day Saints are asked to follow. (This quote was cited again in 1950, in the General Conference of the Church, almost one-hundred years after Young's original statement):

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him...Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

• This is certainly a different tune than the one that the authors would have their readers believe that LDS leaders sing, isn't it? The authors would rather have their readers believe that LDS leaders want the members to just close their eyes and follow, without questions.
• The real concern is that many people reading this book by the authors are accepting the authors' self-appointed role as such authority, even to trust the authors to lead them to eternal life. Many people will read this book and put their trust in the authors…the very trust the authors advise us not to instill in anyone. What if they are wrong? I tell you that they are indeed wrong. They are very wrong. That is the travesty.

Claim

• The true colors of the authors shine through as they conclude this section of the chapter. After asking the questions above, the authors make this statement:

Some seem to think that they (LDS Leaders) will be forgiven and the issue will be forgotten. Speaking at an LDS Sunstone Symposium on 8 August 1997, Clay Chandler said, 'Our leaders can be forgiven for occasionally deceiving us if they don't violate our trust." Some Christians may not completely understand such rationale, but it must be remembered that for Mormons, rejecting the prophet and other church leaders is akin to rejecting God Himself.

Author's source(s)

• Clay Chandler, speaking at the "LDS Sunstone Symposium" on 8 August 1997.

Response

• First of all, let us state unequivocally that this is pure dishonesty. This is an intentional attempt to deceive people who don't know any better. As anyone who has studied The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would know (and the authors tout themselves as "experts"), the Sunstone Symposium is NOT a Church-sponsored symposium…it is far from it. The Sunstone Symposium is held every year by the Sunstone Foundation and provides a forum where a variety of topics among Sunstone subscribers (these include dissident LDS members, excommunicated LDS members, current LDS members, atheists, humanists, etc.) are discussed.
• Let us look to the Deseret News, a local Salt Lake City newspaper owned by the LDS Church, an interview with Sunstone's chairman of the board of directors, J.F. "Toby" Pingree:

Although the symposium and journal have made headlines in the past for its open discussion of topics such as feminism and dissident members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Pingree said he doesn't think Sunstone is "on the church's radar screen" right now. "But I think there's even more of a need for (the symposium and journal)," he said, "because BYU is even more restrictive now." According to Pingree, "the faculty at BYU have been led to understand that they shouldn't be participating in Sunstone."

• Is it reasonable to conclude that a symposium that Brigham Young University (BYU), a Church-owned university, faculty isn't even participating in should be considered a valid source to represent the LDS membership as a whole? Most certainly not. The symposium representative, quoted above, seemed to be entirely grateful that the Church is not targeting it, at this time.
• Suffice it to say that the Sunstone Symposium is made up of many people, among others, who oppose the Church's positions on a variety of topics. To use a Sunstone source as representative of the LDS membership is nothing less that deceptive and dishonest scholarship. And Chandler, the source of the Sunstone statement used by the authors, is not even an active member of the Church. He describes himself as a "disengaged" Mormon and is married to a Lutheran pastor (most certainly not representative of the LDS membership). Without researching the source used by the authors, which most of their readers will not do, one would accept this as a common LDS view, which it is not. Once again, this is the type of scholarship that is to be expected from anti-Mormon authors. Using a dissident Mormon, now turned humanist, as a representative of LDS views is illusory. The view expressed by Chandler in the quote from the authors is not representative of a Latter-day Saint.

Claim

• The authors continue to quote leaders of the Church stating the importance of members to follow the Church's teachings and counsel, while supporting the leaders of the Church. Attempting to contrast this view with the New Testament, the authors then make the following statement:

At the conclusion of the October 1994 general conference, President Howard W. Hunter proclaimed: 'Let us study their words [the prophets and other general authorities], spoken under the Spirit of inspiration, and refer to them often. The Lord has revealed his will to the Saints in this conference.' While the Mormon leaders may say that they and their organization are above reproach, such a position of ultimate authoritarianism is not a New Testament trait.

Author's source(s)

• Hunter, Ensign (November 1994), 87.

