Skip to main content

Adam-God theory gets attention again

This is version two of this essay. In the first version I severely denounced and criticized those who believed the Adam-God theory. I cited several modern prophets who were very clear in their denunciation of a belief in the theory. I stated that Brigham Young was either misquoted or misunderstood. I especially relished listening to Elder McConkie's talk on The Seven Deadly Heresies once again as part of my research. I miss Elder McConkie.

Today, I confess before you the error of my ways. I am now a believer in the Adam-God theory, but not the one that many people claim to be true. You'll note that I still don't call it a doctrine as some do, because that implies that it is something that pertains to our salvation. An understanding of this information is not necessary for our salvation. However, as I have studied, pondered and prayed about this over the past few days, I feel I have been richly blessed with personal insights about the material.

In this essay I hope to set forth the differences between the two theories and will rely heavily on the Elden Watson essay found on his website. I have now read it through twice, making notes and pondering the ideas that he set forth. I am completely in agreement with his views and find his explanations of the matter to be perfectly acceptable. There were many things I found there that I had heard or learned previously but did not have a source to which I could point. I do now. For the opposing viewpoint of the misunderstood theory, I cite David Buerger's essay.

The false version

From David's essay, "Young clearly believed that Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind in addition to being the first procreator of mankind's physical bodies; that Adam came to this earth as a resurrected and exalted being; that he "fell" to a mortal state of existence in order to procreate mortal bodies; and that Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ." I counted at least seven false statements in that summary, but this is what many people think of when they are asked about the Adam-God theory. This is NOT what Brigham tried to teach.

Because of this false understanding, our critics have criticized and lambasted us. I can understand why. If someone tried to tell me that what David wrote was what we believed, I would have to tell them that such statements are the most contrived and foolish ideas that I have ever heard. For some reason, apostate polygamous groups have clung to this false version and continue to circulate it as their idea of truth. It is so contradictory to accepted doctrines that it does not lead to faith and in fact, hinders one in an ability to exercise faith in God and Christ.

That is why President Kimball said in 1976, "We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our Chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. 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."

The correct version

God, our Heavenly Father, who we now ordinarily refer to as Elohim, is the father of our spirits and was literally the father of the physical, but immortal body of Adam. It was God the Father that came to this earth as a resurrected and exalted being with our Mother in Heaven. They did not "fall" to a mortal state in order to give birth to Adam and Eve. A man cannot be resurrected and then become mortal again. Adam was not the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ. God our Heavenly Father fulfilled that mission. Except for Mother in Heaven, most of these concepts are taught by our missionaries and in our Primary classes. They are very clear.

What Brigham tried to teach was really very simple and it's not a big deal, or at least it's not to me. I still maintain that he was misunderstood by many, and therefore what was taught by some leaders of the early church was in error. Whether or not he was misquoted is a matter you will have to decide for yourself. In some places he may have been. In others he was perhaps not as clear as he could have been. Nevertheless, what he taught was fascinating and enlightening.

You can find a detailed description of these fundamental doctrines in Eldon Watson's essay that help establish the truths that we believe and which Brigham taught:
  • Adam was not a resurrected being
  • Adam died
  • Adam is not God
  • Adam is subordinate to Jesus Christ
  • Adam and Eve were unmarried when they came into the Garden of Eden
  • Adam is a son of God
Cast of characters in the Garden of Eden

God the Father

  • Elohim
  • Man of Holiness
  • Father of the human race
  • First Man
  • Brigham calls him “Father Adam”

Heavenly Mother

  • One of God’s wives
  • Brigham calls her “Mother Eve”
  • Mother of all living
  • Came here to give birth
  • Not mentioned in scripture

Jesus Christ

  • Jehovah
  • Son of God
  • Son of Man
  • Only Begotten in the flesh


  • Lucifer
  • The devil
  • Son of the morning
  • Perdition (lost)


  • Michael
  • The Archangel
  • Ancient of Days
  • A Son of God


  • Daughter of heavenly parents
  • Named after her mother by Adam
  • Born immortal and perfect
  • No blood or disease before fall

Analysis of the most misunderstood quote

"Now hear it, 0 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, JD1:50)

There was another record of this talk made by Wilford Woodruff that is different from the version found in the Journal of Discourses. In it, you can find a very critical and missing phrase just before, "He helped to make..." It is, "...and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle." The tabernacle being referred to is the body of Adam. "Father Adam," was Brigham's way of indicating God our Heavenly Father. He believed Adam was one of his names. The last line of the quote is referring to "Father Adam" again. He is saying that God is our father.

If this is the first time that this has been pointed out to you then I refer you to Elden Watson's essay in which he discusses Brigham's belief that one of God's names was Adam. He discusses them in his essay as Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. I know, that seems a little strange, but it works for me. It is unfortunate that Brigham wasn't clearer about who he was referring to when he said "Father Adam." Reread that quote and put Elohim in the place of father Adam as you read. Be sure to add the additional phrase from Wilford Woodruff in the right spot. That makes it clear.

Summary but no conclusion

In this essay I have tried to set forth my understanding of what Brigham Young really meant when he made some of the quotes that have caused so much trouble for so many over the years. Although I have concluded the matter in my own mind, I will leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions. I invite you to a careful reading of Elden Watson's essay. He leads us carefully through the scriptures and quotes in such a way that makes it easy to understand and accept.

I reiterate here as I have in the beginning that understanding the Adam-God theory is not at all necessary to our eternal salvation. If you have gone all your life and have never heard about the interpretation that I have labeled the correct version above, it would not affect you one way or the other. However, if you have accepted and believe what I have labeled the false version, which was summarized by the quote from David Buerger, then that just might be a problem.

I'm trying to not be dogmatic about this but I do feel strongly that those who think that Brigham believed and taught the Adam-God theory as defined by Buerger, with the help of Mike Quinn, are mistaken. None of us will be able to ask Brigham what he really believed and taught until we meet him in the Spirit world. I intend to do so. But until then, I will accept the orthodox teachings on the subject that I have tried to outline in the "correct version" section above.

Additional information

1. LightPlanet - Adam-God theory

2. Jeff Lindsay - Do Mormons worship Adam? Have they ever?

3. Elden Watson - Adam-God

4. FAIR - Adam-God

5. Wikipedia entry on Adam-God theory - Did Brigham Young really teach it as doctrine?

6. The David Buerger essay in Dialogue, Spring 1982. I disagree with the conclusions.


Jacob J said…
Sorry to say it Tim, but this approach of saying that Brigham was either misquoted or misunderstood is not tenable. It worked (sort of) in Joseph Fielding Smith's day because most of the material on Adam-God from Brigham Young was not available at the time. It has since been published and is widely available. If you have read the wikipedia article you link to, I assume you are already aware that there is much more than one troublesome quote from JD.

In my opinion, explanations of controversial things like this can do more harm than good if we explain it using arguments that can be easily refuted within 10-15 minutes of searching on the internet.

