FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief, and practice.
El Mormonismo y la doctrina/Conceptos repudiados/Teoría de Adán-Dios
Revisión del 16:14 21 abr 2019 de RogerNicholson
Teoría de Adán-Dios de Brigham Young
Saltar a subtema:
- Pregunta: ¿Qué es la Teoría de Adán-Dios?
- Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la historia de la teoría de Adán-Dios de Brigham Young y por qué fue rechazada por la Iglesia?
- Stephen E. Robinson: "Otra forma en la que los críticos anti-mormones menudo tergiversan la doctrina mormona es en la presentación de anomalías como si fueran la doctrina de la Iglesia"
- Matthew Brown (2009): "Brigham Young repitió estas ideas y expuso sobre ellos durante los próximos 25 años. Sus puntos de vista se han clasificado vario como doctrina, teoría, la paradoja, la herejía, la especulación, y algunos de los misterios"
- Pregunta: Si la doctrina de Adán-Dios no es verdadera, ¿cómo es que D. y C. 27:11 llama a Adán el Anciano de los Días que claramente es un título para Dios en Daniel 7?
- Pregunta: ¿Qué intentos se han hecho para reconciliar la Teoría de Adán-Dios con las doctrinas de la Iglesia?
- Pregunta: ¿Alguna vez se enseñó la teoría del "Dios Adán" como parte de la ceremonia de investidura del templo como algo llamado "la conferencia en el velo"?
Pregunta: ¿Qué es la Teoría de Adán-Dios?
Brigham Young enseñó que Adán, el primer hombre, era Dios el Padre
Brigham Young enseñó que Adán, el primer hombre, era Dios el Padre. Desde esta enseñanza va en contra de la historia narrada en el Génesis y comúnmente aceptada por los cristianos, los críticos acusan a Brigham de ser un falso profeta. También, porque modernas Santos de los Últimos Días no creen enseñanzas "Adán-Dios" de Brigham, los críticos acusan a los mormones ya sea cambiando sus enseñanzas o rechazar las enseñanzas de los profetas que encuentran incómodo o insoportable.
Brigham nunca desarrolló la enseñanza en algo que se podría conciliarse con SUD Escrituras y presentado como doctrina oficial
Brigham Young parece haber creído y enseñado Adán-Dios, pero él nunca desarrolló la enseñanza en algo que se podría conciliarse con LDS Escrituras y presentado como doctrina oficial. Por lo tanto, simplemente no sabemos qué significaba Brigham Young, y los líderes modernos nos han advertido acerca de aceptar las explicaciones tradicionales de Adán-Dios. Dado que la Iglesia ha rechazado, no vamos a ser capaces de responder a la pregunta hasta que el Señor considere oportuno para revelar más sobre él.
La posición oficial de la Iglesia es que Adán-Dios no es la doctrina de la Iglesia
Independientemente de que se acercan al lector prefiere aceptar, la posición oficial de la Iglesia de de Adán-Dios es clara: como se entiende popularmente, Adán-Dios (es decir, "Adán, el primer hombre, era idéntica a Elohim / Dios Padre") no es la doctrina de la Iglesia. Si hay partículas de la verdad a cualquier cosa que rodea a la doctrina de Adán-Dios, uno esperaría que esas cosas que armonizan con lo que ya ha sido revelado. Sólo más revelación del Señor ungido podría aclarar muchos puntos que rodean esa doctrina.
Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la historia de la teoría de Adán-Dios de Brigham Young y por qué fue rechazada por la Iglesia?
Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the Journal of Discourses, the Deseret Evening News, and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. Many of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while some have engendered controversy.
He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.
Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:
- Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
- Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
- Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
- Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.
Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith. While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.)
The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.
Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.
Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church
As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.
One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.
In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:
We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.
