Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints love to grab stray lines from old sermons, inflate them to the level of scripture, and then cry “contradiction!” or “false prophet!” Perhaps no example is misused more often than the so-called “Adam–God theory.” Did Brigham Young teach it? Yes. Did the Church ever canonize it? No. Is it doctrine today? Absolutely not. Let’s cut through the smoke.

What Brigham Young Actually Said

In 1852, Brigham Young declared that “Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” He reiterated this in subsequent sermons, mostly recorded in the Journal of Discourses. This is a historical fact: Brigham taught it, and a few leaders echoed it.

But here’s the problem: critics stop there. They pretend that one man’s sermons equal official doctrine. That’s not how the Church works, and never has been.

How Doctrine Is Established

From Joseph Smith onward, Latter-day Saints have followed a consistent rule: doctrine is established by revelation through the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and it is sustained by the common consent of the body of the Church.

• Scriptural foundation: “All things shall be done by common consent in the church” (Doctrine and Covenants 26:2).
• Modern clarification: The Church’s 2007 Newsroom statement, Approaching Mormon Doctrine, explains:
  
  “Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. Not every statement made by a Church leader…necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement…often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion but is not meant to be officially binding.”
• Sources of doctrine: According to the same statement, official doctrine resides in the four standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

By those standards, Adam–God was never canonized, never sustained by the body of the Church, and never unitedly taught as doctrine. If one thing is true, it is the enormous amount of text that points to the contrary and the lack of anything closely related to this theory compared to the collective teachings within the standard works.

The Journal of Discourses: Not Binding

Critics often cite the Journal of Discourses as though it were scripture. It is not. Even the Church’s own materials caution that the JD is a historical record, not an authoritative source of doctrine. Brigham himself approved its publication but did not proof every line, and sermons were taken from shorthand notes and polished in England before printing.

So when critics wave around a JD passage, they are doing so with selective reading and without acknowledging the nature of the source.

Prophets Are People—Not Robots

Brigham Young once warned the Saints against following leaders blindly:

“Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Journal of Discourses 9:150).

As noted earlier, the Journal of Discourses is not an official source of doctrine, yet its principle is echoed by later prophets. President Harold B. Lee taught, “It is not only your right but your obligation to find out by the power of the Holy Ghost whether the President of the Church is speaking by the Spirit” (Improvement Era, June 1962, p. 418). Likewise, President Ezra Taft Benson reminded the Saints that “blind obedience is not the goal. We are expected to use our agency, to pray, and to confirm truth through the Spirit” (Conference Report, Oct. 1963).

Young’s point was simple: discipleship requires spiritual confirmation. Ironically, some critics use that very warning to discredit him. But his intent was never to silence sincere questioning—it was to ensure that faith is founded on God’s revelation, not merely on human authority.

Later Leaders Spoke Plainly

While Brigham defended Adam–God as a revealed mystery, later prophets were equally clear in rejecting it.

• Joseph F. Smith (early 1900s) taught it was false.
• Joseph Fielding Smith explained that Brigham expressed personal views, but they were never binding because they weren’t canonized or sustained.
• Spencer W. Kimball, in the October 1976 general conference, declared:
  
  “We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”

That should settle the matter.

The Real Takeaway

Critics who insist on elevating one man’s sermons to the level of official doctrine are bearing false witness against a faith they misunderstand—or intentionally misrepresent. The reality is straightforward:

1. Brigham Young taught Adam–God.
2. It was never canonized, never sustained, never unitedly taught.
3. Later prophets explicitly rejected it.
4. Doctrine resides in scripture and united, revealed declarations—not in one-off sermons.

Conclusion

The Adam–God theory is a historical curiosity, not a doctrinal cornerstone. Elevating it to official teaching is like claiming that a congressman’s stump speech is U.S. law. The law is what passes both houses and is signed; Church doctrine is what passes united councils, is canonized, and is sustained by the Saints.

In short: Adam–God was never doctrine. Period. And the critics who keep peddling it aren’t exposing Mormonism—they’re exposing their own bias.