I think it is clear that Brigham Young believed and taught something that is not accepted as doctrine in the modern church and was not universally accepted in his day either.
Tim Malone said…
Hi Jacob,

Thanks for visiting my blog. So what you're saying is that I need to find more recent modern sources denouncing the theory as a doctrine besides the three I included in my essay - JF Smith, President Kimball and my favorite from Bruce R. McConkie. I wanted to include what Bruce R. actually said, but anyone who listens to the recording can hear it for themselves.

Oh yes, I read the Wikipedia article extensively. I did not like that it started out by reporting the theory as a doctrine. Of course, Wikipedia is not an official source of church doctrine, is it? So what have our modern theologians said on the matter - Elder Oaks, Elder Holland, or a member of the First Presidency?

I agree with your last statement. I never stated that he did not teach it or that he did not believe it. Maybe it's because I'm an old guy and the prophets I quoted in denouncing the theory were some of my favorites. Perhaps with a little more digging I can find something from a more current authority and will add it here.

Thanks for your comments, Jacob. I wrote this primarily as a statement of what I have always taught when asked about it in the past. I can see that dead prophets don't hold as much weight as they used to. I guess it's time for me to catch up to the modern way of thinking.

To be continued...
Anonymous said…
You should also know that B. McConkie also became convinced later in his life, after being shown the material the Jacob J hinted at, that B. Young did believe and teach the doctrine. He still believed it as false, as do I, but I agree with Jacob in that you can't just say that BY was just misquoted.

We are priveleged in our day to live in a time where our doctrinal understanding has had a chance to develop develop and distill. Our current view of the Godhead didn't become well accepted until Joseph F. Smith was president, when he assigned the likes of Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts to pull it together. Even with prophetic leadership, there is still always a period of studying it out in our minds before the Lord will let us know what is true.

It may sound confusing, but BY did believe Adam to be both Michael and our Heavenly Father. The Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael understanding we have now was not present during their days. A good discussion on this subject can be found at

Let me repeat: I do not believe in the doctrine and I do believe the teachings of the modern prophets. But, I don't believe we can sweep BY's statement under the rug like you do in this post.
Jacob J said…

So what you're saying is that I need to find more recent modern sources denouncing the theory as a doctrine besides the three I included in my essay

How in the world did you draw that conclusion from my comment? I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said is that your approach in the post of saying that Brigham was either misquoted or misunderstood is wrong and unsupportable. Modern denunciations of the doctrine have nothing to do with my point.

At the bottom of the wikipedia entry there is a link to Buerger's article from Dialogue. If you haven't read it, I would recommend it as a good starting place.
Tim Malone said…
Sorry Jacob,

That was a little testy, wasn't it? I was focusing on the denunciation of the misunderstood version of the Adam-God theory. From what I understand, too many people have used it to justify participation in polygamous relationships. Thus, the strong words from President Kimball and Elder McConkie. I had never studied it out in detail like I have since your first comment.

As I wrote in my revised essay, I think I get your point now. I no longer think Brigham was misquoted. I still think he was misunderstood by many. I'm not sure President Young was able to explain his doctrine in a manner that satisfied everyone, in particular Orson Pratt. I think he is still misunderstood by many today. My original essay was an example of that misunderstanding.
Jacob J said…

No problem. I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news. Best wishes.
Tim Malone said…
Thanks Jacob,

I read David Buerger's Dialogue essay from Spring of 1982. I disagreed with his conclusions. I don't think he understood what Brigham was trying to teach. I compared his findings with those of Elden Watson and like what I read there. Brother Watson's approach is much more faith promoting. You can read David's biographical sketch here.

Here is a summary of the bio: As of the writing of the sketch, David is not an active member of the church. He was a convert in 1973, served a mission in France, married and divorced a life-long member. David is described as being very liberal in his thinking, and questioned church authority. Perhaps it was related to his active participation in the anti-establishment movement of the late sixties before he was baptized. In any event, he was an active member of the church for less than ten years.

He acknowledges assistance from D. Michael Quinn among others in preparing his essay. While I acknowledge Mike Quinn's genius in research, I also do not agree with many of his conclusions over the years. In any event, the paper was detailed and enlightening but does not adequately address any "common sense issues." It makes it look as if early leaders believed and taught the false version of the Adam-God theory. Perhaps some did, but I don't.

I'm more inclined to agree with Elden Watson's approach that we look at Brigham's statements with a more holistic approach in light of all the other orthodox statements that he made elsewhere. Anybody who has read Brigham's original statements in this light can see clearly that he was indeed teaching something wonderful and uplifting. David's essay makes Brigham look like he was confused and muddled and did not understand basic doctrine. I reject that thinking.

I hope my upcoming revised essay will reflect what I discovered as I dug in depth to Elden Watson's paper. I approached it with prayer and was not disappointed with my experience in the review. Thanks again for helping me add to my understanding of the Adam-God theory. I was previously missing a major component which I found in Elden Watson's essay and not in David Buerger's. Because it is so easy to misunderstand, I say that it is a good thing that this is not a doctrine that is currently taught in the church. It is not central to our salvation.
Jacob J said…

For the record, Elden Watson's "Two Adam" theory has been around for a long time, but it has some very big problems. In my opinion, it is unsustainable if you truly do the holistic analysis you suggest. There are lots and lots of things written on this topic (I suggested Buerger as a starting place, not an ending place) and after spending considerable time (years) reading and considering various views of this topic, I just don't think the "Two Adam" theory holds up. Watson sort of acknowledges that there are some sources which don't line up with his theory, but he uses the same old "Brigham was misquoted and misunderstood" line which got us into trouble in the first place. The problem is, we have some very reliable sources of speeches by Brigham Young (not in JD incidentally) in which he makes it clear that he was not thinking of the "Two Adam" model.

Of course, everyone gets to make up their own minds on everything, so I am happy to agree to disagree on this, but my advice would be to hold back and refrain from jumping to a quick conclusion.
Tim Malone said…
Excellent advice Jacob. Thank you for offering it and for your continued interest in visiting my blog. I can see that you have indeed given this a lot of thought over the years. I am going to take your advice and not jump to a conclusion but will present a review and comparison of some of the points presented in both papers. I do this for my own understanding and hope it is not problematic for others.

However, I want to finish this post and move on to more interesting stuff so I'm going to put forth a little table of the cast of characters we find in the Garden that came to me as I was sitting in Bishopric meeting yesterday morning and pondering this in between assignments. This has become a matter of prayer for me and has resulted in some personal insight.

I visited you blog in an effort to find where you had written anything on the subject. I found wonderful commentary intended for Todd Wood there, but nothing on Adam-God. I assume you blog elsewhere like New Cool Thang. I will review the comments on the link you provided previously to By Common Consent.
Jacob J said…
Sounds like a good plan Tim.

