Joseph Fielding Smith and the Limits of Apostolic Commentary

A Contextual Analysis of His Views on the Adam–God Doctrine

Introduction

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1970–1972) made no public or formal pronouncement against the Adam–God doctrine while serving as president of the Church. However, during his decades as an apostle and Church historian, he expressed strong views on the subject—calling it a misunderstanding, a misstatement by President Brigham Young, or a speculative teaching that went beyond revealed truth.

This article examines Elder Smith’s statements in their historical and doctrinal context, focusing on what he did and did not know, and what he likely intended with his repeated dismissals. We also contrast his speculative commentary with the unmatched volume of prophetic and apostolic witness that has since been unearthed—material he almost certainly never saw.

Nature of His Warnings

Elder Smith made multiple public statements rejecting the Adam–God doctrine as either mistaken or speculative. In Doctrines of Salvation, he wrote:

“The Lord did not give us the complete story of the creation of Adam and Eve because He knew the world would not accept it.”

This quote, drawn from a private address, is particularly revealing. Rather than declaring that President Brigham Young was wrong, Elder Smith implies the possibility of withheld knowledge—perhaps unknowable to his generation. Yet in other writings, his tone was more declarative. For instance, he described the idea of Adam being God as a “false doctrine” and a “mistaken view” attributed to President Young.

“If President Brigham Young ever said that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ, he made a mistake.”

Elsewhere, Elder Smith emphasized scriptural fidelity as the benchmark of truth and treated any doctrine not explicitly found in the standard works as speculative at best, and heretical at worst.

“The Lord has never revealed that Adam is God. That doctrine is not found in the Standard Works.”

In each case, Elder Smith’s approach relies on the absence of revealed, canonized doctrine rather than a revelatory contradiction of President Young. He never claimed to receive revelation on the subject himself—nor did he cite any prophetic source that explicitly refuted President Young’s statements. Instead, he positioned the theory as an overstep or personal view, not grounded in the scriptures.

What Elder Smith Could Not Have Known

When Elder Smith made these judgments—as a faithful apostle and doctrinal steward—he was operating with incomplete data. Many of the most detailed confirmations of the Adam–God doctrine had not yet been digitized, discovered, published, or widely circulated:

• The Journal of Discourses was not digitally searchable or fully indexed. Finding doctrinal repetition across volumes required exhaustive manual review.
• The Wilford Woodruff Journals, including repeated confirmations that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that Adam was God and the literal father of Jesus Christ, were not publicly available or fully transcribed at the time.
• The Woman’s Exponent and early Church newspapers like the Deseret News and Millennial Star carried affirming references, but these were deeply buried in obscure archival collections.
• Personal journals of Abraham H. Cannon, Heber C. Kimball, and other early apostles were either unpublished or privately held in university archives and not easily accessible to Elder Smith.

As of today, however, a full catalog of 67 separate quotes from prophets, apostles, Church leaders, and early members has been compiled—nearly all of them affirming the core teachings President Young repeatedly declared. This catalog is available here:
Historical Quotes on the Adam–God Doctrine.

Given this context, it is more accurate to view Elder Smith’s commentary not as a correction of revealed doctrine, but as a protective, scripturally conservative judgment rendered in the absence of full historical data.

Apostolic Commentary vs. Prophetic Keys

While Joseph Fielding Smith later served as Church President, his statements rejecting Adam–God were made decades earlier while he held the office of apostle. He never recanted these views, but neither did he reaffirm them prophetically once he held the keys. This distinction matters deeply.

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, a prophet holding the keys of the presidency cannot be doctrinally overwritten by an apostle—no matter how beloved or respected. President Brigham Young taught the Adam–God doctrine publicly for over 20 years as President of the Church and referred to it as “a doctrine which God revealed to me.” (Deseret News, Vol. 22, No. 308, June 8, 1873). No prophet since has claimed a revelation disavowing it.

A Charitable Reading

Elder Smith, known for his deep reverence for scripture and his defensive posture toward doctrinal integrity, likely intended his warnings as pastoral guidance in a time when fringe groups used Adam–God as a justification for division. In this sense, his approach mirrors President Spencer W. Kimball’s 1976 statement, which denounced the “Adam–God theory” without directly naming Brigham Young.

Elder Smith’s legacy is not weakened by this episode—it is strengthened. It shows that even apostles can speak with firm conviction while still lacking key context. And it affirms the principle that in doctrinal matters, the voice of the presiding prophet—especially one who claims revelation—is decisive.

Conclusion

Joseph Fielding Smith stood as a loyal guardian of orthodoxy, but not as a revelator on the Adam–God doctrine. His remarks must be read in light of what he knew—and what it is unlikely he could have known. His loyalty to the scriptures, coupled with his insistence on revealed doctrine, led him to reject what he saw as speculation. But with today’s documented and extensive historical record, the conversation shifts from speculation to stewardship—and from apostolic opinion to prophetic origin.