The Adam God Challenge

Once upon a time I was a member of the Mormon Church. I was converted at age 14 and ardently followed the teachings and lifestyle of Mormonism. I went to Church every Sunday, read the Book of Mormon, and had an active and productive Mormon lifestyle.

In High School, I went to Seminary, and when I turned 19 I could not wait to go on a mission. Unfortunately for me, a few months after my 19th birthday I got in a very bad motorcycle accident; which delayed my mission for two years. But I still went, even though I had serious problems with one of my legs that had gotten smashed by a car.

Legend_BYU_LogoWhen I got back, I worked for awhile and then went where many good, active Mormons went: to BYU.  I worked full time and had a full college schedule to deal with, along with my callings in the local Ward I went to in Provo.  My area of expertise was Church History, and I had made up my mind that when I graduated from BYU I was going to be a Church Historian.

I was so devout that on one occasion I turned down a date with a very beautiful girl that wanted me to take her to a movie called 48 Hours, starring Eddie Murphy. I declined because it was rated ‘R’.  So what happened?

My insatiable appetite for knowledge about Church History caught up with me.

When I first moved to Provo and started going to the “Y”, I got an apartment.  The first thing that I did was hit the local lumberyard to buy some wood to make shelves. I bought eight-foot pine boards, 1/2 an inch thick, and made myself a set of shelves to hold all of my books. It was eight feet wide and six feet high. I had a lot of books. I collected them, and I filled those bookshelves.

On weekends, I would drive all over Utah hitting bookstores to find interesting out-of-print books on Mormon History. One weekend I found myself in southern Utah in the St. George area, and walked into a bookstore that was owned by a Fundamentalist Mormon. He gave me a book by Ogden Kraut called “Michael—Adam,” written in 1938. I had a long talk with the man about the Church and remember thinking, as I left the store, that he was crazy.  When I got home I filed the book away and forgot about it.

A few months later I was preparing for a Sunday School lesson about D&C Section 27 (and the priesthood), and I spied that book about Michael. I read it with fascination, and then disbelief.  I thought, “This guy is twisting these references; they don’t say what he says they do.”  Yet most of them were in the Journal of Discourses, which I myself had referenced many times over the years.

ElizaSnowYou see, I was familiar with some of the quotes Kraut used, but didn’t understand them in context. I now had the context, and I fought it tooth and nail. I spent the next few months tracking down and verifying every quote that I could from that book. The more I searched, the more I knew that Ogden Kraut had quoted Brigham Young in proper context.  For example, consider this poem by Eliza R. Snow:

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been
Subject to sorrow in a world of sin;
Through long gradation he arose to be
Cloth’d with the Godhead’s might and majesty.
And what to him in his probative sphere,
Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?
Whate’er his offices and callings were,
He magnified them with assiduous care;

By his obedience he obtain’d the place
Of God and Father of this human race.
Life’s ultimatum, unto those that live
As saints of God, and all my pow’rs receive;
Is still the onward, upward course to tread–
To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head
Of an inheritance, a new-form’d earth,
And to their spirit-race, give mortal birth–

Give them experience in a world like this;
Then lead them forth to everlasting bliss.
Crown’d with salvation and eternal joy
Where full perfection dwells, without alloy.
(Eliza R. Snow, An Immortal, 188-89)

This places Brigham Young’s teachings about Adam in perfect context. According to Brigham Young, this was Mormonism’s Plan of Salvation. To me, it was inconceivable.

I remember how excited I was by this aspect of Mormonism (The Plan of Salvation) when I was converted, and how much my Mormon friends and I drank in things like the book “Life After Life” by Raymond Moody (it was very popular around that time), and going to Mormon productions like “Saturday’s Warriors.”

What I couldn’t wrap my mind around was what I now found Brigham Young actually teaching: that Adam… was God, the Father of our spirits, and the literal Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. For all those who say that it doesn’t make sense, well it didn’t to me back then either. But then, I wasn’t as familiar with all of Young’s teachings back then. For example, he taught,

“But the fact exists that the Father, the Divine Father, whom we serve, the God of the Universe, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits, provided this sacrifice and sent his Son to die for us; and it is also a great fact that the Son came to do the will of the Father, and he has paid the debt, in fulfillment of the scripture which says, ‘He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world!’ Is it so on any other earth? On every earth!” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:71)

Brigham YoungYes, I thought, Jesus’ Atonement covers them all. But you have to keep reading.  He then says,

“How many earths are there? I observed this morning that you may take the particles of matter composing this earth, and if they could be enumerated they would only be a beginning to the number of the creations of God; and they are continually coming into existence, and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience that we are passing through.”

That’s fine. I agreed with that. But then Young teaches,

“Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let us know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:71-72. Bold emphasis added.)

Jesus was unique only to this world! Every world has its Jesus. Every world has its Satan. And every world has its Adam & Eve, each Adam the god of that world, who falls with one of his wives and become mortal again and again, so that they might start the process to redeem the spirit children assigned to each world by giving them mortal bodies.

How does all this work? Well, Brigham Young answered it. We all become Adams. The rest of it (as I found out), Brigham Young did indeed teach as doctrine and called it a revelation from God.

This did not sit well with me and so I started asking around. I went to my Bishop which was a colossal waste of time. I went to my Stake President. Same thing. I went on Campus and received a lot more answers, but was told to keep them to myself. But I didn’t. I went back to my Stake President and demanded answers. He eventually wrote to Church Headquarters and they told him to have me read Mark E. Peterson’s book, Adam, Who Is He?