You are correct that I mostly blog at New Cool Thang, but I have never posted anything about Adam God. I am sure I have written comments about it a few times over the last couple of years of blogging (e.g. the two comments at the BCC post), but I haven't spent much time thinking or writing about it for the last several years. Glad to hear your study/pondering on this has been personally fruitful. Sometimes a bit of out-of-the-box thinking can help spur new thoughts about the Garden story, even if the particular out-of-the-box thought turns out to be a dud.
Tim Malone said…
LDS blogging is an interesting world. You can find all kinds of good blogs out there from people who are trying to do good and share the gospel. Others are fairly naive and don't have a clue about what might be interesting to those not of our faith. I wonder if sometimes we are not just blogging back and forth to ourselves. Hopefully this revised essay (now posted) will be helpful and not do any harm to anybody reading it who is not a member of the LDS faith.

I appreciate being warned about the "two Adams" model not being sustainable. For me, it works. When Brigham says "Father Adam" my mind switches gears and I think carefully, "did he mean God the Father or Adam, whom we normally think of as the father of the race"? I now think of Elohim as the father of the human race, that he was literally the father of Adam, and that Adam was born to a Mother who was also named Eve. That birthplace was here on earth.

To Ben, who said that Bruce R. McConkie was convinced later in life that Brigham Young really did believe the false Adam-God theory as I outlined it in my essay, I say that a careful reading of Elden Watson's essay shows the exact opposite was true. Bruce R did write to Eugene England that he thought Brigham may have taught it the way David Buerger summarized it, but later recanted.

Elden Watson reports that in a meeting with Elder McConkie in which Elden's views were expressed as part of the priesthood correlation committee, that, after much discussion, Elder McConkie said that he was wrong, that Brigham did NOT teach the false version that so many have accused him of teaching. This is a critical point, because it is being represented as the other way around. What Bruce R told Eugene England in a letter was wrong and he told Eldon that he could tell that to everyone - that Bruce was wrong. Brigham knew what he was trying to teach. We just weren't getting it. Most still don't.
Anonymous said…
I appears to me that the problem with the AG theory, as espoused by fundamentalists, is that people focus more on what it says about God than what it says about themselves and the nature of godhood.

"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;JD 4:217.
Kalv1n said…
This was yet another cop out.
Tim Malone said…
I'm not sure what you were looking for. I put several days worth of study into this so that I could explain it to my own satisfaction. What I learned from Elden Watson works for me. I have read enough other essays and papers on the Adam-God theory to have realized that most people just don't get it.

But then, I think we'll just have to wait until we meet Brigham to be able to ask him what he was really trying to teach. No intentional cop-out Kalvin. Let me know what didn't work for you and if you are interested in additional dialog.
Unknown said…
The Adam - God theory has no place in Mormon theology, as it was spoken by Mormon prophets but not made a part of any of the Four Standard Works. Therefore, any critics must realize that any Mormon will not accept this theory as part of their theology. General Authorities may say whatever they wish, but the only statements that must be defended are those accepted by the church as part of the Four Standard Works.
Tim Malone said…
I’m not sure what to make of your comment, Jim. I wrote this essay precisely because it comes up so often by critics who like to use it against us. I had a very enjoyable time studying it out and coming to a better understanding – both of what I believe Brigham was actually trying to teach and what some of the early brethren thought he was trying to teach.

So, while you are technically correct that the Adam-God theory has no place in LDS theology, what does it matter that it was not canonized? It comes up again and again and therefore, it is a good idea of any serious student of LDS history and theology to know for themselves what all the controversy was about. No, of course we don't believe that Adam was our God.
Anonymous said…

This is an article in which Brigham Young stated that "Adam is our father and God"

Is this article is true, and if so, what other way is there to interpret when he says "our father and GOD"
Tony said…
Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1, puts forth his interpretation of the Brigham quote in this way:

Adam had a celestialized, but spirit, body. Remember that when he came into physical being in the Garden of Eden he still had not fallen and therefore was in the presence of God the Father.

He clearly was not reffering to Adam as God the Father, according to J.F.Smith, because of the fact that 'father adam' "helped" to organize the world.

Adam is in a sense, a god, due to the fact that he is now an exalted being. He holds the "keys of [our] salvation under the direction of the Holy One(Jesus Christ)." It is through his authority that angels, and even the Lord appear to the earth(see teachings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Joe Fielding Smith). In this sense, it is him with whom we have to do.

Those who would like to read more of what Joseph Fielding Smith said on this subject should look it up.

It is the explanation that has best suited me.

Anyone who wants to see more on what he write
Anonymous said…
After studying every comment I could find available to me on the Adam-God theory I have come to the same conclusion. It is my personal opionion that what Brigham was teaching was a matter of our progeny. While speaking of his views of Adam-God he also often spoke on the birth of Jesus and how he believed Christ was not "begotten by the Holy Ghost" but how Christ came into this world the same as any other person. Brigham tried to teach that we are all of the same race.

Before I knew of the Adam-God theory I came to the conclusion that Adam was born and not created from the dust as many suppose. Some might say that this could not be the case because Jesus is the Only Begotten Son. Yes, it is true, Jesus is the Only Begotten Son IN THE FLESH; meaning that Christ was the only person born of a Divine being with blood in His veins. Adam's Father was also God the Father literally. The difference with Adam and Christ is that Adam had spirit in his veins when he was born.

I think this is what Brigham Young was trying to teach, howbeit he wasn't as clear as one would hope. Brigham used Adam and Eve as name titles much like Elias is used as a name title for a forerunner. Just as there were several Elias' so are there atleast more than one Adam and Eve as shown in Moses 3:7.

Adam is also our "father and our god" because he stands at the head of the human family UNDER Christ and God the Father. Joseph Smith clearly taught this in the history of the church volume 4 page 209 if I recall correctly.

This is my personal opinion of the Adam-God theory after much reading and contemplation. Others may have their own opinions (which they have a right to) but that is all that can be formed from statements made on the Adam-God theory. There will come a day when we can finally ask Brigham what he was trying to teach. If you think Brigham wasn't a prophet then you can ask him in hell.

All that truly matters is the fundamental truths revealed and submitted as such. The Book of Mormon is 100% true and teaches cleary about the nature of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. It is the greatest literature ever given to man.
twitterpated said…
If you read the description of Adam, the Ancient of Days, in Daniel 7, it sounds a lot like descriptions of the glorified Christ, who is Jehovah. From the passage, it's clear that Adam is a separate person from the Son of Man, the Lord God Jesus Christ, but with a great deal of power and authority.

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." (Daniel 8:9, 13, 22)

From other scriptures, it is clear that Adam, the Archangel Michael, works with the Lord and holds with him in all things. (Daniel 10:13-21)

I'm sure Brigham Young had some additional information on the subject. He probably speculated about its meaning and was curious to know more details. It is wrong, however, to attribute some false "god" theory as taught by President Young. He taught that Jesus Christ is the God of all creation.

