Orson Pratt’s Acceptance of the Adam–God Doctrine

Quote and Source

Elder Orson Pratt (Apostle, 1835–1881)
Quote:

“These angels that came to Adam were not men who had been redeemed from this earth—not men who had been translated from this earth—but they pertained to former worlds. They understood about the coming of Jesus, the nature of these sacrifices, &c. Some of these angels have received their exaltation, and still are called angels. For instance Michael has received his exaltation. He is not without his kingdom and crown, wife or wives and posterity, because he lived faithful to the end. Who is he? Our first, great progenitor, Adam, is called Michael, the Prince. I am mentioning now things that the Latter-day Saints are acquainted with. Many of these things I have just been quoting are revelations given to us, as those who are readers will recollect. Some of these angels have received their exaltation. They are kings, they are priests, they have entered into their glory and sit upon thrones — they hold the scepter over their posterity.”
Source: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 15, p. 321
Date: January 19, 1873
URL: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 15 – BYU

Narrative Analysis

Elder Orson Pratt’s 1873 sermon reflects a striking shift from his earlier skepticism toward the Adam–God doctrine, marking what appears to be his eventual acceptance of its core tenets. Known for his open theological resistance to President Brigham Young’s teachings—particularly his 1860 statement, “I have no confidence in it” regarding the Adam–God teaching (Council of the Twelve Minutes, April 5, 1860)—this address now identifies Adam as “Michael, the Prince,” an exalted being with “kingdom and crown, wife or wives and posterity,” ruling over his descendants.

This depiction closely mirrors President Young’s foundational claim:

“He [Adam] is MICHAEL, the Archangel… our FATHER and our GOD.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50–51, April 9, 1852)

It also aligns with President Wilford Woodruff’s 1867 confirmation that:

“Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ.”
(Wilford Woodruff Journal, December 16, 1867)

Elder Pratt’s 1873 language—“things that the Latter-day Saints are acquainted with”—frames this doctrine as familiar revelation, not speculation. He affirms Adam’s exalted state, his role as Michael, and his divine posterity—doctrinal components central to President Young’s teachings. Elder Pratt’s phrasing suggests that by this point, he was no longer disputing the doctrine, but presenting it as accepted truth.

Doctrinal Reconciliation or Practical Conformity?

Elder Pratt’s earlier resistance focused on the teaching that Adam came to earth with a resurrected body, which he had objected to on scriptural grounds:

“It leads to an endless number of falls.”
(Council Minutes, April 5, 1860)

Following strong rebukes from President Young and other Apostles, he publicly retracted those objections:

“I have since learned from my brethren that some of the doctrines I had advanced… were incorrect.”
(Deseret News, Vol. 9, No. 51, January 29, 1860)

The transformation by 1873—both in tone and substance—may indicate sincere doctrinal reconciliation after further contemplation, or pragmatic alignment with the Church’s direction. It’s worth noting that this 1873 sermon was delivered during a time when Adam–God elements were still part of the endowment ceremony (see Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness, p. 142), and thus part of Elder Pratt’s lived temple experience.

Whether from conviction or conformity, the absence of further public dissent, coupled with this strong doctrinal affirmation, places Elder Pratt among the witnesses of the Adam–God doctrine.

Implications for the Law of Witnesses

Elder Pratt’s eventual support strengthens the witness chain significantly. Alongside President Young, President Woodruff, Eliza R. Snow, and Helen Mar Kimball Whitney—who all affirmed the doctrine—Elder Pratt adds the voice of a former skeptic turned proponent. This fulfills and even exceeds the scriptural standard of “two or three witnesses” (2 Corinthians 13:1), adding credibility to the claim that the doctrine was revealed and known among early leaders.

Though later Church presidents distanced the doctrine due to its absence in canon and potential for confusion, the weight of these early testimonies remains. Elder Pratt’s public evolution—after decades of contention—stands as a testament to the complexity and conviction surrounding the doctrine in the formative years of the Restoration.