Response

• The authors take a ridiculous position that we would never find with biblical church leaders. Would we find Moses addressing the children of Egypt in a manner counter to the above statement by Hunter? Perhaps Moses would have advised the Israelites, "the Lord has not revealed his will through my words…The God of Israel is not guiding us…do not refer to my teachings and admonitions to you." Perhaps when Moses came down from the mount with the tablets, he urged the Israelites not to heed the commandments written upon them.
• Perhaps Peter would rather those from Jerusalem, in the second chapter of Acts, have questioned his words and his command to repent and be baptized. Perhaps, in some statement that we no longer have, Paul advised the Romans, Corinthians and others not to trust his words. "Do not study my words," he must have suggested, "and do not refer to them often. In fact, throw them away."
• Yet this is what the authors would have the leaders of the LDS Church advise its members, for it is the only alternative to advising the members to study, take heed, and follow their teachings.

Claim

• Let's look at the authors' examples of how New Testament writers "opposed" such a position taught by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ. There are three examples posted. Here is the first:

If the leaders of the early church had claimed ultimate authority, then we could rightly conclude that Paul would never have become an apostle. After his conversion, Acts 9:26 says Paul tried to join the disciples but he was rebuffed due to a lack of trust. The apostles were reluctant to believe that Paul had actually converted. Although it is unclear as to the role Barnabas played in leading the early church, he did stand up for Paul and defended him before the apostles."

Response

• As a point of clarification, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not claim "ultimate authority." That would be God who holds that type of authority. However, if, by "ultimate authority," the authors mean authority from God to declare doctrine and interpret scripture for the purposes of teaching the people, then I have no problem. I felt the need to clarify that term.
• Now, anyone familiar with this story, of Paul's first arrival to Jerusalem, knows that the authors' portrayal is a misrepresentation of the facts. It requires a further misrepresentation of the Bible in order to make a point.
• Paul did come to Jerusalem "to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him," (Acts 9꞉26) and rightfully so. Paul had persecuted them a few years earlier. However, notice that this verse does not say the apostles were afraid. For the apostles were not even present at that instance. It was directly after his frightening the disciples, when "Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles," (Acts 9꞉27)) and told the apostles of Paul's experiences in the Lord.
• Nowhere do we find the apostles "reluctant to believe" Paul had converted. And nowhere do we find Barnabus "defending" Paul. The authors are trying to mix the "disciples" with the "apostles" which is distorting the picture. Simply put, the disciples were afraid, Barnabus took Paul to the apostles and told them what he knew about Paul's conversion, and Paul was accepted as a disciple. Even if the apostles were cautious regarding Paul, due to his previous persecution of the saints, what would that prove? That they were prudent men?
• The authors would have us believe this little incident proves that the apostles of the New Testament didn't claim ultimate authority in declaring doctrine and teach the people truth from God. First, this instance with Paul's introduction to the disciples and apostles has nothing whatever to do with their authority to teach doctrine. Second, this is such a backwards argument. The authors are impeaching the writers of their own Bible. Of course the writers of the New Testament claimed to have the authority to declare and teach true doctrine to the people…of course the people could trust them.
• The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews clearly advised that "we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip." (Hebrews 2꞉1) That sounds strikingly similar to the quotes above from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The people are urged to abide by the things they have been taught by the leaders of the Church.
• Paul praised the members of the Church in Rome for their obedience and loyalty to the doctrine he had taught them:

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (Romans 6꞉17)

• There was no request made by this leader (Paul) of the Roman saints to critique his doctrine, as McKeever and Johnson would have them do…only to abide by it and they were commended for doing so.
• Additionally, Paul gave strict instructions to Timothy (a local leader of the Church…a bishop) to exhort the members of the church to conform to and comply with the doctrine they had been taught by the leaders of the Church:

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine. (1 Timothy 1꞉3)