Adam's actual status is pretty high, but it's clear he assists the Almighty God, Jesus Christ. The song lyrics below from our hymnal sound to me like at the Second Coming Adam and Eve will be bringing their children to worship at Jesus' feet. There's surely nothing wrong with that.

Sons of Michael, he approaches! Rise, the ancient father greet.
Bow, ye thousands, low before him; Minister before his feet.
Hail the patriarch’s glad reign, Spreading over sea and main.

Sons of Michael, ’tis his chariot Rolls its burning wheels along!
Raise aloft your voices million In a torrent pow’r of song.
Hail our head with music soft! Raise sweet melodies aloft!

Mother of our generations, Glorious by great Michael’s side,
Take thy children’s adoration; Endless with thy seed abide.
Lo! to greet thee now advance Thousands in the glorious dance!

Raise a chorus, sons of Michael, Like old ocean’s roaring swell,
Till the mighty acclamation Thru rebounding space doth tell
That the ancient one doth reign In his Father’s house again!
Michael Cusick said…
Wow. I'm tired of reading the same thing over and over again. Mormons in general have a major problem with this because most cannot theologically make sense of the fact that 2 conflicting interpretations of God have been given by older and newer church presidents. So most take one approach in trying to make the two fit together (they REALLY don't). Others say Brigham was wrong. I take the third option: Brigham Young was right.
If you truly understand what Brigham Young taught and are open to the spirit you can understand that it is true. I'm eighteen accept the so-called "Adam-God" theory. Brigham Young's teaching is not his - it was Joseph Smith's. Anyone, living in Joseph's day would have understood that when Joseph called Adam the Ancient of Days he was calling Adam none other than God. Read Daniel 7 again and understand what it says. This is what Joseph taught:
"The Priesthood was first given to Adam: he obtained the first Presidency & held the Keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,--he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures....Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him & there is given him glory & dominion.--Adam delivers up his Stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family."
Some doctrine present:
Adam received priesthood first (before Christ)
Adam is the ancient of days (obvious reference to God)
Adam is our Father and He presides over our spirits (not Eloheim or Yahweh)
Jesus Christ is given his authority from Adam
Yes, Christ Jesus is given the keys of the universe, but we remain Adam's children. We need go no higher than Adam to discover our closest Father and God. To understand the last one better it would take a lot of work but I'll sum it up briefly. Yahweh is not Jesus Christ. That is not in the scriptures. This "Jesus-Jehovah" theory (come on, it's a bit funny) was created by Talmage to combat Adam-God. Yahweh, if you read early Church discourses through about 1900 is often identified with who we refer to as "God the Father". Eloheim is a higher God. The father of Jehovah and Michael. Christ will become as the Father of his body - Yahweh. In this sense he hold the keys of salvation and will be in a state not equal with Adam. Esoteric I know.
The main problem in your logic is trying to fit Adam-God in with your understanding of the Godhead with modern understanding of the terminology.
The doctrine was not abandoned because it was wrong but because people had closed minds and relied on their own understanding. Brigham did not focus on it later in his life because of the controversy it brought. He stated something to the effect it is not that important and it doesn't matter to which God you pray as they are one race. This is NOT a denunciation.
You can know Adam is God by revelation. I know it. When first presented with it when I was confused as I did not want to understand it. Now it makes so much clear. It is hard to comprehend how much clearer the gospel is now.
I do not feel the doctrine is binding upon the church as it was not revealed (that we know of) by the oracles of the Lord (or "thus saith the Lord"). Regardless, you can be enriched.
Just my two cents,
Plus Sons of Michael He Approaches clearly teaches Adam's role as God. (also read the ORIGINAL lyrics)
robert9876 said…
Adam-God is one of the most beautiful doctrines and foundation stones of the gospel. It was taught by all the early General Authorities and Prophets of the church. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Hebert C.Kimbal, P.P.Pratt, John Taylor, W.Wooddruf, George Q. Cannon, etc. It was part of the endowment session and the Lecture at the veil. This was and is true doctrine. However, the L.D.S. Church has embarked on a course that has led them to be more part of the "Christian" fold. They are not so peculiar anymore. For that same reason, we have dropped many precious things out of the endowment. Since we cannot stand "THAT" close at the veil, because what will people say, so we dropped the 5 points ..... and like that we dropped significant elements in the washings and annointings. Bruce R.McConkie if you studied him, you will know that he was a very opinionated man. And the 12 had many debates that dragged on for months. McConkie wanted to "sanitize" the JD but the brethren determined that too many copies were already out the door. OK back to this main topic, If you want to really read almost every quote and discourse about AG then read this 657 page book "Understanding Adam God Teachings" A comprehensive Resource of Adam God Materials by Drew Briney.
There really is no misquoting, no misunderstanding, no poorly explaining the doctrines by BY. It was crystal clear in everybody's mind. Those that were in leadership positions and did not accept this doctrine were removed from office. Orson Pratt had a lot of problems with this doctrine but eventually accepted it. The early endowment session had Eloheim, Jehovah, Michael, Jesus Christ, Eve and Satan as the characters. There was no Peter, James and John nor a preacher. As earlier commented Jesus Christ is NOT Jehovah. None of the early brethren ever taught that he was. Every earth has it's own Adam and Eve and Savior. These are not their real names but indications of "Offices" This is also not taught anymore by the current L.D.S. church leadership. Yet this was very clearly taught by all the early brethren. I would suggest you study the journals of the brethren. The problem that you have is that you are trying to make something to fit with current LDS doctrine. My conclusion is this: Conference talks are to be regarded as scripture especially if those doctrines are used in the temple\ endowments. So this then becomes the issue (as I understand it) If ALL of the early prophets, seers and revelators for the first 70 years were wrong, then they were teaching false doctrines. That pulls the rug out from under. I would then have no foundation anymore. If they were wrong that much, that long, then what would I believe from men like Pres Monson? And by the way, the statement of God will never allow a prophet to lead the members astray is not at all doctrine. It was just a GA personal opinion statement and everybody runs with it as if it is doctrine accepted by the church. Is it scripturally defensible?
Just study the mentioned book and pray about it. Adam/Michael/God will confirm the truth of this beautiful doctrine. Thank you. I do appreciate your honesty in all of this Tim. And yes we are all learning including me.
robert9876 said…
Adam-God is one of the most beautiful doctrines and foundation stones of the gospel. It was taught by all the early General Authorities and Prophets of the church. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Hebert C.Kimbal, P.P.Pratt, John Taylor, W.Wooddruf, George Q. Cannon, etc. It was part of the endowment session and the Lecture at the veil. If you want to really read almost every quote and discourse about AG then read this 657 page book "Understanding Adam God Teachings" A comprehensive Resource of Adam God Materials by Drew Briney. I would suggest you study the journals of the brethren. The problem that you have is that you are trying to make something to fit with current LDS doctrine.
Just study the mentioned book and pray about it. Adam/Michael/God will confirm the truth of this beautiful doctrine. Thank you. I do appreciate your honesty in all of this Tim. And yes we are all learning including me
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pasting this from another site.