I read the book and saw that Peterson had been very deceptive in many places. For example, Peterson wrote,

“We do not know what part Michael played in the creation of this earth. President Young did not make it clear.” (Adam, Who is He?, 83)

But Brigham Young made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion. Take this example from a sermon given at General Conference, October 8, 1854 (Wilford Woodruff called this the “greatest sermon ever given to the Latter-day Saints as a people”):

“Elohim looked around upon the eternity of matter, and said to his associates, and those that he was pleased to call upon at that time for his counselors, with regard to the elements, worlds, planets, kingdoms and thrones; said he, ‘Yahovah[,] Michael, see that eternal matter on all sides, this way and that way; we have already created worlds upon worlds, shall we create another world? Yes, go and organize the elements yonder in space;’ not empty space, for there is no such thing, once in a while, [the] earth quakes, and the extensive destruction of combustible matter by fire will come nigh, making empty space for perhaps the millionth part of a second. ‘Yahovah[,] Michael, go and create a world, make it, organize it, form it; and then put upon it every thing in all the variety that you have seen, that you have been in the habit of being associated with in other worlds, of beasts, birds, fowl, fish, and every insect, and creeping thing,”– and finally, the whole eternity of element is full of life, bring it together and make of it living creatures.’

“Yahovah [and] Michael, goes and does as they are told. What I am now going to tell you, will no doubt astonish the whole of you. When Yahovah [and] Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when he had filled the earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael, or Adam, goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.” (Essential Brigham Young, 94)

That, along with other things that happened, made me realize that Brigham Young (as well as every other Mormon “prophet”) wasn’t worth following.  Many years later, I realized how much at odds the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were compared to the Bible.

Take this statement, also written by  Eliza R. Snow,

“Man is the offspring of the Gods. This is the supreme conception which gives to religion its very soul. Unless man’s divinity comes in somewhere, religion is the wretchedest humbug that ever deluded mortals. But the sublime and most primitive conception of Mormonism is that man in his essential being is divine, that he is the offspring of God–that God is indeed his Father.” (Women of Mormondom, 192)

According to the Bible, this is demonstrably false. We are only divine if and when we take on the divine nature, and become sons through adoption. (See, John 1:12-13, Colossians 1:16, John 3:10, Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 4:5-6, Ephesians 1:5, Galatians 3:26.)

Brigham Young taught that Adam was the Father of the spirits of Mankind. I challenge any Mormon to prove that he didn’t teach it, and that it can’t be clearly understood in the light of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal progression.  Here is some ammo for you all to use. I guarantee that I can rebut everything that Brian Hales tries to argue here. Good luck, if any of you dare to take the challenge.

This entry was posted in Brigham Young, Early Mormonism, God the Father and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to The Adam God Challenge

  1. johnnyboy says:

    @old man

    Thanks for the Lucifer info. I will definitely look that up.
    Also, I left you a comment in the other thread on the temple square video. Don’t think for a minute that your efforts on sites like these are in vain.

  2. grindael says:

    The LDS reaction to his teaching is in line with about everything else I have seen from the LDS addressing controversial positions in the past: deny it, excuse it, ignore it, sweep it under the rug. Young, to present LDS, could not have meant that Adam is our god in every sense of the word. It’s just not possible. Yet, his words are clear. It takes some mental contortions to work around them.

    Here is what FAIR wrote about it,

    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.

    Actually, they didn’t “reject” the Adam God “teachings”. They invented something called a “theory” which they then “rejected”. Notice Penrose’ wording. The “Church” has never formulated any “theory” or adopted Young’s teachings. Well, duh. Of course they didn’t. But the Hierarchy under Young did. This is how they get around this. Obfuscate the issue. Then Kimball ingenuously uses the same kind of rhetoric to deny what he then calls a “theory”. Notice he says “not according to the scriptures” which is fine.

    If Kimball would have just stuck with that, it would have been fine, that is what Woodruff did when he said “don’t teach the mysteries”. But Kimball then goes too far and has to lie to do it. He says “alleged to have been taught”. Well, there is no “alleged”. Young taught it. Knowing he would be caught in a lie, Kimball then tacks “theory” on the end of Adam-God. What “theory” is this? Kimball never says, he just denounces it. Others have tried to explain what the “theory” is, but have never come close. Matthew Brown of FAIR tried to do this in 2010, and never even quoted Young to any extent to do so. He never once quoted Young’s 1873 Address for example. Just totally ignored it. Brian C. Hales in his treatment only mentions the June 8, 1873 sermon in a footnote but never quotes from it. He also says,

    Additionally, the only General Authorities that openly supported Brigham Young’s teachings were Heber C. Kimball and Franklin D. Richards.

    This is untrue. They all “openly” supported it, because they sustained Young as a “prophet” every year for over 30 years. In a quorum meeting in 1860 every single church authority sided with Young (and Adam-God) against Orson Pratt. Every single one in that room, except three (Amasa Lyman & George A. Smith & Daniel H. Wells, who were sick). Woodruff said so. He said,

    Evry man in this room who has a particle of the spirit of God knows that President Young is a Prophet of God and that God sustains him and He has the Holy Spirit and his doctrins are true. and that he is qualifyed to lead the people and he has explained evry thing so plain this evening that a Child Can understand [p.428] it and yet it is no evidence to you. Nothing Can make an impression upon you. No argument can reach your understanding. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 428, January 27, 1860.)

    Who was present? Woodruff writes,

    There were Present President Young President Kimball (D H Wells sick) All of the Twelve except A. Lyman & G. A. Smith who was sick. The Presidency of the Seventies Bishop Hunter & many others. A Hymn was sung O Happy Souls who Pray. Prayer By O Hyde.

    President Young stated the object of the Meeting was to Convers upon Doctrinal Points to see if we see alike & think alike. I Pray that we may have the spirit of God to rest upon us that our minds may be upon the subject & that we may speak by the Holy spirit. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 420)

    In that meeting, Young said,

    Michael was a resurrected Being and he left Eloheem and Came to this Earth & with an im[mor]tal Body & continued so till he partook [p.427] of Earthly food and begat Children who were mortal. (Keep this to yourselves). Then they died.