• As Peter was teaching the people, admonishing them to "add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity," (2 Peter 1꞉5-6) he concluded with a strong command to, "give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:" (2 Peter 1꞉10)
• Is it possible that, rather than actually trust and follow these instructions, Peter wanted the people to doubt, question and not heed his remarks? Perhaps Peter wanted the people to first go test his directions versus the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament, that would have been available to the people) and then try to figure out if his statement could be trusted. Obviously, counter to the conclusion of McKeever and Johnson, Peter's words are plain and sufficiently direct.
• Paul not only commanded the saints in what they should do, but went so far as to command them not to have company with those who disobey the apostle's commands (McKeever and Johnson must be appalled at such direction):

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly…for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us…And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (2 Thessalonians 3꞉6-14)

• Paul makes a similar demand to the Roman saints regarding those who follow different doctrines:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16꞉17)

• It appears clear, consistent with Peter's declaration (cited earlier), that Paul did not want the members of the Church to privately interpret doctrine. Paul's instructions are certain: follow the doctrine that the leaders of the Church (apostles) taught them, which is perfectly consistent with the statements by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Claim

• The authors attempt to demonstrate that the New Testament apostles were in opposition to such a view:

Paul took a position opposite to that held by the leaders of Mormonism. He invited his followers in Galatians 1:8-9 to closely scrutinize his teachings: 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel ... let him be accursed.' He made it clear that even he was not above criticism.

Response

• The authors miss the point and their statement begs the question: What gospel is Paul talking about? The one HE taught them. I am completely baffled how these two men, who run a "Christian Ministry," can entirely miss the plain meaning of this passage and contradict the rest of Evangelical Christianity (of which they claim to be a part). Let's take a look.
• Paul opens his letter to the saints at Galatia, with a rebuke (I can just see him shaking his head):

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1꞉6-7)

• "I can't believe you Galatians are already distorting the doctrines of Christ that I taught you," he seems to be saying. Paul is not praising these members of the Church for scrutinizing his teachings; he is not inviting them to criticize the gospel he delivered to them. Paul is rebuking them because they were indeed scrutinizing the gospel and perverting it. This is made clear when one reads the next verses in their entirety, as opposed to omitting parts (once again the authors omit the portions that don't agree with their position).
• Paul thus continues his reprimand in the same chapter:

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. (Galatians 1꞉8-9)

• Is there any way for Paul to make his directive more certain? Paul is effectively warning the members of the Church by saying that the doctrines "we" taught you are not up for debate or discussion. The gospel "we" taught you is not to be scrutinized. That which "we" taught you is indeed above reproach. The Galatians are not to listen to anything else.
• Paul concludes his censure to the saints with this truth:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1꞉11-12

• What Paul and the apostles taught to the saints at Galatia was the Lord's doctrines. He testified that what they learned from their leaders (the apostles) was revealed by the Lord. Compare Paul's words to the statement made by Howard W. Hunter at the conclusion of the 1994 General Conference (this is the quote that the authors had such a problem with):

Let us study their words [the prophets and other general authorities], spoken under the Spirit of inspiration, and refer to them often. The Lord has revealed his will to the Saints in this conference.

• This is exactly what Paul is saying. The LDS leaders (apostles and prophets) are admonishing the members of the Church (saints) in precisely the same way that the New Testament leaders (apostles and prophets) were admonishing the members of the Church (saints). Unfortunately, McKeever and Johnson want people not to trust their leaders. They want us to scrutinize and criticize the apostles of the New Testament. This is not how the Lord's Church worked two thousand years ago, nor is it how the Lord's Church works today.
• One is left to wonder which of Paul's writings the authors feel need to be scrutinized and criticized? What parts of Paul's writings do the authors disagree with? Certainly, if Paul is not above reproach, the authors must have some criticism of Paul.

Claim

• The authors' last attempt to demonstrate that the New Testament apostles did not have any special authority to declare doctrine and teach the gospel is in the following statement:

When he [Paul] saw an inconsistency in Peter's behavior among the Gentiles, Paul saw no problem in confronting Peter "to the face" about the matter (Gal. 2:11).