Choose to believe what you want, but don't make up lies about what Brigham actually taught. I'm going to hold your hand through this. Read each quote carefully.

"He [Brigham Young] said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ - Our God was no more or less than Adam, Michael the Archangel." (Brigham Young, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 2/19/1854)

Here, Brigham is saying our father and the father of Jesus Christ is Adam, or MICHAEL the Archangel. In case "Adam" wasn't clear enough, he referred to him by his other name, Michael the Archangel. Will you now say, oh, he's referring to some other being than the one who fell, than the one who led the hosts in heaven to cast Lucifer out? Michael the Archangel now applies to two separate beings involved with this earth? Where did Brigham ever intimate such a ridiculous thought? Perhaps you're making up lies rather than face the facts about what Brigham actually taught?

"Who was it that spoke from the heavens and said ―This is my beloved son hear ye him? Was it God the Father? It was. ... Who did beget [Jesus]? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days." (Brigham Young, Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, 2/19/1854).

In case referring to him as Adam and Michael the Archangel wasn't enough, he also says the father of Jesus Christ is the Ancient of Days. Who is Michael or the Ancient of Days? It doesn't refer to that being, Adam, who fell and formed earthly bodies? That's really what you think Brigham taught?

"Jesus Christ is the actual spirit and mortal son of Michael Adam God; that Michael Adam is the supreme god and father of the spirits of our mortal world." (Brigham Young, MS 17:195-96, 3/31/1855)

Michael, who became Adam, is the father of our spirits, and the father of Jesus Christ.

"Michael came down with his wife, & began to people it. Michael had his body from the dust of the planet he was begotten on, he obeyed his Lord, was faithful and obedient, died and was resurrected, he did not resurrect himself. ... Adam's descent was to organize people & redeem a world, by his wife he peopled it by his first born he redeems." (Brigham Young, Journal of the Southern Indian Mission, 87- 89, Friday 10/6/1854)

Michael did what? Michael came down with his wife to people this earth. Where did he get his body or where did he come from? From a different planet that he was begotten on. What did he do there? He was faithful, died, and was exalted. THEN he created this earth, DESCENDED to it, peopled it by his wife. (continued below)
Let's make this even more credible. Let's quote the Lecture at the Veil, which was personally and carefully prepared by Brigham to be taught IN THE TEMPLE.

"When father Adam and mother Eve became mortal by eating of the fruits of this earth, they were then prepared to organize the mortal tabernacle and they were prepared to organize and form living spirits long before that. Now they are prepared to form mortal bodies for their spiritual children to dwell in. His former words and experiences Adam had forgotten a great deal of, but he once knew it all beforehand." (Brigham Young, Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, 8/25/1867)

What's that? Father Adam and Mother Eve became mortal. Why? To form mortal tabernacles for the spirits they had 'formed' or begat long before that. By eating fruits of this earth, they became mortal, to form mortal bodies for THEIR SPIRITUAL CHILDREN to dwell in. Do you see that Brigham was not referring to two separate people here? The same being who fathered our spirits, ALSO became mortal to create mortal bodies for the spirits he fathered. This should be so painstakingly clear by now, but I'll go even further.

Let's now turn to what Orson Pratt said/believed. He sat and listened to Brigham's lectures. He discussed these doctrines with Brigham in meetings and many conversations. He understood what Brigham taught very well. He will know much better than you or I about what Brigham meant. Let's see what he believed.

"Some of his (Orson Pratt's) doctrines as contained in the Seer were being discussed. Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat children & they were earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 9/17/1854)

What couldn't Orson believe? He couldn't believe that Adam was the father of Christ. Now, if Brigham really meant and taught that Adam was just a job title and representing a being DIFFERENT than the Adam who fell, then why would Orson reject this? But, it goes further. Orson also didn't believe what Brigham taught, which was this: Adam (the father of Jesus Christ and our spirits) brought Eve with him, ate of mortal fruits, then BEGAT EARTHLY children. Is that clear enough? That same being who fathered our spirits, came to this earth, ate of fruits, fell and begat mortal children. (continued below)
Shall we go further with what Orson KNEW Brigham taught?

"One [revelation] says Adam was formed out of the Earth, and the Lord put in his spirit; and another that he came with his body, flesh and bones, thus there are two contrary revelations - in the garden it is said, that a voice said to Adam, in the meridian of time, I will send my only begotten son Jesus Christ. then how can that man and Adam both be the Father of Jesus Christ? …
I have heard brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our Spirits, and he came here with his resurrected body, to fall for his own children; and I said to him, it leads to an endless number of falls, which leads to sorrow and death: that is revolting to my feelings, even if it were not sustained by revelation." (Orson Pratt, Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve, 10:00 a.m. 4/5/1860)

What did Orson say Brigham taught? That Adam is the Father of our spirits, came here with this resurrected body, to FALL FOR HIS OWN CHILDREN. He became MORTAL again. This thought spooked Orson, and he refused to believe WHAT BRIGHAM TAUGHT, because Orson believed this led to an ENDLESS NUMBER OF FALLS, which leads to sorrow and death. All of these discourses, all of these conversations with Brigham, Orson said he could not believe BRIGHAM'S DOCTRINE that our Heavenly Father (who is Adam or Michael) FELL for his own children. Did Brigham correct him and say, "Oh Orson, you completely misunderstand me! See, I'm talking about two different Adams here, one refers to the Father of our spirits, the other to the being who fell and begat earthly bodies!" NO. He rebuked Orson for not believing a doctrine he said was taught to him by Joseph Smith.

Now this is the tiniest of portion of quotes. There are hundreds more. And Brigham wasn't the only one to teach this. Other Church Presidents, other Apostles, a few of Joseph's plural wives, and many others. As I said: believe what you want. But don't lie about what Brigham taught and really meant. It's crystal clear what he taught. Orson knew it and rejected it. Say you side with Orson, that Brigham taught false doctrine. But don't lie and say Brigham taught something different than what he clearly taught. (end)
What is needed is Word of the Lord revelation on this matter. My own study of President Young's Adam-God teachings led me to eventually find the Second Book of Commandments. This is the revelation that was needed.
Hogmeister said…
Anyone what to know the voice from the dust on this matter?

This is what I have written in a very recent email to Elden Watson:

Dear Elden Watson,

I was much impressed with your interpretation/explanation (two Adams) of Brigham Young on what is now commonly referred to as the Adam-God theory. Now, I wonder if you have researched ancient religious texts and views in support for your interpretation of the doctrine of Brigham Young? If not, let me turn your attention to this interesting field of research with the following excerpts that I’ve found “googling” the internet. I’ve marked with yellow the really interesting bits and added short comments in red within brackets.


There will be days when she will behold the Pleroma, and she will not be in deficiency, for she has the four holy helpers who intercede on her behalf with the Father of the All, Adamas. He it is who is within all of the Adams, possessing the thought of Norea, who speaks concerning the two names which create a single name.