    This is Adam-God, and he begat “children who were mortal, who died”. He also said the KEEP IT TO YOURSELVES, which they did. Hales even gives this quote,

    “While in the writings and expressions of President John Taylor we have discovered no direct statement confirming the ‘Adam-God’ doctrine taught by Brigham Young”

    Yet in that same meeting in 1860 Woodruff writes,

    Elder John Taylor spoke at some length and tried to Convince Orson Pratt of his Error.

    Like with polygamy, they must jump through hoops in order to make a case against Adam God. They will never quote extensively, and they will always try and obfuscate the evidence.

    What error? In disagreeing with Young’s doctrines. Here is Taylor supporting Young and Adam God.

  3. Mike R says:

    grindael, great job . When I first read about this doctrine many years ago I was stunned that
    the alleged leader of Jesus’ church could publically teach it to his flock repeatedly . Then I
    observed that those officers under him gave testimony to it’s validity . Then after seeing all
    their inner witness bolstering this new doctrine , to see how Mormon authorities after Young
    dealt with it was equally bad . They usually resorted to denying that he ever taught such a thing ,
    another inner witness . But it seems after the research in the last 20 years or so it looks like now
    the weight of evidence is enough to cause some knowledgeable Mormons to admit that Young
    did in fact believe and teach it BUT it does’nt matter to them because it does’nt affect their
    salvation , etc. This rationale may appease some for a while . It’s a good diversion .
    In these latter days prophets/apostles who mimic the claims of Jesus’ true apostles in hopes of
    convincing people to follow them , and thus accept their new truths about God , are not a
    surprising problem because Jesus for- warned of such counterfeit prophets [ Mk 13:22-23 ] .
    Mormon prophets are such prophets , and Brigham Young is a classic example of why sincere
    people who desire to follow Jesus need to avoid him and those who have succeeded him .
    The Mormon people deserve better .

  4. falcon says:

    Did I ask this before?
    Where does the Egyptian Fertility god Min fit into all of this Adam-God doctrine. I mean the Min-ster was featured prominently in that all time great spiritual revelation the BoA. After all Joseph Smith did represent his latest flavor of the month god in this manner.
    You know, once an LDS person gets knowledge of the things “revealed” on this blog, aren’t they obligated to leave the “one true church”. They have to assume some responsibility at the point they get the knowledge/information, don’t they?

    ……………….and I’m waiting for my graphic representation of the Adam-God doctrine to make its way here. Can anyone really visually display this mess?

  5. grindael says:


    They didn’t just deny it publicly. They denied that he taught a “Theory”. Here is what Franklin D. Richards and Jos. F. Smith said about Adam-God [The context of this is that they were being hammered by the Reorganized Church Missionaries over Adam-god],

    Brigham Young Jr. Journal,

    Salt Lake City Thurs Dec 16th 1897

    Meeting at 11 am in Temple

    Pres W.[oodruff], Geo Q [Cannon], Jos F S.[Smith], L.S.[now], F D R[Richards], B [Young, Jr.], J[ohn] H[enry] S[mith], Geo T.[easdale], H J G[rant] A [H] Lund present. Question on ceremony of marriage sealing. Couples who have never had their endowments; do their children need to be sealed to them in the Temple when they come to have their endowments. Answer No. It is all done. Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with Josephites or any one else. Gave in my report on Bluff, that city will be maintained for the present; . . .(Brigham Young, Jr. “Journal”, Apr 4, 1897 – Feb 2, 1899 Journal, Volume 30: page 107. Church Historical Dept, Ms/f/326. Dec 16th 1897.)

    Franklin D. Richards Diary,

    December, THURSDAY 16, 1897, a pleasant cold day. . . . At 11 at Council with WW GQC &JFS—LS, FDR, BY, J.H.S., G.T., HJG, AH Lund. After investigation it was decided by Pres. WW that children (of parents who are sealed but not Endowed) are born in the cov.t & need not to be sealed to their parents, and voted by all present.

    Letter & Article by E. H. Nye was read & highly approved but no action as to the dealing with Adam our F. & God subject.

    December, FRIDAY 17, 1897, A clear cold day. Drafted a letter for President Ephraim H. Nye 915 Golden Gate Avenue Fran. Cal.

    December, SATURDAY 18, 1897, a clear cold day. Sent Prest E. H. Nye letter of Decision of Council about and approving his Article to the Fresno— Republican & a copy of Prest Youngs remarks about Adam our Father as contained in Vol 1 of Journal of Discourses. (Journal of Franklin D. Richards; Ms/f/318/ Reel #7.)

    Here is the letter to Nye that they sent, (APPROVED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND Q12], Now think of the implications of that. And how no Mormon Apologists EVER address these things,

    S.L. City Dec 18, 1897

    President E. H. Nye, [Mission President in California]
    915 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, Cal.

    Dear Brother—

    On receipt of your letter of the 4th inst., I conferred with Prest. Joseph F. Smith, and we concluded to present the matter to the Council of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Both your letters to me, and the Article to the Fresno Republican, were read. Each of the Presidency and several of the Apostles expressed themselves well pleased with your article, that it evinced skill and valor for the Truth, and they did not see how it could be much improved. The Council did not deem it wise to lay out any line of procedure in which to deal with the subject, but felt that it is best to avoid bringing it up, and to do the best we can and as the Spirit may suggest when it is thrust upon us.

    Your having [“]got[“] so many of the Josephites was received with marks of particular pleasure. This, like many other points of more advanced doctrine, is too precious a pearl to be cast before swine. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can. Thinking it may be convenient to you to have President Young’s sayings on that subject, I enclose a copy from his sermon in the first Volume of the Journal of Discourses.

