The Adam-God Doctrine and Scriptural Silence

The Adam-God doctrine—that Adam is Michael, a divine being who organized the earth and became “our Father and our God”—emerged as a profound yet enigmatic teaching under President Brigham Young’s leadership (1847–1877). President Young declared it a divine revelation, asserting that Adam “is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50–51, April 9, 1852). However, this doctrine lacks explicit articulation in the scriptures, a fact acknowledged and explained by President Young and subsequent leaders through a narrative of withheld knowledge, human readiness, and the progressive nature of revelation.

President Young recognized the doctrine’s absence from the scriptural canon, framing it as a truth too advanced for widespread acceptance. He noted, “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, Vol. 22, No. 308, June 8, 1873). This suggests that the scriptures were deliberately silent because humanity, including many Saints, wasn’t prepared for such a radical concept. President Young further emphasized its mysterious nature, stating, “Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 217–219, February 8, 1857). He implied that the scriptures provide only partial glimpses—such as Adam’s role as Michael (D&C 27:11)—because full disclosure awaited a latter-day prophet.

President Young also suggested that the doctrine’s obscurity stemmed from its dependence on additional revelation beyond the written word. He taught that “Joseph’s doctrine that Adam was God” was a foundational truth (Minutes of Meeting, Historian’s Office, April 4, 1860), yet he acknowledged the need for incremental understanding: “I will read a part of a short revelation… We must therefore receive a little here and a little there” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 286, August 15, 1852). This aligns with his view that scriptures like Genesis 1:26–27 (“Let us make man”) hint at Adam’s creative role but veil his divine identity, requiring prophetic clarification.

Apostles under President Young reinforced this narrative. Elder Wilford Woodruff, as an Apostle (1839–1889), recorded President Young’s assertion that “Joseph taught this principle” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867), suggesting an oral tradition from Joseph Smith not enshrined in scripture. Elder Woodruff’s later presidential reflection that “Adam made this world and Suffered himself to take a body and subject himself to sin” (Waiting For the World’s End, p. 290, post-1889) implies a redemptive role too complex for the scriptural narrative, which focuses on Christ’s atonement (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Elder Heber C. Kimball claimed direct revelation—”The Lord told me that Jesus Christ was the son of Adam” (Journal of Heber C. Kimball, March 11, 1857)—indicating that such truths bypassed scripture due to their specificity and sensitivity.

The resistance of Elder Orson Pratt, an Apostle (1835–1881), highlights scriptural ambiguity as a point of contention. Elder Pratt argued against President Young’s teaching, stating, “I have no confidence in it” (Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve, April 5, 1860), because he found no clear biblical support, reflecting the doctrine’s reliance on prophetic authority over canonical text. President Young, in response, remarked, “With all the knowledge and wisdom… he does not yet know enough to keep his foot out of it” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 266–267, March 8, 1857), suggesting that scripture alone couldn’t resolve such mysteries without revelation.

Later leaders further rationalized this omission. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1970–1972) explicitly stated, “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” (Journal of John A. Tvedtnes, June 30, 1961). As an Apostle, he elaborated that Adam’s pre-Fall spiritual body and transition to mortality (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 76–77, 1954) were truths withheld from scripture, perhaps to avoid confusion with passages like 2 Nephi 2:22–25, which focus on the Fall’s necessity without deifying Adam. President Harold B. Lee, as an Apostle, described the shift from “spirit fluid” to blood (Lecture, June 23, 1954), a detail absent from scripture but consistent with President Young’s teachings (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, April 9, 1852), implying a deliberate divine reserve.

In this narrative, the scriptures—while hinting at Adam’s preeminence (D&C 138:38–39) and pre-mortal role (Moses 6:51–54)—stop short of declaring him God because such knowledge was reserved for a dispensation ready to receive it. President Young’s revelation filled this gap, as he asserted, “Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, pp. 331–332, October 7, 1857), positioning the doctrine as a latter-day truth too profound for ancient scribes or unready Saints to fully grasp.

Key Points and References

• Doctrine Withheld Due to Unreadiness: President Young (Deseret News, June 8, 1873) and President Smith (Journal of John A. Tvedtnes, June 30, 1961) suggest the world wasn’t ready for this knowledge.
• Progressive Revelation and Mystery: President Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 217–219; Vol. 6, p. 286) frames the doctrine as a mystery to be revealed line upon line.
• Prophetic Witnesses Outside of Canon: Elder Woodruff and Elder Kimball attribute the doctrine to Joseph Smith and revelation rather than scriptural origin.
• Apostolic Skepticism and Scriptural Silence: Elder Pratt’s opposition highlights the ambiguity in canon and the need for prophetic clarification.