Now Adam and Eve before the fall had spiritual bodies, like the "angels" born of this Eve [“this Eve” = Eve Sr.?]; but after their fall, down from the Paradise of Ialdabaōth, their bodies grew more and more dense, and more and more languid, and became "coats of skin," till finally Sophia in compassion restored to them the sweet odour of the Light, and they knew that they carried death about with them. And so a recollection of their former state came back to them, and they were patient, knowing that the body was put on only for a time.

Then Bartholomew said to him: "How (is it that) was designated in the Gospel 'Man' and 'Son of Man'? To which of them, then, is this Son related?"
The Holy One said to him: "I want you to know that First Man is called 'Begetter, Self-perfected Mind'. He reflected with Great Sophia, his consort, and revealed his first-begotten, androgynous son. His male name is designated 'First Begetter, Son of God', his female name, 'First Begettress Sophia, Mother of the Universe'. Some call her 'Love'. Now First-begotten is called 'Christ'. Since he has authority from his father, he created a multitude of angels without number for retinue from Spirit and Light."
His disciples said to him: "Lord, reveal to us about the one called 'Man', that we also may know his glory exactly."
The perfect Savior said: "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. First Begetter Father is called 'Adam, Eye of Light,' because he came from shining Light, and his holy angels, who are ineffable (and) shadowless, ever rejoice with joy in their reflecting, which they received from their Father. The whole Kingdom of Son of Man, who is called 'Son of God,' is full of ineffable and shadowless joy, and unchanging jubilation, (they) rejoicing over his imperishable glory, which has never been heard until now, nor has it been revealed in the aeons that came afterward, and their worlds. I came from Self-begotten and First Infinite Light, that I might reveal everything to you."
Again, his disciples said: "Tell us clearly how they came down from the invisibilities, from the immortal to the world that dies?"
The perfect Savior said: "Son of Man consented with Sophia, his consort, and revealed a great androgynous light. His male name is designated 'Savior, Begetter of All Things'. His female name is designated 'All-Begettress Sophia'. Some call her 'Pistis'.
Hogmeister said…

And said to him: "How many are the aeons of the immortals, starting from the infinities?"
The perfect Savior said: "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. The first aeon is that of Son of Man, who is called 'First Begetter' [First Begetter Father is called Adam, Eye of Light according to the above], who is called 'Savior', who has appeared. The second aeon (is) that of Man, who is called 'Adam, Eye of Light' [Or the First begetter Father according to the above][The order of the aeons should be counted backwards such that the first order is the lesser order and the 2nd is higher and the 3rd, which is not expressed explicably but "embraces these", is higher still]. That which embraces these is the aeon over which there is no kingdom, (the aeon) of the Eternal Infinite God, the Self-begotten aeon of the aeons that are in it, (the aeon) of the immortals, whom I described earlier, (the aeon) above the Seventh, that appeared from Sophia, which is the first aeon.
As you would expect, Creation does not stop there. So from Autogenes and Mirothoe there emanate four other Aeons or Lights. These are referred to as four great Angels. Together with each of these there are three secondary Aeons, making twelve secondaries in all. Each of the four Angels represents a particular sphere of existence, and at each of these levels there exist particular Personalities.
On the level of the first Light or Angel, called "Armozel", stands the Celestial Adam, "Pigeraadamas", referred to in in other texts as the Geradamas, the "Old Adam" [Ancient of days?] or original Archetypal Man ("Man" in this sense referring to human, as opposed to Anthropos, the Godhead) together with Autogenes itself. This Celestial pre-creation Adam is described as the Light or the Eye of Autogenes:
"...Adamas is a light which radiated from the light, he is the eye of light....This is the first man, he through whom and to whom everything became, and without whom nothing became"
[Sounds like Pigeradamas/Geradamas/Old Adam is different from Adamas?]
[ The Gospel of the Egyptians, in the Nag Hammadi Library, p.198].

" the eye of the Autogenes, an ascending knowledge of his"
[Nag Hammadi, Zostrianos, p.377; c.f. also p.372]
On the level of the second Light or Angel, Oroiel, is the Celestial Seth, the son of Geradamas. In The Gospel of the Egyptians, Seth is "the father and savior of the incorruptible race" (i.e., the Divine Souls, who possess Gnosis) who "comes from heaven, puts on Jesus as a garment, and accomplishes (the) work of salvation on behalf of his children" [p.195]. In other words, Seth is to the non-Christian Gnostics what Christ is to the Christian religion. [Christ is the son of Geradamas sounds familiar?]

Later, "Seth" came to mean not to the earthly Seth, but to a heavenly prototype on a transmundane, pre-cosmic plane. The heavenly Seth is then regarded as the "Son" of a heavenly Adam [p.483]
The idea of a heavenly Seth represents a specifically Gnostic interpretation of the Biblical Genesis accounts whereby the earthly characters of Adam and Seth are projected onto a transmundane, pre-cosmic plane. [p.503]
Hogmeister said…

But when he does so Sophia's voice comes from heaven a rebuke him: "Man exists and the Son of Man" [Apocryphon of John], together with a vision of this celestial being. "Man" here is not the Celestial Adam but the highest manifest Godhead, the Anthropos, "Son of Man" is actually the Celestial Adam. His son the heavenly Seth would be "the Son of the Son of Man". [Birger A. Pearson, "The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature", p.485 (in B. Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981, 472-504)]
Startled by this Celestial apparition, Yaltabaoth decides the best thing to do would be to make an image of it for himself. Exactly why he decides to do this is never explained; the myth is poetic and very irrational, more like a dream than a metaphysical conception or work of theology. So he creates angels to rule over the world and aid in the creation of man. Man comes to life when Yaltabaoth is tricked into breathing his light-power into him; again, another parody on the Genesis account; this time on God breathing life into Adam. Thus begins a long struggle between the powers of Light (Sophia and the other Aeons) and of Darkness (Yaltabaoth and his minions) for the possession of the divine particles of light in man. The negative powers imprison man in a material body, and also create woman and sexual desire to spread and diffuse the particles of light through procreation, thus making their salvation more difficult.
Finally, from the higher Spiritual regions a Savior, usually (depending on the particular sect) Christ or Seth, is sent down to save humanity by reminding them of their heavenly origin. Only those who possess the saving Gnosis and have lived pure and ascetic lives can return to the realm of Light; others have to reincarnate until they able to acquire Gnosis.
"The incorruptible man Adamas asked for them a son..., in order that he (the son) may become the father of the immovable, incorruptible race, so that through it...the dead aeon (Matter) may raise itself, so it that it may dissolve[Sounds like a Gnostic version of the great assembly in heaven where God the Father asks: Whom shall I send?]. And thus there came forth, from above, the power of the great light, the Manifestation. She gave birth to the four great lights..., and the great incorruptible Seth, the son of the incorruptible man Adamas."
[The Gospel of the Egyptians, in Nag Hammadi, p.199]

After reading the above excerpts I hope that you will be able to somehow include this perspective and additional doctrinal support to your interpretation of Brigam Youngs Adam-God doctrine. Keep up the faith and good work!