    We have been getting quite a streak of winter weather. . .(Letter of F. D. Richards, Richards Family Collection, Franklin Dewey Richards Letterbook; Ms/f/318/reel 11; Dec 18, 1897)

    Note: Parts of Richard’s Diaries are still restricted by the Church. (as per D. Michael Quinn).

    They had all decided this in 1897. By 1903 they used Charles Penrose the Newspaperman to draft up what he called “The Adam God Theory”. It was something they called Young’s teachings but never explained what they meant by it. This way, they could get out of condemning the “too precious to cast before swine” doctrine that Young taught, and denounce the fictional “theory” they invented.

    Kind of makes you sick, doesn’t it?

  6. falcon says:

    I believe this is what is known as “spin”.
    It’s been said that people cross the line separating reality and fantasy when they start believing their own spin. The LDS church crossed that line a long time ago. The members who are loyal to their leaders swallow the spin without question because to question the leadership is to question the Mormon god himself.
    We wonder why the Mormon posters who show-up here give us explanations that even a five year old wouldn’t believe. That’s the effect of having given one’s self over completely to a belief that can’t be substantiated in any meaningful way and in fact can be taken apart without a whole lot of effort.
    I don’t know if we should pity these folks or not. I’ve never “thought” Mormon and never been in what could be described as a mind-control cult so it’s difficult to relate to the mind-set.
    It really is a case of spiritual bondage.

  7. shematwater says:

    “I challenge any Mormon to prove that he didn’t teach it”

    I would like to point out that this challenge is impossible to answer; not because it is proven that Brigham Young did teach this, but because it is impossible to prove he didn’t regardless. In this you are using a Negative Proof. This is just a brief explanation of what a Negative proof is.

    “A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of: X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
    If the only evidence for something’s existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof…is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence…
    One important element to remember in regards to negative proof is that once positive evidence has been presented the burden shifts to the skeptic to refute the evidence presented.”

    So, to be an honest challenge you would first present the evidence that he did teach this, and than make a challenge of refuting that evidence. This is, by the way, what my methods have been from the beginning. I wait for you to offer proof, and than I refute it.

    In regards to what you have written on this thread, only two quotes are given that even speak to the challenge. The first is a poem by Eliza Snow. While you make the claim that this proves Brigham Young taught this, these are not his words, nor are they the words of anyone holding any authority to teach doctrine. The other I have refuted in other threads as in that discourse he clearly tells us he is giving his opinions and not giving doctrine.

  8. Jarron21 says:

    I feel like some of you have way to much time on your hands. maybe get a hobby, hey it is football season! join a fantasy team. Juts joking y’all!

    For real though why do you spend so much time worrying about a religon that you are not a member of?

  9. grindael says:

    So, to be an honest challenge you would first present the evidence that he did teach this, and than make a challenge of refuting that evidence. This is, by the way, what my methods have been from the beginning. I wait for you to offer proof, and than I refute it.

    I have provided evidence that he did teach it Shem. You, of course ignore it and are trying to create a lame way of getting out of proving that he didn’t teach it. Nice try, but you have spit all over your face.

  10. Mike R says:

    Jarron21, you said , ” For real though why do you spend so much time worrying about a
    religion that you are not a member of ? ”

    No one here is ” worrying” , but we are concerned for you . Jesus warned us all to be alert for
    false prophets arising in the latter days . So we are reminding people not to be misled by the
    latter days prophets of Mormonism .

    But more than that is the fact that this religion as you call it sends missionaries to my door
    to tell me that many of my beliefs are false and that my church is part of what constitutes the
    church of the Devil in these latter days . I have to defend my faith against these accusations .
    Is that clear enough ?
    Come on Jarron , please wake up .

  11. shematwater says:


    As I pointed out, in this particular thread you gave only two quotes that in any way deal with the challenge you made. The first, as it doesn’t even reference Brigham Young, is hardly proof of anything. It may be called an indicator, but not proof.
    As to the second, in this discourse he stated at least 7 times that he was speaking his opinion and at least once that we shouldn’t bother ourselves at all regarding it. So, all you have proven is that Brigham Young had some opinions that were a bit out their, but you have failed to prove that he ever tought tham as doctrine.

    As to my point on your challenge, while you did provide some minor evidence, your challenge was not for anyone to refute that evidence. Your challenge was clearly for others to present evidence of a negative statement; and you even said you would refute the evidence they provided.
    So, what I said regarding your challenge still stands. Your challenge, as it is stated, cannot be answered because you are demanding proof that something didn’t happen, which is impossible.


    Personally I have often wondered the same thing. I know I am here primarily because I enjoy it, despite how annoying some people can be. In a way this is my hobby. I also think that information that is presented regarding any faith should be as accurate as possible, and so I correct any errors I find.

  12. grindael says:

    As to the second, in this discourse he stated at least 7 times that he was speaking his opinion and at least once that we shouldn’t bother ourselves at all regarding it. So, all you have proven is that Brigham Young had some opinions that were a bit out their, but you have failed to prove that he ever tought tham as doctrine.

    I already answered this, and you never responded, remember? So do so now, respond to every one of these points… Here is my already made reply…

    When you stop being a liar and an idiot I will stop calling you out as one. Fair deal.

    Wow Shem, you must be desperate. That is all you have? I’m enjoying getting you all worked up because it only shows how much of a fool you are. We know who the liar is here. Let’s PROVE IT AGAIN, as I have done so many times before. Let’s examine why Young used those terms. He did so, because it was his vernacular. But first, Brigham published this in the Deseret News in 1873, a few years before he died, which blows your pet “theory” out of the water. Ready?

    “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God.” (Deseret News, June 18, 1873.)

    Young explicitly states that Adam God is a REVELATION. He also said,

    “Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism from [sic.] the dead instead Joseph Smith there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb as*.” Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young. Watt, G.D., transcriber, October 8, 1861.