Response

• Are the authors wanting us to believe that a small inconsistency in the behavior of an apostle must disqualify the apostles from having the special authority to teach and declare correct doctrine and principles of the gospel? Apparently. It is necessary to remind the authors and the readers that no one should expect the apostles and prophets to be perfect men. They are human and only Jesus was perfect. But this does not prohibit the leaders of the church (apostles and prophets) from having the authority to lead the people, to teach the people, to declare correct doctrine to the people and to instruct the people to follow their teachings.
• The New Testament is replete with these directives from the apostles (as documented by the passages I shared above). Take for example, Paul's strict warning to the members of the Church in Corinth:

I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. (1 Corinthians 4꞉14-16)

• Take heed of the doctrines that he teaches, Paul exclaims. The members of the Corinthian Church were not to stray from the path Paul had made for them.
• Indeed, if we should question, scrutinize and criticize the leaders of the church, as McKeever and Johnson would have us do, one would correctly question the purpose of the apostles, prophets and the leaders of the Church. What benefit are they? Fortunately, we have a crystal clear description of just why the Lord "ordained" them to give them this special "power" and "authority" to preach, teach and declare doctrinal truth of the gospel. (Luke 9꞉1-2, Mark 3꞉14, John 15꞉16)
• The most clear and concise description of the purpose of the apostles and prophets is as follows:

And he [Jesus Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. (Ephesians 4꞉11-15)

• What a powerful declaration of truth! The very reason why we have apostles, prophets and other leaders that work together in unity is so that we may know the truth to prevent division and dissension and so we may all be united in the faith, not all confused with our own "private interpretation" of doctrines. However, the conclusions of McKeever and Johnson lead us straight into the storm where we are "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

Claim

• Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, but this has been relegated to "theory."

Author's source(s)

• Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50.

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Brigham Young

Teachings	Creation President of US? Adam-God theory Moon inhabited by Quakers? Words as scripture Science and education Word of Wisdom Need to know for ourselves Total submission to him?
History	1844 Succession to Joseph Smith Disagreements with Emma Smith Divine manifestations Freemasonry Lucy Mack Smith's Biography of Joseph Smith *Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre The 'Mormon Reformation'
Race	Brigham Young's statements regarding race
Critics	Fabricated quotes from Brigham Young Quote mining JoD 13:95 Not witness of Christ? Reviews of books about Brigham Young

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," Ensign (November 1976): 77.off-site

∗       ∗       ∗

What is the Adam-God Theory?

Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father

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.

Brigham never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine

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

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.

What is the history of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory and why was it rejected by the Church?

Origins

Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Over 500 of these 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. He also brought up the subject in private meetings. Nine accounts record him bringing up issues related to Adam-God to different individuals. 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:

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.

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

• Adam lived on another planet, died, and was resurrected. Adam united with Eve at some point.
• Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
• Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
• Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
• Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation. Though it is not understood entirely what Brigham meant by "revelation." Matthew Brown in his 2009 FairMormon Conference presentation presented evidence that complicates our picture of what Brigham meant:

We now turn to a pertinent apologetic issue. Critics enjoy pointing out that on several occasions Brigham Young claimed that his teachings on Adam came to him through revelation. Since this section of this paper is dealing with ‘perspectives’ it is only proper that President Young be allowed to provide an idea of what he thought about, and how he experienced, the revelatory process. First of all, the question will be posed: ‘How did Brother Brigham compare himself, as a revelator, with his predecessor?’ There are two quotations that are of interest here. The second President of the LDS Church said, "I wish to ask every member of this whole community if they ever heard [me] profess to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as Joseph Smith was. [I] professed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ." In the second quote Brigham Young says that he "did not receive [revelations] through the Urim and Thummim as Joseph [Smith] did." Hence, it can be ascertained that, at least in one sense, Brigham Young did not receive communications from heaven in the same direct manner that Joseph Smith did. And it is relevant to mention here that Brigham Young did, in fact, own a seerstone that was once utilized by Joseph Smith.

