Do Mormons Believe Adam Is God?

Much has been already debated on the subject of the Adam-God Theory, and it is not my intention to dive beyond my comfortable depth. Nevertheless, it is a subject that must be addressed because anti-Mormon assailants continue to promote it. In short, Brigham Young gave a sermon where he connected Adam, or Michael, as our God. Have you ever heard of this before within an official church setting? Has anyone other than a critic of the church asserted that it is official doctrine of the LDS church? In all my years I have never known any different, nor have I known anyone who has stated otherwise. Why is it then that “what I believe” has only been presented by those who do not share, nor understand, nor are friendly to my actual beliefs? In any case, I will give three brief possible ways to handle the Adam-God Theory.

The first is to say that Brigham is wrong. Adam, as in the first man who ate the fruit, is not the same being as Elohim, or Jehovah. Elohim did not transform into Adam to create Man and then later have intercourse with the Virgin Mary, as many disingenuous anti-Mormons imagine. I don’t believe this is what Brigham had in mind when he gave his sermon. Nevertheless, if by some minute chance this is what Brigham actually meant, then it is very safe to say that Brigham Young was wrong in saying it. Many Apostles have since denounced the Adam-God theory, including Mark E. Peterson and Bruce R. McConkie. In fact, there is no shortage of quotes from Brigham Young himself to contradict this theory.

Saying that Brigham Young was wrong in this instance does not make him a false prophet as many automatically conclude. For some strange reason, both members and non-members alike immediately conclude that a prophet is a false prophet upon learning about some error, or even sin, that was committed. This is contrary to the true Gospel which teaches us that there was only ever One without sin and error here on Earth, and that was Jesus Christ. That means that everyone else, including prophets must have sin and error. God calls faithful servants, not error-free servants. I have addressed some of this issue elsewhere in a piece entitled “How Can A Prophet Sin And Still Be Chosen of God?” In any case, Brigham can be wrong about something, and remain a prophet of God. All attempts to reason to the contrary are simpleminded attempts to sow doubt and discord into your own soul.

The second handling is to call it an anomaly. Perhaps he misspoke, perhaps it was misquoted, or something of that nature. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson makes this point best when he 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.[i]

In summary, maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t, either way, it is not doctrine. LDS doctrine is established when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve all teach the same thing in harmony or vote unanimously to sustain something as doctrine. Anything less does not merit the title “doctrine.” This is also addressed elsewhere in a piece I wrote entitled “What The Mormon Church Won’t Tell You.” Suffice it to say, a single prophet saying a single thing does not canonize it into official “Mormon Doctrine.” To suggest otherwise is to display a severe ignorance to the workings of the church – so severe it undermines one’s “expertise” on what the Church believes.

The third and last handling of this theory is to admit that perhaps Brigham was on to something, and we don’t understand what it is. While he did not mean it in the literal sense that the first handling covers, he may have been using titles and symbols to convey a teaching. For example, Adam is the name of the first man, but also given as a title to Noah. Many religious thinkers have referred to Noah as the “Second Adam” (while there are too many to cite, here are some of the first few sources that appear on an internet search)[ii]. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul called Jesus Christ, Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (emphasis mine). Is Paul using the name Adam literally here to imply that Christ and Adam are the exact same being? Hardly. Paul, like other Christian writers, is using the name Adam symbolically to teach some principle – and why not? We already know that the name Eve was given because it held meaning. It meant the “Mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). If Eve was given her name because it was symbolic, it follows that Adam’s name was also given with symbolism. Therefore, because ancient Apostles and modern Christian thinkers used, and continue to use, the name Adam symbolically, it permits Brigham Young to use the name Adam to teach about God – even make an equivalence similar to that of Paul.

What Brigham was trying to teach is unclear to myself personally, mostly because I do not devote much time to studying the Journal of Discourses. In any case, despite the best efforts of anti-Mormons to assert what we believe through the sheer power of ignorance, for he must ignore all evidence contrary to his simple-minded conclusion, the fact remains that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not believe Adam and God to be the exact same being. It is stated nowhere in official doctrine or cannon, Apostles and Prophets did not teach it, there is only a single phrase used to build the anti-Mormon case, and there are several explanations for this phrase which do not conclude that we believe Adam is the exact same being as our God. Anyone who persists with their illogical assertions, in light of these facts, is choosing their own stupidity and should not be taken seriously when it comes to religious affairs, or the validity of your testimony.

[i] Stephen E. Robinson, "The Exclusion by Misrepresentation". [ii]2016. Catechism Analysis: Paragraph 56, "Noah, the Second Adam". September 9. Accessed November 5, 2021. http://www.catechistcafe.com/church-history/catechism-analysis-paragraph-56-noah-the-second-adam. Drazin, Israel. 2021. Noah The Second Adam. October 6. Accessed November 5, 2021. https://booksnthoughts.com/noah-the-second-adam/. Schrock, David. 2018. Noah as a Second Adam: Eight Evidences. February 3. Accessed November 5, 2021. https://davidschrock.com/2018/02/03/__trashed-2/.