    Young is calling you and everyone who doesn’t believe this was a revelation a dumb as*. If the shoe fits, Shem. 🙂 There is nothing that you can say to deny this. So shut up. You are a fool. As for Young vernacular,

    Brigham Young often referred to himself as a “Yankee guesser” and on one rare occasion when he was waxing prophetic about being prepared for future calamity said,

    “I do not care whether anybody believes it or not, it makes no difference to me. I am a Yankee; I guess things, and very frequently guess right. JOD Vol. 12, May 26, 1867.

    Young could almost be called a reluctant prophet since he was very leery of being compared with his mentor and idol, Joseph Smith in this regard. In 1857 Young spoke of the church as being the Kingdom that Daniel spoke of, and said that “I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don’t profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser.” JOD Vol. 5, July 26, 1857, page 77.

    Yet in the same discourse he said,

    Why I testify of these things is because they are revealed to me, and not to another for me. They were not revealed to Joseph Smith for me. He had the keys to get visions and revelations, dreams and manifestations, and the Holy Ghost for the people. Those keys were committed to him; and through that administration, blessed be the name of God, I have received the spirit of Christ Jesus which is the spirit of prophecy. ibid, pages 75-76

    When the cornerstones of the Salt Lake Temple were laid in April, 1853 Brigham Young told the gathered “saints”:

    I do not like to prophesy much, I never do, but I will venture to guess, that this day, and the work we have performed on it, will long be remembered by this people, and be sounded as with a trumpet’s voice throughout the world, as far, as loud, and as long as steam, wind, and the electric current can carry it. It is a day in which all the faithful will rejoice in all time to come. JOD Vol. 1, April 6, 1853, page 132

    Even though Young called himself a Yankee guesser, he viewed himself as far more than that. In the same discourse he said,

    I do know it is the duty of this people to commence to build a Temple. Now, some will want to know what kind of a building it will be. Wait patiently, brethren, until it is done, and put forth your hands willingly to finish it. I know what it will be. I am not a visionary man, neither am I given much to prophesying. When I want any of that done I call on brother Heber—he is my Prophet, he loves to prophesy, and I love to hear him. I scarcely ever say much about revelations, or visions, but suffice it to say, five years ago last July I was here, and saw in the Spirit the Temple not ten feet from where we have laid the Chief Cornerstone. I have not inquired what kind of a Temple we should build. Why? Because it was represented before me. I have never looked upon that ground, but the vision of it was there. I see it as plainly as if it was in reality before me…JOD Vol. 1, April 6, 1853, pages 133-4.

    He said he guessed about the Temple, but actually said he saw it in vision. Young may not have been prone to prophecy, but he was well aware of his calling to teach correct doctrine:

    “It is my duty to see that correct doctrine is taught and to guard the Church from error, it is my calling.” [..] (Minutes of Council of the Twelve in upper room of Historian’s Office, April 4, 1860,” Thomas Bullock, scribe, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.)

    As for doctrine, Young also said that a person could be a real disciple without having visions [..] but that person could not be a “special witness’ to the doctrine he believes in as Brigham Young was. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p.208, February 16, 1856) Now, about that word reckon. Matthew Brown from FAIR tried the same argument as you. You forgot to mention some things that Young said in that discourse, which leads me to believe you never read the whole thing or you are being purposefully deceptive. Well, Brown lied in his presentation about Adam God too, and he is simply wrong like you are.

    For those that don’t know, Matthew Brown is a Mormon author and historian whose emphasis is on the history and doctrine of Joseph Smith and his successors through Brigham Young. He acted as the compiler and editor of the journal for the The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) which they claim “is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice” from January to September 2010. He worked for FAIR.

    What Mr. Brown did not do, (OR SHEM) is reveal what Young said close to the opening of this address, where he stated:

    “I feel inclined here to make a little scripture. (Were I under necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Brother Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss; he would make a scripture for them to suit the case, that never was in the Bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an Apostle or one of the Prophets. The Elder would then say, “Please turn to that scripture gentlemen, and read it for yourselves.” No they could (p. 7) not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught). I will venture to make a little.“

    He also said:

    “I will tell you what I believe still further than this, though I do not pretend to say that the ITEMS OF DOCTRINE, and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know, or that they should give themselves any trouble about them whatever.”

    Though Young did not deem the items of Doctrine that he was discussing that afternoon necessary for the people to know right then, and that they should not trouble themselves about them ” immediately”, that still did not mean that Young was implying that the items were NOT true, or that they were NOT revealed from God. He is simply implying that some were not ready to receive them, and he knew it, but that he was going to indulge them anyway. One recalls here, that Joseph Smith did the same thing with polygamy, and only revealed the principle to a chosen few, and NEVER had it ratified by the Church in his lifetime. It did not make the principle any less true for Smith, or any less a revelation claimed by him to come from God.

    This is the key to understanding Young’s entire discourse. This is what many modern Latter-day Saints fail to understand about Joseph Smith and Young in particular, that the Mormons in Smith and Young’s time, truly believed that when they spoke, they spoke with the authority of apostles and prophets and that their words were scripture. A revelation being scripture, is a far cry from having it ratified and made binding upon the entire Church. Because it is not, does not make it any less a revelation, as Young claimed that Adam-god was. Young has said this on more than one occasion, but never as clear as the above, where he tells the congregation that he is going to MAKE a little scripture. Then, he proceeds to lay out the case for Adam-god. Whatever ‘rhetoric’ he used….it doesn’t really matter if he says, I guess this, or I reckon that. He already said he was going to ‘make a little scripture’ and that should be enough for ALL to realize Young was telling his audience to take these words very seriously.