Next, there is this lengthy quote from President Young which is well worth considering in its entirety. He rhetorically asked himself,

Well, Brother Brigham, . . . . have you had revelations?" Yes, I have them all the time. I live constantly by the principle of revelation. . . . I have never received one particle of intelligence [except] by revelation, no matter whether [my] father or mother revealed it, or my sister, or [my] neighbor. No person receives knowledge [except] upon the principle of revelation, that is, by having something revealed to them. "Do you [Brother Brigham] have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ?" I will leave that for others to judge. If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by the principle of revelation. Who reveals? Everybody around us; we learn [from] each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not. I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other.

Interestingly, there is some evidence that the ‘revelation’ claims for Adam–God ideology did not originate with Brigham Young, but rather with his close friend and associate Heber C. Kimball. There is one well-documented instance where Brother Kimball claimed that some of the concepts connected with the Adam–God Theory were revealed to him. There are also two other statements that need to be taken into careful consideration. The first comes from Thomas Stenhouse’s book. It reads: "Brother Heber had considerable pride in relating to his intimate friends that he was the source of Brigham’s revelation on the ‘Adam deity.’"

Since Mr. Stenhouse was an apostate from Mormonism at the time he wrote this, some people might tend to discount his assertion. But the second statement seems to lend credence to it. This one comes from Elder Orson Pratt. He said that the notion of "Adam being our Father and our God . . .[was] advanced by Bro[ther] Kimball in the stand [or at the pulpit], and afterwards approved by

Bro[ther] Brigham."

On at least three occasions, Brigham claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith. While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.)

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

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.

Stephen E. Robinson: "Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church"

BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.

Matthew Brown gave (2009): "Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years. His viewpoints have been variously classified as doctrine, theory, paradox, heresy, speculation, and some of the mysteries"

Matthew Brown gave perhaps one of the best reconcilations of Adam-God at the 2009 FairMormon Conference:

On the 9th of April 1852 President Brigham Young stepped up to the pulpit in the old tabernacle on Temple Square and informed a group of Elders, who had gathered there for General Conference, that he was going to straighten them out on an issue which they had been debating about. The topic of disagreement centered upon who was the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh—Elohim or the Holy Ghost. President Young surprised the people who were in attendance by announcing that it was neither one of them....Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years. His viewpoints have been variously classified as doctrine, theory, paradox, heresy, speculation, and some of the mysteries.—(Click here to continue)

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?

The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God

The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God. LDS are not dependent upon biblical interpretation for a complete understanding of the meaning of this or any other term. Since LDS have a more expanded idea of Adam's role, it is not surprising that they interpret some verses differently.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:

For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael (D&C 27꞉11; D&C 29꞉26), archangel (D&C 88꞉112), and Ancient of Days (D&C 138꞉38).

Joseph Smith is one source for this view of Adam:

"‘Ancient of Days’ appears to be his title because he is ‘the first and oldest of all.'

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-LDS 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. Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.

D&C 27:11 and D&C 116 associate Adam with the ancient of days spoken of in Daniel, but this needs elaboration

Like many Christians, the LDS see many parallels between Christ (who is God in the Old Testament) and Adam. Christ is even called, on occasion, the "second Adam." It is thus not surprising that D&C 27꞉11 associates Adam with a divine title or status when resurrected and exalted—after all, LDS theology anticipates human deification, so God and Adam are not seen as totally "other" or "different" from each other. LDS would have no problem, then, in seeing Adam granted a type of divine title or epithet—they do not see this as necessarily an either/or situation.

This does not mean, however, that Adam and God are the same being, merely that they can ultimately share the same divine nature. Such a reading would be strange to creedal Christians who see God as completely different from His creation. Once again, the theological preconceptions with which we approach the Biblical text affects how we read it.

As one non-LDS scholar noted of the passage in Daniel:

In the Septuagint version of Daniel 7:13 the translator has interpreted ‘he came to the Ancient of Days’ as ‘he came as the Ancient of Days’. Thus, according to this Septuagint interpretation, the Son of Man is in fact the embodiment of the person of the Ancient of Days. In other words the original scene in Daniel 7, where two figures exist alongside each other in heaven, is changed so that the vice-regent, the Son of Man, takes upon himself the form and character of God himself.