Profesor de la Universidad Brigham Young, Stephen E. Robinson escribió:
Otra forma en la que los críticos anti-mormones menudo tergiversan la doctrina mormona es en la presentación de anomalías como si fueran la doctrina de la Iglesia. Las anomalías se producen en todos los campos de la actividad humana, ni siquiera en la ciencia. Una anomalía es algo inesperado que no puede ser explicado por las leyes o teorías existentes, pero que no constituye evidencia para cambiar las leyes y teorías. Una anomalía es una falla .... Un ejemplo clásico de una anomalía en la tradición mormona es la llamada "teoría de Adán-Dios." Durante la segunda mitad del siglo XIX Brigham Young hizo algunas observaciones sobre la relación entre Adán y Dios que los Santos de los Últimos Días nunca han sido capaces de entender. El conflicto declaraciones reportado con LDS enseñanzas antes y después de Brigham Young, así como con las declaraciones del propio presidente Young durante el mismo período de tiempo. Entonces, ¿cómo los Santos de los Últimos Días lidiar con el fenómeno? Nosotros no; simplemente nos pusimos a un lado. Es una anomalía. De vez en cuando mis colegas y yo en la Universidad Brigham Young han tratado de averiguar lo que Brigham Young podría haber dicho en realidad y lo que podría haber significado, pero los intentos han fracasado siempre. Las declaraciones recogidas simplemente no computan, no podemos dar sentido a ellos. Esto no es una cuestión de creer o no creer que ella; simplemente no sabemos lo que "" es. Si Brigham Young estuviera aquí le podríamos preguntar lo que realmente dijo y lo que quería decir con eso, pero él no está aquí .... Para los Santos de los Últimos días, sin embargo, el punto es discutible, ya que lo dijo Brigham Young, verdadera o falsa, no se presentó a la Iglesia para su voto de sostenimiento. No fue entonces y ahora no es una doctrina de la Iglesia, y ... la Iglesia ha limitado a establecer el fenómeno a un lado como una anomalía.
Matthew Brown (2009): "Brigham Young repitió estas ideas y expuso sobre ellos durante los próximos 25 años. Sus puntos de vista se han clasificado vario como doctrina, teoría, la paradoja, la herejía, la especulación, y algunos de los misterios"
En el 09 de abril 1852 El presidente Brigham Young se acercó al púlpito en el antiguo tabernáculo de la Manzana del Templo e informó a un grupo de ancianos, que se habían reunido allí para la Conferencia General, que se iba a enderezar a cabo sobre una cuestión que no tenían estado debatiendo acerca. El tema de desacuerdo centra en quién era el Padre de Jesucristo en la carne-Elohim o el Espíritu Santo. El presidente Young sorprendió a las personas que estaban presentes al anunciar que no era ni uno de ellos .... Brigham Young repitió estas ideas y expuso sobre ellos durante los próximos 25 años. Sus puntos de vista se han clasificado vario como doctrina, teoría, la paradoja, la herejía, la especulación, y algunos de los misterios.—(Haga clic aquí para continuar)
Pregunta: Si la doctrina de Adán-Dios no es verdadera, ¿cómo es que D. y C. 27:11 llama a Adán el Anciano de los Días que claramente es un título para Dios en Daniel 7?
The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God
The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God. LDS are not dependent upon biblical interpretation for a complete understanding of the meaning of this or any other term. Since LDS have a more expanded idea of Adam's role, it is not surprising that they interpret some verses differently.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:
- For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael (D&C 27:11; D&C 29:26), archangel (D&C 88:112), and Ancient of Days (D&C 138:38). 
Joseph Smith is one source for this view of Adam:
- "‘Ancient of Days’ appears to be his title because he is ‘the first and oldest of all.' 
This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days" (attiq yômîn) as one non-LDS source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, only God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts.  Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.
D&C 27:11 and D&C 116 associate Adam with the ancient of days spoken of in Daniel, but this needs elaboration
Like many Christians, the LDS see many parallels between Christ (who is God in the Old Testament) and Adam. Christ is even called, on occasion, the "second Adam." It is thus not surprising that D&C 27:11 associates Adam with a divine title or status when resurrected and exalted—after all, LDS theology anticipates human deification, so God and Adam are not seen as totally "other" or "different" from each other. LDS would have no problem, then, in seeing Adam granted a type of divine title or epithet—they do not see this as necessarily an either/or situation.
This does not mean, however, that Adam and God are the same being, merely that they can ultimately share the same divine nature. Such a reading would be strange to creedal Christians who see God as completely different from His creation. Once again, the theological preconceptions with which we approach the Biblical text affects how we read it.
As one non-LDS scholar noted of the passage in Daniel:
- In the Septuagint version of Daniel 7:13 the translator has interpreted ‘he came to the Ancient of Days’ as ‘he came as the Ancient of Days’. Thus, according to this Septuagint interpretation, the Son of Man is in fact the embodiment of the person of the Ancient of Days. In other words the original scene in Daniel 7, where two figures exist alongside each other in heaven, is changed so that the vice-regent, the Son of Man, takes upon himself the form and character of God himself.