    And Young, before he even gets to the deep part of the discourse, says this: “Now to know the only wise God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, will put the man, the woman, congregation, or nation in possession of eternal life.”
    Back to Matthew Brown:

    “And what did Brigham Young admit that he was guessing about in this sermon? The very elements of the Adam–God Theory that are the most problematic. Here is what he said:

    ● “I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives.”
    ● “I reckon our spirits and all the spirits of the human family were begotten by Adam,and born of Eve.”
    ● “I reckon that Adam . . . himself planted [the Garden of Eden].”

    The bottom line is that the core principles of the Adam–God Theory were simply Brigham Young guessing or reckoning.” (Brown, op. cited)

    But is this exactly true? One must read the discourse to know. And what else did Young ‘reckon’? He reckoned this also (which Brown (AND SHEM) failed to mention):

    1. “ I reckon that all things were first made spiritual preparatory to the natural organization.”
    2. ”I reckon the Father has been through all this.”
    3. “ Then I reckon that the children of Adam and Eve married each other”
    4. “I reckon that Father Adam, and Mother Eve had the children of the human family prepared to come here and take bodies; and when they came to take bodies, they entered into the bodies prepared for them; and that body gets exaltation with the spirit, when they are prepared to be crowed in Father’s kingdom.”

    These four points, which Young also said ‘he reckoned’ about, are well taught and part of revealed doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, and contained in Mormon Scripture. Interesting, that Brown (or SHEM) does not mention them at all.

    Point 1: All things were first made spiritual preparatory to being made temporally. Taught by Smith and written in a letter by him in 1842, and canonized in section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

    “Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as are the records on the earth in relation to your dead, which are truly made out, so also are the records in heaven. This, therefore, is the sealing and binding power, and, in one sense of the word, the keys of the kingdom, which consist in the key of knowledge.”

    Young here uses the word ‘reckon’ in front of this teaching, which is confirmed in scripture. Was he ‘guessing’ this too? Of course he wasn’t. Shem’s argument comes from total lack of knowledge about Brigham Young and Mormon Doctrine. Bubble Denial for sure.

    Point 2: The Father has been through this. Read Smith’s King Follett Discourse, which is recognized as a DOCTRINE of the Church. Was Young ‘guessing’ this too?

    Point 3. Then, the Children of Adam married each other. Right out of Genesis. Was Young ‘guessing’ here too?

    Point 4. The doctrine of the pre-existence, and how men come here to take bodies to get ‘exaltation’. Was Young ‘guessing’ this important doctrine also? No. It was established. So why did he use that exact expression? It was the way he spoke.

    Young did say that these matters he was relating were not immediately necessary for the Saints to worry about in that setting. There were gentiles there. There were unbelievers there. But Young also emphasized that it was ‘eternal life’ to KNOW WHO GOD WAS. That is necessary, according to the scriptures themselves and proclaimed by Smith in his Follett Sermon.

    This sermon was couched in this kind of language because Young was being cautious with doctrine he thought ‘too precious’ to be “cast before swine.” In one instance, Young remarked:

    “[There] is not a contradictory thing in what I have said. .. . If I have said anything that the people were not worthy of,” he confessed, “I have prayed that it might be forgotten. I have prayed fervently when Orson published the sealing ordinance that it might be forgotten.” (As quoted in The Orson Pratt – Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quroums, 1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera,Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, July 1980, pages 26-27, emphasis mine)

    This concept of Young’s that some ‘were not worthy’ of some doctrines is crucial in understanding Adam-god, and why Young only taught it selectively, and sometimes in public, taught about God in the general terms that are used by Mormons today. Nevertheless, this doctrine was accepted and affirmed by all the authorities of the Church except Orson Pratt (who eventually came around with the threat of excommunication) and possibly Amasa Lyman (who didn’t think that Christ was divine).

    And Young is ON RECORD, published to the world in 1873 that Adam God was a “REVELATION” direct from God. Thanks for admitting he taught this, now you know it was a revelation. Who looks foolish now, Shem?

  13. grindael says:

    As to my point on your challenge, while you did provide some minor evidence, your challenge was not for anyone to refute that evidence. Your challenge was clearly for others to present evidence of a negative statement; and you even said you would refute the evidence they provided.

    And you have provided NONE that he did NOT teach it AS A REVELATION FROM GOD, which is the point. You can whine all you want, but if you do not show that Young DID NOT teach it, then we will assume he did, because you CANNOT prove he did not. So all your blather about “negative statements” is just that, blather. Why don’t you start with what I just provided (which you never addressed) and we will go from there.

    But I bet you can’t, won’t, and will have no satisfactory answers except your own “opinions” which are truly worthless.

  14. grindael says:

    I have shown where he stated that it was his opinion that he had reasoned these things out himself. I have shown that he stated directly that none of it really matter, as he was merely gratifying his own desire to speak about it, as well as the curiosity of others. These statements are ignored by you and white washed by Grindeal.

    You have shown no such thing, only that you don’t know how to spell my name. As a matter of fact, I’ve proven you totally wrong, but you have ignored it and not responded to it, AGAIN. All that you do is repeat the same old lines over and over again that mean nothing. So really, Shem, go crawl back into your bubble, and stop wasting our time with your lame opinions, they really show how little you know about Mormonism. And while you are at it, think on this discourse by Brigham Young, who taught in it that Adam was indeed God and said it was a REVELATION from God to him: (so whether you or anyone else accept it or not makes no difference at all):

    I wanted to make a few remarks upon the subject touched upon by my brother, [Joseph] but I shall not have the time. I frequently think, in my meditations, how glad we should be to instruct the world with regard to the things of God, if they would hear, and receive our teachings in good and honest hearts and profit by them. I have been found fault with a great many times for casting reflections upon men of science, and especially upon theologians, because of the little knowledge they possess about man being on the earth, about the earth itself, about our Father in heaven, his Son Jesus Christ, the order of heavenly things, the laws by which angels exist, by which the worlds were created and are held in existence, &c. How pleased we would be to place these things before the people if they would receive them! How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, AND WHICH GOD REVEALED TO ME–namely that ADAM IS OUR FATHER AND GOD–I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.