It is thus not surprising that Joseph Smith could see Adam taking upon himself "the form and character of God himself" using a similar type of imagery. This type of expansion on scriptures is done literally hundreds of times by biblical prophets.

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]]

What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?

There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought

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

Approach #1: Adam as the patriarch of the human family

The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the Doctrine and Covenants and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: [quotes D&C 78:15–16].

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

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."

LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context. Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate Elohim/Jehovah/Michael with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and (c) Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.

Another approach similar to Watson's would be to suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was speaking of at least two Adams, but that he was intentionally veiling what he was talking about, and left it up to individuals to get revelation on the true interpretation. This would be similar to the Lord's use of parables. Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language. Since he himself was an American Moses, so to speak, he may have felt that he could engage in the same type of practice, and was cluing people in on it by bringing up Moses' use of such things.

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

Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken. Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981:

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.

Approach #5: We don't know the reason

A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.

Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?

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

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 LDS 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 LDS 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

Two points need to be made prior to any discussion of this subject:

1. 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 LDS scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on Adam-God.)
2. 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

The following is probably the best description of how the temple endowment came to be written, and what part Adam-God played in it:

Shortly after the dedication of the lower portion of the temple, Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End," assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted for Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877 Woodruff recorded in his journal: "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."

The St. George endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young's Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 L. John Nuttall, one of those who transcribed Young's lecture, recalled how it came about:

In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions 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. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing materials, 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 [he] 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.

On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:

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 ony 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 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. 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 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 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.... 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. (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.)

Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century. Buerger writes:

It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God." On returning from his mission in 1904 he noted that these teachings had been removed. While one would expect more extensive evidence than this were it true that the lecture was regularly given for twenty-five years, it ... should also be recalled that other "discredited" notions were still being promulgated in some temples by a few individuals during the early years of the twentieth century—such as the continued legitimacy of plural marriage, also a cherished fundamentalist tradition.

⍗

Learn more about Adam-God teachings

Key sources	Matthew Brown, "Brigham Young’s Teachings On Adam," Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009). link
FAIR links	Matthew Roper, "Adam in Ancient Texts and the Restoration," Proceedings of the 2006 FAIR Conference (August 2006). link
Online	Arthur A. Bailey, "What Modern Revelation Teaches about Adam," Ensign (January 1998): 20.off-site David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 no. 1 (Spring 1982), 14–58. off-site Robert L. Millet, "The Man Adam," Ensign (January 1994): 8.off-site Mark E. Petersen, "Adam, the Archangel," Ensign (November 1980): 16.off-site "Adam-God theory," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Video
Print	Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1976). ISBN 087747592X. GL direct link
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 220-221. ( Index of claims ) Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3)

Notes

270-271

Claim

• The authors quote Brigham Young stating that God is "progressing eternally," which is consistent with Wilford Woodruff's remarks that God is "increasing and progressing." These statements are contrasted, by the authors, with the more recent views expressed by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie that God's knowledge and power is full and complete. Smith said God "knows all things and that his understanding is perfect," while McConkie is quoted as saying God is not "progressing in knowledge," and is not "learning new truth."

Author's source(s)

• Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:286.
• McConkie, "Seven Deadly Heresies," (speech given at BYU), 1 June 1980.

Response

• First of all, Bruce R. McConkie attempts to clarify the matter in his book, Mormon Doctrine. McConkie states:

It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. He has already gained these things in their fullness. But he is progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains.

• Unfortunately, the authors decided to leave this explanation of McConkie's teachings on the matter out of their book. This is a sad attempt to portray LDS leaders as inconsistent and contradictory.
• Perhaps the issue is deeper that it appears, however. Perhaps there are some differences of opinion between the leaders of the Church (I'm certain that there are) on the deeper matters of God. But, to deal with them in this manner, as the authors do in this case, is disappointing. To say that small, differing personal opinions among Church leaders on the deeper elements of the gospel diminishes from their calling of God to lead His children and declare official doctrine is completely unfounded and unbiblical. ( Keep in mind that none of these statements were canonized or made official Church doctrine.) Prophets are fallible men with their own opinions on many matters. They are not perfect…only one was perfect.