Best regards,
ddd said…
You might be interested in a book I put together some years ago, and now am marketing, called "The Adam-God Revelation" complete with 182 chapters on this subeject and other related. It is for sale on
Glad to see you are coming around to acknowledging this subject as viable.
Thanks, ddd
LukeAir 2010 said…
What you believe is not the doctrine taught by the early Prophets. What you have set forth here is Bruce R McConkies version of the doctrine. Yes our Heavenly Father did come to earth with our Heavenly Mother. They were the First Man and First Woman - Adam and Eve. What you are saying is that Adam was actually the second man, not the first. This is false doctrine.
LukeAir 2010 said…
When Joseph Smith taught that Michael is the Ancient of Days, he was teaching that Michael is our Heavenly Father. Joseph had been a Methodist, he was speaking to members of the Church who had all come out of the churches of Christendom. They knew who the Ancient of Days was - it was God the Eternal Father. Today, the whole Christian world sings praises to, and worships, the Ancient of Days. They just don't know that the Ancient of Days is Michael. The Prophet revealed that to the Saints and the modern Church has rejected it. Michael is our God and our Father.
Unknown said…
Hi Tim I have been very interested in the teachings of President Brigham Young concerning Adam. I consider that President Young did not teach a theory in 1852 and indeed throughout his life, he taught doctrine. Although we do not teach this doctrine today no President of the Church has said that the Adam-God DOCTRINE is false.

I too think that Elden Watson's views make a lot of sense. I would we look at Moses 6:59 and consider if this shows how Adam (jnr)'s body was born. This being the case who were his parents? Kind regards Jeff.
Jeff and others, the foundational doctrine of Mormonism is MORE revelation. But more revelation only comes to those who are prepared to receive it. There has been further revelation on the Godhead that resolves the Adam-God controversies. The revelation is different than anyone had "figured out" by their own research and thinking. It turns out that President Young was in error in one particular point, but basically was correct. I will tell you more if you are interested.
Ben McCrea said…
Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people."

[Brigham Young first met Joseph Smith in September, 1832 in Kirtland, Ohio. He said: "Here my joy was full at the privilege of shaking the hand of the Prophet of God, and I received the sure testimony, by the spirit of prophecy, that he was all any man could believe him to be, a true prophet." (Mill Star July 11, 1863, p. 439.) During this visit a meeting was held in which Brigham spoke in tongues. After this manifestation Joseph prophesied: "The time will come when brother Brigham Young will preside over the Church." (See History of the Church 1:297; Mighty Men of Zion, p. 16; Mill Star 21:439; Journal of Discourses 3:51; 4:54; 5:332; 8:206; 9:89, 332; They Knew The Prophet, Hyrum L. Andrus, p. 34.)]

Unknown said…
Did Joseph Smith know what he was talking about in this instance, wherein he said, "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people."? Was this a prophecy? Although Joseph Smith was not the one who penned the Lectures on Faith, he did approve of their content, as shown by the fact the the first presidency, the quorum of the 12 and in fact all of the quorums and members of the church who were old enough to participate in that process during the conference of 1835, voted to canonize those lectures as scripture. Even Bruce R. McConkie acknowledged that fact. So I submit the following from the Lecture Third, para 6. 6 Having previously been made acquainted with the way the idea of His existence came into the world, as well as the fact of His existence, we shall proceed to examine His character, perfections and attributes, in order that this class may see, not only the just grounds which they have for the exercise of faith in Him, for life and salvation, (who but God could give life and salvation?) but the reasons that all the world, also, as far as the idea of His existence extends, may have to exercise faith in Him the Father of all living. So if Adam was the ancient of Days, Michael and the husband of Eve, then he and she were the parents of all of the spirit children who would leave their premortal esstate one day and come to this earth. In other words, there was no one that could be reference at that time except those still in that premortal condition as children had not yet been born, and they were the father and mother of all living. And Lecture Third, says it is describing that being whom we recognize as God and how it came to be that man has been made aware of that knowledge.
Unknown said…
Robert, above you said that even Joseph Smith taught this doctrine. I here provide at least one such instance of that. The first time Joseph Smith saw Brigham Young, he made the comment about who he was in a short prophesy.
Did Joseph Smith know what he was talking about in this instance, wherein he said, "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people."? Was this a prophecy? I believe it was.

Although Joseph Smith was not the one who penned the Lectures on Faith, he did approve of their content and they were published under his direction, as shown by the fact the the first presidency, the quorum of the 12 and in fact all of the quorums and members of the church who were old enough to participate in that process during the conference of 1835, voted to canonize those lectures as scripture. Even Bruce R. McConkie in his own lifetime acknowledged that fact. So I submit the following from the (remember the context of the Lectures, to help us understand who God, His attributes and how we can come to know and please Him) Lecture Third, para 6. "6 Having previously been made acquainted with the way the idea of His existence came into the world, as well as the fact of His existence, we shall proceed to examine His character, perfections and attributes, in order that this class may see, not only the just grounds which they have for the exercise of faith in Him, for life and salvation, (who but God could give life and salvation?) but the reasons that all the world, also, as far as the idea of His existence extends, may have to exercise faith in Him the Father of all living."
So if Adam was the Father of all Living, The Ancient of Days, Michael and the husband of Eve, then he and she were the parents of all of the spirit children who would leave their premortal, first estate and come to this earth, that they might progress through their second estate and become like their parents. In other words, there was no one that could be reference at that time except those still in that premortal condition as children had not yet been born, and they, Adam and Eve were the father and mother of all living. And Lecture Third, says it is describing that being whom we recognize as God and how it came to be that man has been made aware of that knowledge. Who better to move along the progress of their own children, than their parents?

Popular Posts

Facebook Discussion Group for Latter-day Commentary

At the request of my bishop, I have created a new space for those who wish to discuss posts from this blog on a closed Facebook group rather than in the comments below. You can find it at this link: I hesitated a long time before creating this group. I feel strongly such a move should not have been necessary. If you are LDS and are even halfway awake you should be interested in learning more about the mysteries of the kingdom and discussing them. But apparently the "tone" of my posts has upset too many people. Best Vacation I've Ever Enjoyed I just returned from two Denver Snuffer lectures in Las Vegas and St. George, then spent three days at the Salt Lake 2014 Sunstone Symposium. This was absolutely the best vacation I have ever enjoyed. I can't remember the last time I was able to take two weeks off without having to put out some sort of IT fire at work every night from the hotel via Remote Desktop. Some people l