    Is it a great mystery that the earth exists? Is it a great mystery, that the world can not solve, that man is on the earth? Yes, it is; but to whom? To the ignorant—those who know nothing about it. It is no mystery to those who understand. Is it a mystery to the Christian world that Jesus is the Son of God, and still the son of man? Yes it is, it is hidden from them, and this fulfils the Scripture—“If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost,” who have no faith, and who pay no attention to the Spirit of God. These things are called mysteries by the people because they know nothing about them, just like laying hand on the sick. Is it a mystery that fever should be rebuked and the sick healed by the laying of the hands of a man who is endowed with authority from God and has been ordained to that gift? “Oh yes,” say the ignorant, “we know nothing about it,” That is true, but where is the mystery?

    Will the ignorant [Shem] receive the truth when they hear it? No, they will not, and this is their condemnation, that light has come into the world, and they choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. That is the fact in the case. What is the mystery about it? They do not understand invisible things. Ask the wicked, “Do you know anything about the laying on of hands?” “oh yes, such a man”—a man who is wicked in his whole life—“has the art of laying on hands for the curing the tooth—ache, fevers, wounds,” &c.; and now, in fulfillment of the words of the ancient prophet, thousands of people seek unto “wizards who peep and mutter,” &c., but they will not seek unto the living God. I can say to all the inhabitants of the earth that before what is called spiritualism was ever known in America I told the people that if they would not believe the revelations that God had given he would suffer the devil to give revelations that they—priests and people—would follow after. Where did I declare this? In the cities of New York, Albany, Boston, throughout the United States and in England. Have I told the people that as true as God lived, if they would not have the truth they would have error sent unto them, and they would believe it. What is the mystery of it?

    The Christian world read of, and think much about, St. Paul, also St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles. These men were faithful to and magnified the priesthood while on the earth. Now, where will be the mystery, after they have passed through all the ordeals, and have been crowned and exalted, and received their inheritances in the eternal worlds of glory, for them to be sent forth, as the Gods have been for ever and ever, with the command–”Make yourselves an earth and people it with your own children?”

    Do you think the starry heavens are going to fall? Do the Christian world or the heathen world think that all things are going to be wrapped up, consumed, and annihilated in eternal flames? Oh fools, and slow to heart to believe the great things that God has purposed in his own mind!

    My brother said that God is as we are. He did not mean those words to be literally understood. He meant simply, that in our organization we have all the properties in embryo in our bodies that our Father has in his, and that literally, morally, socially, by the spirit and by the flesh we are his children. Do you think that God, who holds the eternities in his hands and can do all things at his pleasure, it not capable of sending forth his own children, and forming this flesh for his own offspring? Where is the mystery in this? We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim: Go ye and make an earth.” What is the great mystery about it? He came and formed the earth.

    Geologists tell us that it was here millions of years ago. How do they know? Adam found it in a state of chaos, unorganized and incomplete. Philosophers, again, in talking of the development of the products of the earth, for instance, in the vegetable kingdom, say the little fibres grew first, then the larger vegetation. When this preparatory stage was completed then came the various orders of the animal creation; and finally man appeared. No matter whether these notions are true or not, they are more or less speculative.

    Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business. Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. “Well,” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam?” He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, “I WANT MY CHILDREN WHO ARE IN THE SPIRIT WORLD TO COME AND LIVE HERE. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was faithful, I RECEIVED MY CROWN AND EXALTATION. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children THAT WERE BORN TO ME IN THE SPIRIT WORLD to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?

    Now for mother Eve. The evil principle always has and always will exist. Well, a certain character came along, and said to Mother Eve, “The Lord has told you that you must not do so and so, for if you do you shall surely die. But I tell you that if you do not do this you will never know good from evil, your eyes will never be opened, and you may live on the earth forever and ever, and you will never know what the Gods know.” The devil told the truth, what is the mystery about it? He is doing it today. He is telling one or two truths and mixing them with a thousand errors to get the people to swallow them. I do not blame Mother Eve, I would not have had her miss eating the forbidden fruit for anything in the world. I would not give a groat if I could not understand light from darkness. I can understand the bitter from the sweet, so can you. Here is intelligence, but bind it up and make machines of its possessors, and where is the glory or exaltation? There is none.

    They must pass through the same ordeals as the Gods, that they may know good from evil, how to succor the tempted, tried and weak, and how to reach down the hand of mercy to save the falling sinner. The Lord has revealed his gospel and instituted its ordinances that the inhabitants of the earth may be put in possession of eternal life. But few of them, however, will accept it. [Like Shem] I have preached it to many thousands of them who are naturally just as honest as I am, but through tradition there is an overwhelming prejudice in their minds which debars them of that liberty I have in my heart. They would be glad to know the ways of God, and to know how Jesus is, and to reap the reward of the faithful, if they had the stamina, I will call it, the independence of mind necessary to embrace the truth, to say, “I know this is true, and if there is no other person on the face of this earth who will defend it, I will to the last.” But this is not in their hearts, it is not in their organization, consequently they do not manifest it. What mystery is there about it?

    None whatever. What is the mystery in Jesus being the Son of God and at the same time the son of the Virgin Mary? You know what the infidels say about this, but their words are no worse than the practice of many in the Christian world.