It is thus not surprising that Joseph Smith could see Adam taking upon himself "the form and character of God himself" using a similar type of imagery. This type of expansion on scriptures is done literally hundreds of times by biblical prophets.
This is the best view to take in light of our understanding of Jesus Christ as Jehovah of the Old Testament (D&C 110:1-4).
Pregunta: ¿Qué intentos se han hecho para reconciliar la Teoría de Adán-Dios con las doctrinas de la Iglesia?
There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought
There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought. Following are some of the better-known approaches.
Approach #1: Adam as the patriarch of the human family
The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the Doctrine and Covenants and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: [quotes D&C 78:15–16].
It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.
Approach #2: Scribal error
A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.
Approach #3: "Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."
LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context. Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate Elohim/Jehovah/Michael with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and (c) Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.
Another approach similar to Watson's would be to suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was speaking of at least two Adams, but that he was intentionally veiling what he was talking about, and left it up to individuals to get revelation on the true interpretation. This would be similar to the Lord's use of parables. Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language. Since he himself was an American Moses, so to speak, he may have felt that he could engage in the same type of practice, and was cluing people in on it by bringing up Moses' use of such things.
Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression.
Approach #4: Brigham was wrong
Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken. Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981:
Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.
Approach #5: We don't know the reason
A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:
Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.
Pregunta: ¿Alguna vez se enseñó la teoría del "Dios Adán" como parte de la ceremonia de investidura del templo como algo llamado "la conferencia en el velo"?
Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it
The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine. If there is anything true in that doctrine, one would expect that truth to be in harmony with what is already revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed can clear up the matter.
The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood, and the endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century
Two points need to be made prior to any discussion of this subject:
- The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood. What he taught appears to have been a failed attempt to establish a new doctrinal belief. He did not live to reconcile it with LDS scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on Adam-God.)
- The endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century. Before and since that time, it was and has been modified occasionally by Church leaders to clarify and refine the presentation. (See the main article on temple endowment changes.)
How the endowment came to be written, and how Adam-God become part of it
The following is probably the best description of how the temple endowment came to be written, and what part Adam-God played in it:
Shortly after the dedication of the lower portion of the temple, Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End," assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted for Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877 Woodruff recorded in his journal: "President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today." 
The St. George endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young's Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 L. John Nuttall, one of those who transcribed Young's lecture, recalled how it came about:
In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.
Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing materials, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it [he] said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.
A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation and etc.
On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:
In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)
Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century. Buerger writes:
It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's  account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God." On returning from his mission in 1904 he noted that these teachings had been removed. While one would expect more extensive evidence than this were it true that the lecture was regularly given for twenty-five years, it ... should also be recalled that other "discredited" notions were still being promulgated in some temples by a few individuals during the early years of the twentieth century—such as the continued legitimacy of plural marriage, also a cherished fundamentalist tradition. 
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 (Emphasis in the original.)
- David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:1 (Spring 1982): 45. off-site (Inglés)
- See, for example, Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308 off-site (Inglés): "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."
- Gary James Bergera, "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13:2 (Summer 1980): 7–49. off-site (Inglés)
- Charles W. Penrose, "Our Father Adam," Improvement Era (September 1902), 873. reprinted in Charles W. Penrose, "Our Father Adam," Millennial Star 64 no. 50 (11 December 1902), 785–790. (this paragraph from p. 789).
- Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77. off-site (Inglés)
- Stephen E. Robinson, "The Exclusion by Misrepresentation".
- Matthew B. Brown, "Brigham Young’s Teachings on Adam," 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009).
- Arthur A. Bailey, "Adam," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:15–16. off-site (Inglés) off-site (Inglés) direct off-site
- Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 167. ISBN 087579243X. off-site (Inglés)
- N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 2 (Fortress Press, SPCK: London, 1996), kindle location 12747.
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56),98–99.
- Elden Watson, "Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God" off-site (Inglés)
- Van Hale, "What About the Adam-God Theory?," Mormon Miscellaneous response series #3 (n.p., 1982). off-site (Inglés)
- Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6.
- Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),18–21. off-site (Inglés) FAIR link off-site (Inglés) GL direct link
- David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness (Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 110–13.
- David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:1 (Spring 82): 14–58.