Do This in Remembrance of Me

  On that fateful Passover night in the Meridian of Time before Gethsemane , the Savior instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The Sacrament was a change from the way His disciples were used to observing the Passover. Therefore, the Messiah gave them a commandment to do the things which they had seen him do, that is, break bread and partake of wine “unto the end.” In the Book of Mormon, the Lord gave  another commandment to his disciples, “that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily … if ye know that a man is unworthy … ye shall forbid him.” Thus, in our modern Church Handbook of Instructions, we find the same injunction. You also find there the restriction of the sacrament as a punishment. I would like to investigate the idea of restricting a man from partaking of the sacrament as an appropriate inducement to change his way of thinking. Frankly, I disagree with this idea, and have taken many opportunities to counsel bishops with whom

Cry Mightily Unto the Lord

The Brother of Jared took sixteen small stones to the mountain . We know they were small because he carried them in his hands. They were certainly smaller than an egg. Perhaps he had eight in each hand. When he came down from the mountain he had eighteen stones. The Lord gave him two more to be used by future prophets to read and translate the words the Brother of Jared would write of the Savior. After the Brother of Jared cried unto the Lord in a prayer of great faith and sound reasoning, the Lord touched the stones one by one with his finger. The record does not say the Brother of Jared placed the stones on a rock in front of him as we see depicted in the painting by Arnold Friberg. I like to think he held them in his hand as he cried unto the Lord in mighty prayer saying, “Lord, see these stones…” Assuming he held the stones in his hands, I wonder what that would have felt like as the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched them one by one. The Brother of Jared would have felt the

What to Expect When You’re Excommunicated

If you’re drawn to this blog post by the title, I ask you to look past that to the subtitle. It is “The Believing Mormon’s Guide to the Coming Purge.” Although this will be a review of Rock’s book , I hope it will also provide background and detail on why long-time members of the LDS Church would be willing to lay it all on the line in defending an idea that many find shocking. The idea is this: The LDS Church is in a state of apostasy and has been since before the death of Joseph Smith. The first time I posted about Denver Snuffer , I invited dialog on his teachings. I certainly did receive it – from both sides. One comment in particular stuck with me. I have been pondering it for years, wondering if it represented an accurate summary of Denver’s message. This is the comment: “Snuffer’s position can be summed up as follows: I was personally visited by Christ who made my calling and election sure, told me I was part of the true church within the dead church, that he would soon call oth

Concluding Testimony at my Disciplinary Council

I shared my testimony in our regular monthly testimony meeting this morning. I wanted to make sure the Bishop and a member of the Stake Presidency present - he’s also in our ward – heard me say I sustain the general authorities and local authorities of the church. Of course these words were in addition to sharing comments reflecting my love of my Heavenly Father and my Savior. Covering All the Bases Carol asked me afterward if I did that to offset whoever it was that complained about my blog a few months ago. I assured her I was sincere, but yes, I wanted the whole ward to know of my feelings for those who lead this church. I continue to sustain them with my prayers and with my money. Yes, I know my tithing is used to pay their salary. It also helps pay my sister’s salary. Follow the Bishop’s Counsel As far as I know, I’m not under any priesthood leader’s watch list for an impending disciplinary council, but a few of my friends and fellow bloggers have been surprised, so I’m being care

A Mormon Reviews The Afterlife of Billy Fingers

Storytelling in a Non-Fiction Book The Afterlife of Billy Fingers by Annie Kagan is a wonderful book. I give it five stars. One of the Amazon reviewers said she read the 191 page book in 90 minutes. It took me about three hours. I had to stop often to wipe away the tears. The book was an emotional and spiritual roller-coaster. Thank you, Annie for that superb and captivating storytelling in a non-fiction book. Messages From the Spirit World The book extends three challenges to its readers: First, is it fiction or fact? Annie didn’t have to expend a great deal of effort and energy to persuade me it really happened. I was convinced right away by the down-to-earth, day-to-day events of Annie’s life as she dealt with the loss of her older brother Billy to a tragic accident. I have no doubt Billy came to her to share his transition. Traditional Heaven and Hell Missing Second, you will need to re-examine what you know about the after-life, especially if you have accepted traditional heaven

Cut Off From Among My people

When one is excommunicated from the LDS Church, he is provided instructions by the Bishop or Stake President as to what he can and cannot do. Given that the church just severed the relationship with the individual excommunicated you would think the instructions provided are no longer applicable. It is assumed they are given with the intention of helping the individual make their way back to baptism again within a short period of time, even as little as one year. Instructions Provided When Excommunicated It has been my sad duty over the years to write and deliver the notice to appear, then to write the summary of the disciplinary council for the report sent to Salt Lake, and the instructions given to the individual who has been the subject of church discipline. Frankly, I have found it a difficult process. It requires that I listen intently and take copious notes so as to capture the essence of what transpired, what was considered, what was decided and finally, what instruction was

The True Order of Prayer

I’m not sure if I can write the things I feel in my heart right now. I am simply overwhelmed with emotion. I’ve asked the Lord’s permission to share this and He said yes. It’s a sacred experience to me. I hope the spirit bears witness. I’ll give you a little bit of background first, share what the Lord allows me and conclude tomorrow with what He asked me to write on a different subject. A Forty-Year Search On Sunday, I culminated a forty-year search for understanding of The True Order of Prayer. Yes, I was seventeen when I first learned about this, even before I was endowed. You see, my parents were both incredibly active in Temple service. Mother ’s life work was to do her family history. I have her patriarchal blessing where it’s stated it was her calling and election. She made it sure. My Mother’s Calling and Election Before she died, mother published multiple books of family history, genealogy and research on some 25,000 ancestors. She and my father personally did most of the ordi

A Dialogue About the Devil

I spent way too much time on this dialogue about the devil to not share it publically. I know. It's a terrible subject to contemplate. Why are we discussing these ideas when there are so many other areas of light that would be more worthy of our time and attention? You can skip this if you want. We all have to be selective about where we spend our time and energy. I open it up for public discussion, or more likely, for public correction. See if you can spot and correct any false doctrine here. Hello Brother Malone, I have no scriptural reference for my thoughts I share with you regarding Lucifer but wondered if in your studies and readings you have heard this scenario before. We are taught Lucifer was esteemed as per the Savior in the pre-existence before his apparent fall. Is it possible he did not fall and that like the Savior he chose to accept the calling of being Satan as Jesus accepted the calling of being Savior, that the great council was more about a communal and loving di

Keys of the Kingdom Revisited

Carol and I have had a running conversation since Sunday about the succession crisis at the death of Joseph. To me, it has become the crux of the matter when considering the legitimacy of the LDS Church as the Kingdom of God on the earth. We have both been taught all our lives that Brigham had the Keys of the Kingdom and therefore nothing was lost when Joseph was killed. Before I present anything may I remind everyone that this is the blog of a private member of the LDS Church and in no way represents the official viewpoints or doctrines of the LDS Church. For that, go to where you can read the official narrative of how the succession between Joseph and Brigham took place. I won’t review it here. I assume you are familiar with the story. Second point: if my writing about this bothers you, please don’t read it. I am simply trying to understand our history more perfectly. If the history of our Church is not something that has anything to do with your faith or your willingness t