    I do not want to be found fault with, but if I am it is all the same to me. There is no mystery to me in WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED TO ME, or in what I have learned, whether it has been through Joseph, an angel, the voice of the Spirit, the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of the Lord; no matter how I have learned a thing, if I understand it perfectly it is no mystery to me. It is like making one of these pulpits, or a house like this. This is no mystery to me, I dictated it, and a great many say it is a great piece of architecture to have a single span, so large as this roof and composed of wood that will sustain itself. But it is no mystery to me. I know the strength of the materials and how to place them together. It is no mystery to me to build a temple or a common house. But you take a gentleman or lady who was never beyond the confines of a densely populated city, who never saw wheat grow, and who never saw cattle in the fields, and it is a great mystery to them to see them. Why? Because they never saw such things before, and they know nothing about them; but it is no mystery to those who know all about such things.

    Do you think it any mystery to angels to know how the various organizations are brought on earth? Not the least in the world. There is no mystery in all this to the Gods, no mystery in them to the prophets and apostles whom they send, and to whom they reveal them; it is all plain, everyday common sense, just as much so as with anything else in the world—we understand it.

    Some may say to me, “Why, Brother Brigham, you seem to know it all.” I say, Oh no, I know but very little, but I have an eternity of knowledge before me, and I never expect to see the time when I shall cease to learn, never, no never, but I expect to keep on learning for ever and ever, going on from exaltation to exaltation, glory to glory, power to power, ever pressing forward to greater and higher attainments, as the Gods do. This is an idea that drowns the whole Christian world in a moment. Let them try to entertain it and they are out of sight of land without a ship, and if they had a ship it would have neither sail, rudder nor compass.

    “What,” say they, “God progress?” Now, do not lariat the God that I serve and say that he can not learn any more; I do not believe in such a character. “Why,” say they, “does not the Lord know it all?” Well if he does, he must know an immense amount. No matter about that, the mind of man does not reach that any more than it comprehends the heaven beyond the bounds of time and space in which the Christians expect to sit and sing themselves away to everlasting bliss, and where they say they shall live for ever and for ever.

    If we look forward we can actually comprehend a little of the idea that we shall live for ever and for ever; but you take a rear-sight, and try and contemplate and mediate upon the fact that there never was a beginning and you are lost at once. The present and the future we can comprehend some little about, but the past is all a blank, and it is right and reasonable that it should be so. But if we are faithful in the things of God whey will open up, open up, open up, our minds will expand, reach forth and receive more and more, and by and by we can begin to see that the Gods have been for ever and for ever.

    Some philosophers have tried to reveal the first cause. I would change the position of the whole affair. I would plant my position in the ignorance of man that undertakes to prove or show the existence of a first cause. He had better go to work and prove himself a fool to begin with and then stop, for all his reasonings, arguments and researches with regard to the first cause only prove that he is a fool. Excuse me for this rough expression, perhaps it would be better to say that he comes far short of knowing or understanding himself in the least degree that he is lost in ignorance of himself. Is this the fact? It is. We can know nothing until we learn it, and when we come to a knowledge of facts they are no mystery to us.

    Take one of these native Navajo women down south here into a factory and show her the machinery for weaving blankets, and if she has never seen anything of the kind she would laugh at such nonsense. Says she, “That is not the way to weave blankets, why do you not tie your web up to the limb of a tree, fasten the other end down, and then take a stick and do just so? That will never weave a blanket.” By and by she sees the blanket finished, but it is a mystery to her, and she can not understand anything about it, because she has not learned it. It is so with the whole human family.

    You will excuse me for detaining you a little longer than usual. I wanted to ask the brethren and sisters if they did not think my brother, Joseph Young, pretty good. He is nearly seventy-seven years of age and had a severe sickness last winter. Do you not think he is pretty hale, and doing pretty well? I think he is. I like to see him here. I know that he has been trying to tell the people with regard to the things of God for fifty years past. If I were to live and learn as I have for forty years past—since I have been in this church—for a thousand years, I should only have just commenced to learn the great lesson of eternity.

    I do hope and pray—and I want you to listen how I shape this prayer, instead of praying to my Father in heaven in the name of Jesus to make you and me faithful—I pray that we Latter-day Saints may be faithful to the covenants we have entered into with our Heavenly Father and with one another, and to live our holy religion., for we do know how. I need not ask the Father to make us faithful any more than I need ask him to come and sow our wheat for us, not a particle, for we know all about it. Be faithful, do right and live so as to be worthy of life everlasting. Amen. (Deseret News, Vol. 22, No. 308, June 18, 1873. Brigham Young; discourse delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873. Reported by David W. Evans).

    There are no “I reckon’s” or anything else that can be construed by the ignorant as opinion in this discourse. He also had it published to the world.

  15. Mike R says:

    grindael, thanks for posting that . This doctrine is an excellent example of why those who are
    investigating the Mormon church should look into . This doctrine is absolutely terrible . But it
    is’nt all that surprising when one considers some of the other things that Mormon leaders have
    taught about God . They have truly drifted from their original creed concerning God , and have
    drifted into apostasy .
    Brigham Young was one Mormon official that believed that Adam was the father of the spirits
    of mankind was truth and so he taught it accross the pulpit . I have no doubt that current
    Mormon leadership believe in Adam God but feel the time is not yet right to take it off of the
    shelf of ” advanced doctrines ” produced by their past colleagues and finish what they
    started to teach the flock . But this could happen soon .
    The Mormon people deserve better . May they come to see that their leaders are some of the
    very ones that Jesus warned everyone about would come in the latter days —-Matt 24: 11.

  16. grindael says:

    Where is Shem’s detailed response to Adam-God? I’m sure it went right over his head, but the OP was never intended as a comprehensive essay on Young’s “revelation” about Adam. That is what the discussion part of this is all about, so we see that Shem’s argument falls apart from another angle. But since I have provided what he asked for, where is he?

    I’m sure he will have direct and succinct answers for all of us, won’t you Shem? You will, won’t you Shem? Shem?

    Anyone in the Mormon Community? Anyone?

    Thought not.

Leave a Reply