273-275

Claim

• At the end of their book the authors present their final "witnessing tip" for those who would seek to "convert" a "Mormon" to the "Christian" church. Their witnessing technique involves Pascal's wager: is what you are being asked to give up more than what you might receive in exchange?

Response

• Clark Pinnock's comments below are a fitting response to that challenge: "frozen theological development" is no excuse for ignoring the voice of a living Prophet. A couple of papers from a recent work by evangelical scholars; the ones by Terry Miethe and I. Howard Marshall, both speak of the atonement as being universal, or unlimited, in its effect. Clark Pinnock is the editor of the book in which Miethe's and Marshall's papers appeared. Pinnock is a well-known and well-respected evangelical scholar, of the Baptist tradition. His paper deals with the personal "pilgrimage" he took in arriving at the position he had reached at the time he edited this volume.
• Pinnock considered himself to be a fairly orthodox Calvinist until about 1970. He became aware that some of the passages of scripture indicated that "once saved always saved" might not be a scriptural doctrine. "The exhortations and the warnings could only signify that continuing in the grace of God was something that depended at least in part on the human partner." This led him to rethink his position on several other inherited doctrines. At first he returned to Calvin's writings, and then he was "driven back to the Scriptures to reconsider." Five different areas of his inherited theology were re-examined. He writes:

Obviously what is happening here is a paradigm shift in my biblical hermeneutics. I am in the process of learning to read the Bible from a new point of view, one that I believe is more truly evangelical and less rationalistic. Looking at it from the vantage point of God's universal salvific will and of significant human freedom, I find that many new verses leap up from the page, while many old familiar ones take on new meaning.

• Interestingly, another writer in the same volume in which Pinnock's article appeared, Fritz Guy, also refers to the "paradigm shift" which occurred in his own study. The fifth change Pinnock found necessary was "the atoning work of Christ. The easy part was accepting the obvious fact that contrary to Calvinian logic Jesus died for the sins of the whole world according to the New Testament." He began by asking where the element of human response fit into the new theme. He first concluded "if Christ really took away the guilt of the sins of the race, is the whole race then not now justified by virtue of that fact?" Unfortunately, he decided that was 'too' universalistic for him. "Christ's death on behalf of the race evidently did not automatically secure for anyone an actual reconciled relationship with God, but made it possible for people to enter into such a relationship by faith." Continuing the paradigm shift mentality, Pinnock says, "when I went to the Scriptures with this question in mind, I found more support than I had expected."
• Clark Pinnock's comments near the end of his paper are applicable to the attitude that McKeever and Johnson take to the discussion of another's religion. Pinnock writes: "I guess it is time for evangelicals to grow up and recognize that evangelical theology is not an uncontested body of timeless truth." He continues a little further on:

I have no remedy for those who wish to walk by sight because they find the way of faith too unnerving, or for those who wish to freeze theological development at some arbitrary point in past history. I have no comfort for those who, afraid of missing eternal truth, choose to identify it with some previous theological work and try to impose it unchanged on the present generation or desire to speak out of the past and not to come into contact with the modern situation. I have no answer for those who are frightened to think God may have more light to break forth from his holy Word.

• This concluding remark from Clark Pinnock is essential to any understanding of the restored Gospel. One must realize that there may be more light coming from the living "Word," that is Jesus Christ Himself, the Word made flesh, who came to earth "for us and for our salvation" as the Nicene Creed states. We must realize that not all that we have been taught may be agreeable to the truth as taught by Him; a paradigm shift of our own might be necessary; the scriptures refer to this paradigm shift as conversion (metanoia). For those who are too frightened to exercise the necessary faith to make that "leap of faith" the Latter-day Saints have an answer: it is called the Book of Mormon, and in its Foreword there is the testimony of a modern day Prophet.

Notes

Copyright © 2005–2024 FAIR. This is not an official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The content of this page may not be copied, published, or redistributed without the prior written consent of FAIR.

We welcome your suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Wiki article.

Sites we recommend: Mormon Scholars Testify: Messages of faith from scholars who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints