The President of the High Priesthood Is Not “the Prophet”

September 23, 2026

Why D&C 107:64–65 still matters

Latter-day Saints commonly speak of the President of the Church as “the prophet.” The phrase is affectionate, familiar, and now almost automatic. It is also not the title Class 1 scripture gives him.

That is not a small vocabulary problem. It changes what people think a prophet is, what they expect from the President of the Church, and whether the gift of prophecy still belongs to the body of the Saints.

The canon is not flat

When the Nephites asked Jesus a doctrinal question, He did not point them to later commentary. He asked, “Have ye not read the scriptures?” (3 Nephi 27:4–5). Scripture, not subsequent explanation, was the standard.

That standard is not flat. Christ Himself treats scriptural words in different ways. In 3 Nephi 24:1 He commands the people to write “the words which the Father had given unto Malachi”—the Father’s own words. Doctrine and Covenants 1:38 says the same of the Lord’s word: it will not pass away, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants.” By contrast, Christ calls Isaiah’s prophecy “the words of Isaiah” (3 Nephi 23:1). And 2 Nephi 2:17 shows Lehi offering doctrinal commentary on what was already “written.” The categories appear inside scripture itself. They are not a private ranking invented later.

We can state the hierarchy this way:

Divine Words — God’s own words (“saith the Lord”). Inviolable.
Inspired Words — messengers recording visions or revelations in their own words. Authoritative, but open to later clarification.
Human Words — commentary, custom, and teaching drawn from what is already written. Valuable, but revisable when they conflict with higher words.

Joseph F. Smith applied the same principle when he rejected Adam-God: the Church’s ultimate measure is revelation-based scripture, not subsequent teaching. He did not create the distinction. He used one Christ had already modeled.

The present question is the same kind of collision. In Doctrine and Covenants 107:64–66 the Lord names the office: “he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.” That is Divine Words. Calling him “the prophet” as his ordinary title is Human Words—later custom. When the two conflict, the Lord’s wording remains the standard.

What the revelation actually says

Doctrine and Covenants 107 is presented as revelation. In verses 64–66 the Lord says that one must be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside, “and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.”

That is a Class 1 title. It is not a suggestion. It is not public-relations language. It is the name of the office.

The same section also describes other officers by priesthood function: presidents of quorums, bishops, and so on. The pattern is consistent. The Church’s presiding officer is a high priest who presides. He is not given the exclusive personal title “the Prophet” in that revelation.

If we take Class 1 as the standard, the ordinary speech of the Church should follow D&C 107:64–65.

The older convention

The Bible already had a way of speaking about this.

A prophet was a person sent to speak for God. Samuel heard the Lord when “the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision” (1 Samuel 3). He was not Eli. Eli was the high priest. Samuel received a call outside that office and was therefore called a prophet.

A high priest held an ordained office. In some periods that office was associated with the gift of prophecy. John’s Gospel records that Caiaphas, “being high priest that year,” spoke a word that the narrator treats as prophecy (John 11:49–51). The point is not that Caiaphas was righteous. The point is the old assumption: the high priest might prophesy by virtue of the office. When that happened, scripture still called him high priest.

The Book of Mormon follows the same convention. The chapter heading to Alma 5 identifies the speaker as “Alma, the High Priest according to the holy order of God,” who then delivers the words to the people in their cities and villages. Alma is not introduced in that heading as “the prophet.” He holds the high-priestly office and speaks from that office. The title that marks his ecclesiastical authority is the priesthood title, even though the speech itself is strongly prophetic in character.

This matches the older biblical pattern: when the gift arrives through or is exercised under priestly office, the person is called by the priesthood title. Samuel is called a prophet because his call came outside the high-priestly office. Eli, Caiaphas, and Alma are identified by their high-priestly office even when they deliver words that carry prophetic force.

Joseph Smith fits the older pattern of a prophet. He reported visions, dictations, and “saith the Lord” revelations before he was the Presiding High Priest. He later also held that office. Those are two facts, not one title.

A later President of the High Priesthood can inherit both. Nothing in the revelation says the prophetic modes died with Joseph. The President may receive visions, dictations, and commandments. When he does, those belong in Class 1 or Class 2, and the Church has a way to receive them as canon.

The ordinary work of the office is different. A High Priest has ecclesiastical authority and pastoral responsibility. In that stewardship he may speak for the good of the flock from what he sees the Church needs: counsel, warning, direction, and encouragement. That speech can be inspired. It is still the speech of a pastor, not automatically the speech of a prophet. A prophet’s main duty is to speak expressly what the Lord commands. The message does not, by itself, carry ecclesiastical authority. It becomes authoritative in the Church only if the messenger also holds priesthood office, or if the Church receives it through the established order.

The older convention kept those duties from being confused:

Samuel was a prophet. His authority was the message.
Eli was the high priest. His authority was the office.
Moses held both. Scripture still did not treat the two words as synonyms.
Alma is identified as the High Priest when he addresses the people.

When members call the President “the prophet” as his ordinary title, they quietly merge the two. Investigators then expect the Joseph Smith pattern—regular dictation of what the Lord commands—from a man whose daily work is pastoral stewardship. Members, meanwhile, hear pastoral counsel as if it were Class 1. Both mistakes come from using one title for two duties.

The canon does not require that merge. D&C 107:64–65 names the office. The prophetic gift remains open, including to the President, and also to sons and daughters who do not preside.

The gift was never meant to be an exclusive brand

Joel said the Lord’s Spirit would be poured out and “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy… your old men shall dream dreams” (Joel 2:28). Peter said that promise had begun to be fulfilled (Acts 2). Paul told the Corinthian church to desire spiritual gifts, “but rather that ye may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1). He treated prophecy as a gift that could be sought and exercised in the congregation, subject to order and testing.

Class 1 and Class 2 texts therefore point in two directions at once:

There is a presiding high priest over the Church.
The gift of prophecy is not confined to that one man.

If “prophet” is reserved as a unique brand name for the President of the Church, both truths are damaged. The office is misnamed. The gift is made to look rare, official, and closed.

That is the opposite of Acts 2.

Why the renamed title causes confusion

Non-members and new members usually meet Joseph Smith first. They hear that a fourteen-year-old asked God, received a vision, and later dictated revelations. “Prophet,” in that story, means what it meant in Samuel’s story: a person who receives and delivers the word of the Lord.

Then they enter the modern Church and hear that “the prophet” is the current President. They reasonably expect the same mode: dictation, “saith the Lord,” frequent addition to the canon. What they usually hear instead is counsel, conference addresses, proclamations, and stewardship. Those things may be inspired. They are still Human Words unless they bear the marks of Divine or Inspired Words and are received as canon.

The mismatch is not mysterious. The Church has kept the biblical word and changed the office underneath it. Members then have to perform a quiet redefinition: “prophet” now means “the man who holds the keys and presides,” not “one who prophesies.” Investigators are not told that the definition changed. They only feel the gap.

There is a second confusion inside the Church. If only one living person is “the prophet,” then sons and daughters who prophesy become an embarrassment. Dreams and impressions have to be fenced off as private and unofficial. Paul’s counsel becomes hard to read aloud. The title that should have remained common becomes a monopoly.

Class 3 custom is not a small thing here

Calling the President “the prophet” is Class 3 custom. It is later usage. It is widespread. It is not D&C 107.

Class 3 custom has power because it trains the ear. Once the ear is trained, members hear every presidential statement as if it were Class 1. That is how commentary begins to sit on top of canon. The papers on Adam-God and divine sonship exist because that habit has already done damage. A later synthesis was treated as if it had the same weight as “saith the Lord.” The cure is not contempt for leaders. The cure is to put the titles back where the revelation put them.

The President of the High Priesthood may prophesy. He may receive revelation for the Church. If he does, the Church has a way to recognize it: the voice of the Lord, a clear revelatory account, and the consent of the Church when it is to become canon. None of that requires us to rename the office.

What following D&C 107:64–65 would look like

It would look surprisingly modest.

In teaching and writing, call the presiding officer what the Lord called him: President of the High Priesthood, or Presiding High Priest.
Use “President [Name]” as the ordinary public form.
Use “prophet” for the gift and the function, not as a personal brand. Joseph was a prophet. Others may prophesy. The President may do both. The office name remains the office name.
Teach investigators the difference early: Joseph’s prophetic call is one thing; succession in the presiding high priesthood is another.
Leave room for Joel and Acts. If the Spirit is poured out, sons and daughters will prophesy. That should not sound like a threat to the President. It should sound like the Church working as promised.

This does not reduce the President’s keys. D&C 107 gives him presidency over the priesthood. It does not give later generations permission to collapse every biblical word for revelation into that one chair.

The real issue

The question is not whether the Church has a living head. It does. The question is whether we will let Human Words overwrite Divine Words.

D&C 107:64–65 is not obscure. It is not metaphorical. It tells the Church what to call the man appointed to preside. When members instead say “the prophet,” they are not being more faithful than the revelation. They are using a different dictionary.

A Church that hopes for more revelation should want the old words back. “President of the High Priesthood” protects the office. “Prophet” protects the gift. Keeping them distinct is not a loss of reverence. It is obedience to the text that named the office in the first place.

Have they not read the scriptures?

Why the Adam Contradiction Matters

August 30, 2026

A shorter look at “Jesus, our elder brother,” adoption, and grace

(A longer, documented study of the same topic is here: The Adam Contradiction.)

The phrase “Jesus, our elder brother” is so familiar in Latter-day Saint speech that we rarely stop to ask where it actually comes from—or what it was meant to mean.

Joseph Smith used the words. Brigham Young built a system around them. And for more than a century and a half, that system has quietly shaped how many of us understand our relationship to God and Christ. The problem is that the system does not sit comfortably with the scriptures themselves.

This is the Adam Contradiction.

Brigham’s Three-Part Framework

In 1852, Brigham Young publicly wove three ideas together:

We are all literal spirit siblings of Christ, begotten by the same Heavenly Father in premortality.
Christ is the “Only Begotten” primarily in the flesh—a qualifier Brigham added to protect Moses 5:9.
Adam is God the Father (Michael), who came to earth, fathered the human family, died, regained immortality, and later fathered Jesus in the flesh.

Even after the Church set aside the third point (Adam-God), the first two remained largely intact in popular teaching. That is where the real tension lives.

The Adam Contradiction is this: Luke 3:38 and Moses 6:22 record Adam as “son of God” with respect to the flesh. Brigham said Christ was the Only Begotten of God in the flesh. If Adam and Christ were both sons of God in the flesh, then Christ cannot be the Only Begotten in that sense. And if the “in the flesh” qualifier is dropped in order to preserve Moses 5:9—that Christ is the Only Begotten “from the beginning”—then the claim that we are all His spirit siblings begins to unravel. One has to explain how we can share the same premortal parentage if He alone was the Only Begotten from the beginning.

Brigham’s own framework creates the contradiction.

A Simple Hierarchy of Authority

When the Nephites asked Jesus a doctrinal question, He did not point them to prophetic commentary. He asked, “Have ye not read the scriptures?” (3 Nephi 27:4–5). Scripture, not later explanation, was the standard.

That standard is not flat. Christ Himself treats scriptural words in different ways. In 3 Nephi 24:1 He commands the people to write “the words which the Father had given unto Malachi”—the Father’s own words. D&C 1:38 says the same thing of the Lord’s word: it will not pass away, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants.” By contrast, Christ calls Isaiah’s prophecy “the words of Isaiah” (3 Nephi 23:1). And 2 Nephi 2:17 shows Lehi offering doctrinal commentary based on what was already “written.” The categories appear inside scripture itself, not only in later commentary.

We can state the hierarchy this way:

Divine Words — God’s own words (“saith the Lord”). Inviolable.
Inspired Words — messengers recording visions or revelations in their own words. Authoritative, but open to later clarification.
Human Words — commentary, policy, and teaching drawn from what is already written. Valuable, but revisable when it conflicts with higher words.

Joseph F. Smith applied the same principle when he rejected Adam-God: the Church’s ultimate measure is revelation-based scripture, not subsequent teaching. Brigham’s three-part framework belongs to Human Words. When Class 3 commentary collides with Class 1 and Class 2 revelation, revelation wins.

What the Scriptures Actually Teach

Joseph Smith never taught a systematic doctrine of premortal spirit siblinghood. He never limited the title “Only Begotten” to mortality. And he never identified Adam as God the Father.

In the revelations he left us, humanity is consistently called the “children of men.” Becoming a “child of God” or “child of Christ” is presented as a change of status that happens through faith, covenant, and rebirth (Mosiah 5:7; D&C 25:1; Romans 8:15–16).

Moses 1 is often cited as evidence of universal spirit siblinghood. Yet the same chapter repeatedly refers to humanity as “children of men” (Moses 1:8, 12, 25, 34, 41). Moses himself had been adopted into Pharaoh’s household. Ancient usage of “son” commonly meant descendant or adopted heir rather than literal spirit offspring. The language in Moses 1 fits the canon’s dominant theme of adoption far better than a claim of shared premortal parentage.

Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning—without qualification (D&C 76:25; Moses 1:6; Moses 5:9). “Firstborn” language in D&C 93 and Colossians 1 speaks of His role as Creator, the first to rise in the resurrection, and the head of the redeemed Church—not seniority among countless spirit siblings.

When Joseph called Jesus “our elder brother,” the most natural reading is the same associative brotherhood the scriptures use for the redeemed: the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76:54; 78:21; 93:22; 107:19; Hebrews 2:11–12).

Who Formed Our Spirits?

If we are not the literal spirit offspring of the Father in the same sense Christ is, a natural question arises: Who formed our spirits?

The scriptures point toward a different answer than Brigham’s. They describe a premortal council of gods—elohim—working under divine direction (Abraham 3–4; Job 38:4–7). Spirits were organized, not necessarily begotten in a biological sense by the Father Himself. The most coherent reading is that subordinate rulers (elohim) participated in the organization of spirits under the direction of Christ, the Only Begotten.

This view is interpretive, not definitive. But it fits the available scriptural data better than the assumption that the Father personally begot every human spirit as a sibling of Christ. It preserves Christ’s unique status as the Only Begotten while explaining the origin of the rest of us without forcing the canon into a later system.

The Contradiction Dissolves

Once we let the scriptures speak in their own categories, the tension disappears.

Adam is a son of God in the flesh because he is the first man—created, placed, and made the father of the human family “of one blood” (Acts 17:26). Christ is the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45)—the one through whom fallen humanity may be gathered, redeemed, and reborn. He alone is the Father’s natural heir. The rest of us become sons and daughters through Him.

We are not natural heirs who merely return home. We are mortal stewards invited into God’s family by covenant. Adoption is not a lesser status. It is the central scriptural category.

Grace then becomes clear: not favoritism rooted in an inherited divine pedigree, but the unearned favor of the rightful Heir extended to those who come to Him.

Why This Matters

A theology that begins with universal premortal siblinghood tends to treat exaltation as the recognition of what we already are. A theology that begins with adoption treats exaltation as the gracious elevation of what we are not.

The first can subtly diminish the need for grace. The second makes grace indispensable.

The canon points to the second.

Path Forward

Return to the language the scriptures themselves use: adoption, the Church of the Firstborn, and Christ as the Only Begotten from the beginning. Let Divine and Inspired words set the terms. Let Human Words remain what they are—helpful, historical, and revisable.

The Adam Contradiction is not a problem inside the scriptures. It is a tension introduced by a later framework. When that framework is set aside, the scriptures speak with remarkable coherence—and the doctrine of grace becomes both clearer and more powerful.

Entering the Family of God: A Four Minute LDS Talk for Youth

June 21, 2026

What is different about this LDS Talk?

Introduction: Joining a Family

Good afternoon, brothers and sisters. Today, the topic I was given is “The Family of God.”

There are a number of ways to start a family, including adoption.

When parents adopt a child, it is a deliberate choice. Like with the early life of the prophet Moses, they look at that child, they choose them, they sign the legal papers, and they welcome them into their home as a full member of the family. The child becomes an official heir to everything the parents own.

The Divine Council and Our Form

The scriptures teach that before the world was made, the core of who we are—our intelligence—already existed. We were independent and co-eternal with God. But we didn't look like Him yet.

The first step God took to bring us into His family was organization. In Abraham chapter 4, the scriptures tell us that “the Gods” took counsel together to form us. They looked at our eternal intelligences, and they carefully organized and crafted us into spirit bodies bearing the divine image—both male and female.

God acted as our Master Architect. He gave us our form, our potential, and a blueprint to follow. He became the “Father of our spirits” because He was the creator who organized our transformed existence.

The Blueprint of Adoption

But being organized into the divine image was only the first step. Because we are independent eternal entities, we aren't members of God’s royal family by an automatic default. We aren't entitled to His kingdom just by existing. We have to actively choose to join His family.

This is where Jesus Christ comes in. Jesus is not just a regular member of the family. The scriptures call Him the Only Begotten. This means He stands completely alone in His nature and essence. He is the natural Heir to the Father’s estate, and He holds the keys to the kingdom.

We enter the family of God through the Covenant of Adoption, which Jesus mediated for us. In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin explains how this works. In Mosiah chapter 5, he tells us that when we make covenants with God, our hearts change, and we are “spiritually begotten.” He says, “Because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters.”

Signing the Adoption Papers

When I was baptized at eight years old, and when we take the sacrament every Sunday, we aren't just checking boxes. We are signing our adoption papers. We are binding ourselves to Jesus Christ so that we can inherit the Father's kingdom.

This turns the family of God into a profound miracle of grace. Grace means that the Master Builder looked at us in eternity, organized us into His image, and invited us to become full heirs to His estate. It isn't a family favor we are automatically owed; it is a high privilege that Jesus purchased for us.

Conclusion

I am grateful to be a part of the family of God. I am grateful that our place in His family is not a passive accident of history, but an intentional choice made by a Loving Father and a Savior who adopts us through covenants. I pray that we will always honor our adoption by keeping our covenants.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

The Foundations of Divine Sonship

May 25, 2026

Moving from Biological Literalism

to a Covenant-Centered Restoration

A scripture-centered study for discussion

April 2026

Not an official publication of Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thesis Statement

While modern Latter-day Saint cultural discourse frequently assumes a model of universal spirit siblinghood rooted in premortal biological literalism, a rigorous application of an intra-canonical text hierarchy demonstrates that this procreative paradigm relies almost entirely on nineteenth-century human commentary; conversely, the verbatim word of God across the standard works consistently outlines a model of uncreated intelligence, spiritual organization by a plural council of Elohim, and divine sonship achieved exclusively through legal covenant adoption mediated by the Only Begotten.

Abstract

Modern Latter-day Saint theological discourse routinely assumes a premortal paradigm characterized by literal biological spirit parentage and universal spirit siblinghood. While culturally ubiquitous, this procreative model produces persistent internal contradictions when evaluated alongside the fundamental structural texts of the Restoration. Utilizing a methodological framework rooted in the 1907 “Joseph F. Smith Standard,” this paper establishes an intra-canonical textual hierarchy that distinguishes between the verbatim word of God (Class 1: Divine Voice), prophetic vision (Class 2: Inspired Voice), and narrative commentary (Class 3: Human Voice).

A systematic textual analysis reveals that biological literalism relies almost exclusively on Class 3 human narrative and historical commentary synthesized in the wake of the late nineteenth-century “Adam-God” framework. Conversely, Class 1 and Class 2 texts—such as Doctrine and Covenants 93, Moses 3, and Abraham 4—consistently favor a model of architectural craftsmanship and divine organization. These foundational revelations present human beings as uncreated, co-eternal intelligences organized into male and female spirit bodies by a plural council of Elohim.

By de-coupling human origins from biological literalism, the unique essence of Jesus Christ as the absolute “Only Begotten” is structurally magnified. Consequently, divine sonship is rescued from folk-theological models of genetic entitlement and restored to its primary scriptural context: an active, high-stakes process of legal covenant adoption mediated by the Atonement. Finally, this paper provides concrete pedagogical strategies for university faculty to reframe Plan of Salvation curricula, shifting classroom focus from passive biological inheritance to a Christ-centered reality anchored entirely in divine grace.

Table of Contents

Abstract

1. Introduction and Methodology.

2. Historical Analysis and the “Adam Contradiction”.

3. Spirit Begetting vs. Divine Organization.

3.A. Class 1: The Verbatim Word of God on Co-Eternal Intelligence.

3.B. Class 2: Prophetic Vision and the Mechanics of Spirit Creation. 3

3.C. Class 3: Recontextualizing the “Father of Spirits”. 3

4. Recontextualizing the Mother in Heaven.

5. The Covenant of Adoption and the Only Begotten.

6. Conclusion: A Grace-Centered Restoration.

7. The Path Forward: Pedagogy and Curriculum Reframing.

7.A. Teaching the Premortal Realm as the Divine Council

7.B. Utilizing Official First Presidency Clarifications.

7.C. Reframing Ordinances as Adoption Proceedings.

Works Cited.

The Foundations of Divine Sonship: Moving from Biological Literalism to a Covenant-Centered Restoration

1. Introduction and Methodology

Latter-day Saint theological discourse frequently relies on a paradigm of premortal existence characterized by literal biological spirit parentage and universal spirit siblinghood. Within this popular framework, all human beings, alongside Jesus Christ and Lucifer, are conceptualized as literal brothers and sisters birthed in a cosmic nursery. While deeply embedded in modern cultural materials, this procreative model creates severe internal tensions when evaluated alongside the fundamental structural texts of the Restoration.

To resolve these contradictions, this paper utilizes a refined framework rooted in the “Joseph F. Smith Standard” of 1907.[1] President Joseph F. Smith established that canonized scripture as a whole trumps non-canonical, individual commentary. However, a rigorous analysis requires going a step further to recognize that the canon is not a flat text; rather, an intra-canonical hierarchy exists based on the source voice of the text itself. We must categorize text within the standard works into three distinct classes of authority:

Class 1: Verbatim Word of God (The Divine Voice). Revelations where the Lord speaks directly in the first person (“I, the Lord,” “Thus saith the Lord”). These represent the absolute bedrock of doctrine.
Class 2: Prophetic Visions and Revelations (The Inspired Voice). Prophets describing what they saw or experienced in vision, using their own language and cultural frameworks to approximate divine realities.
Class 3: Narrative Commentary and Historical Record (The Human Voice). Explanatory text, personal letters, historical summaries, or editorial framing compiled into the canon. While inspired, these texts are subject to the rhetorical styles, cultural assumptions, and potential errors of their human authors.

When President Joseph F. Smith leveraged the canon to correct outside folk-theology, he recognized the unique authority of scripture. By applying this intra-canonical distinction, we discover a striking reality: the biological “spirit birth” model relies almost entirely on Class 3 human narrative commentary or non-canonical traditions. Conversely, the verbatim word of God (Class 1) consistently and exclusively outlines a model of divine organization and covenant adoption. By returning strictly to a methodology that privileges the direct Divine Voice over human commentary, the historical contradictions of the Restoration do not merely resolve—they dissolve entirely.

2. Historical Analysis and the “Adam Contradiction”

The historical emergence of the biological pedigree model is intimately linked to the doctrinal developments of early Utah territory. In 1852, President Brigham Young initiated a sweeping theological synthesis that culminated in what is colloquially known as the “Adam-God framework.”[2] This model was born out of a perceived logical necessity: to account for a purely literal, biological chain of lineage extending from the heavens down to mortal earth.

Within Brigham Young’s framework, an exalted, physical being must physically propagate both the spirit bodies and physical bodies of humankind on this planet. Consequently, Adam was identified not merely as a historic patriarch, but as the literal biological father of humanity's spirits.

When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially set aside the Adam-God framework during the early twentieth century,[3] a severe theological vacuum was created. The institutional Church discarded the structural anchor—Father Adam as the physical progenitor—but retained the downstream assumptions of the biological synthesis, namely “spirit birth” and “universal spirit siblinghood.” This preservation left modern Latter-day Saint theology with an unresolved internal contradiction: a biological model of lineage lacking its necessary biological mechanic. By distinguishing the historical context of this synthesis, modern readers are empowered to let go of the contradiction without altering the core revelations of the Restoration.

3. Spirit Begetting vs. Divine Organization

The primary linguistic correction required to realign Latter-day Saint theology with the standard works centers on the mechanics of premortal origin. Modern cultural discourse universally favors the verbs beget or birth regarding the spirit world. However, when we analyze the scriptures according to our intra-canonical hierarchy, a stark division emerges between human narrative and the direct voice of God.

3.A. Class 1: The Verbatim Word of God on Co-Eternal Intelligence

The foundational text regarding human origins is found in Doctrine and Covenants 93:29. This text is a pure Class 1 (Divine Voice) revelation, where the Lord speaks directly in the first person: “Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”**[[4]](#ftn4)**_

Because this is the verbatim word of God, it carries absolute doctrinal weight. The Lord explicitly rules out any process of origin—biological, procreative, or otherwise—for the core of human existence. There is no point in eternity where the essential “self” of a human being was birthed. To understand this accurately, we must interpret the noun within its nineteenth-century linguistic milieu rather than through contemporary psychometric definitions.[5]

This Class 1 reality was the anchor for Joseph Smith's late theological corrections. In the King Follett Discourse—which functions as a historical commentary on these revelations—Joseph Smith reinforced this Divine Voice by stating: “The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself... God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.”**[[6]](#ftn6)**_

3.B. Class 2: Prophetic Vision and the Mechanics of Spirit Creation

If the core essence of humanity is an uncreated, co-eternal intelligence, what then is the “creation” described in scripture? Class 2 texts clarify that the standard creation accounts are records of spirit organization, not physical dust or biological birth. Both Moses 3:5 and Abraham 5:5 explicitly state that the Lord God created:

”...every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.”[7]

This reveals that the narrative of Genesis 1 is fundamentally an account of the theological spiritual creation.[8] Within this spiritual organization, a profound transformation occurs. Human intelligences existed previously, but they did not yet possess the divine form. The text of Genesis 1:26 records the Divine Council taking counsel: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”**[[9]](#ftn9)**_

This suggests that spiritual creation was the specific, architectural act where pre-existing, independent intelligences were organized into spirit bodies patterned after the divine image. God acts as our Supreme Master and Architect, taking unformed eternal materials and organizing them into a higher, structured state.

3.C. Class 3: Recontextualizing the “Father of Spirits”

In contrast to the strict use of “organized” in Class 1 and Class 2 texts, the cultural assumption of a biological pedigree often relies on a literalist misreading of Class 3 texts. For example, Hebrews 12:9 uses the phrase “Father of spirits” to encourage mortal submission to divine discipline.[10]

When isolated from its theological ecosystem, 19th-century commentators used this verse to argue for a biological, procreative pedigree. However, within the broader New Testament context, this title is deeply intertwined with the theme of covenant adoption.[11]

God is the “Father of our spirits” because He is the lawful Master and Architect who organized our uncreated intelligences into spirit forms. He claims legal stewardship over us, which explains the absolute necessity for Christ to act as the mediator to adopt us legally into the Father's ultimate family estate. Privileging the direct Divine Voice over human commentary establishes that our relationship to God is rooted in cosmic craftsmanship and legal covenant, rather than physical, genetic lineage.

4. Recontextualizing the Mother in Heaven

The popular concept of a Mother in Heaven serves as the emotional and logical anchor for the biological “spirit birth” model within Latter-day Saint culture. It is traditionally argued that a literal biological father necessitates a literal biological mother. However, a rigorous textual review across the Class 1 standard works reveals an absolute scriptural silence regarding a divine mother acting in a procreative or biological capacity.

While the concept remains a cherished Class 3 cultural tradition,[12] its absence from canonized revelation indicates that the universal siblinghood framework is a speculative addition rather than a revealed doctrine of the Restoration.

To honor the feminine divine without introducing an unscriptural biological paradigm, we must look to the plural language of the Class 2 spiritual creation texts. In Abraham 4:26-27, the text emphasizes that “the Gods” (the plural Elohim) executed the organization of humanity:

“And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it... And the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him; male and female to form they them.”[13]

If the spiritual creation of humanity resulted in a binary of “male and female” forms created in the exact likeness of a plural council of “the Gods,” it strongly implies that both male and female Exalted Entities (Elohim) were actively participating in this cosmic organization.

This insight perfectly preserves the structural presence of a Mother in Heaven within the Restoration. She is not a passive biological mother who “births” spirits in a cosmic nursery. Instead, she is an active, structural creator within the Divine Council. Alongside the Father, she took co-eternal intelligences and organized them into spirit bodies bearing both the masculine and feminine divine images.

This rescues the Mother in Heaven from the constraints of 19th-century biological projection. It aligns her with the ancient scriptural motif of Wisdom (Sophia) found in Proverbs 8:22-30, where the feminine divine acts as a master craftsman present “from the beginning,” participating directly in the architectural structuring of the universe.[14]

5. The Covenant of Adoption and the Only Begotten

By removing the biological model from the premortal realm, the structural hierarchy of heaven is profoundly reordered, directly magnifying the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Within the traditional siblinghood model, Christ is merely the firstborn among billions of similar biological offspring. However, when evaluated under a scripture-first framework, the title “Only Begotten” ceases to be a designation limited strictly to mortality. Instead, it signifies a uniqueness of essence and nature from the absolute beginning.

Because human beings are comprised of independent, co-eternal intelligences that were organized into the divine image rather than birthed, humanity does not possess a natural-born entitlement to the divine family estate. We are not children of God by inherent biological right. This understanding places the New Testament and Book of Mormon doctrines of adoption at the absolute center of the plan of salvation.[15]

Divine sonship is not a passive genetic past; it is an active, high-stakes covenant process mediated exclusively by the Only Begotten. As King Benjamin instructs through the Class 2 (Inspired Voice) delivery of an angelic sermon in Mosiah 5:7:

“And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.”[16]

If humanity were already biological children of God, spiritual adoption would be a redundant legal fiction. Why adopt an entity that is already your physical offspring? By recognizing that we are separate, organized entities, adoption becomes the entire point of the gospel. We are invited into the family of the Firstborn through a legal, binding covenant, transforming our relationship with God from an entitlement into an unearned privilege.

6. Conclusion: A Grace-Centered Restoration

When the accretions of Class 3 commentary are systematically separated from the direct voice of the text, the entire paradigm of the Restoration shifts toward a profoundly Christ-centered theology. Setting aside biological literalism does not diminish human potential; it dynamically elevates the infinite scope of the Atonement.

Under the traditional pedigree framework, grace is often reduced to an instructional helping hand—a family favor extended by an older brother to his younger siblings. Under a covenant-adoption framework, grace transforms into an absolute cosmic miracle.

[Co-Eternal Intelligences] —–> Organized into Male/Female Spirit Forms by Plural Elohim —–> Bound via Covenant (Adoption) —–> Exalted Heirs

In this light, the Divine Council—comprising the Father, the Mother, and the Word—stands as the divine architects who organized our independent existences. Jesus Christ stands entirely alone as the Only Begotten from the beginning, the sole natural Heir to the Father’s estate. Humanity’s entry into the “Family of God” is therefore driven entirely by the unearned invitation of the Father and the cleansing mediation of the Son.

We move from being “children of men” to “children of Christ” through an intentional, interactive rebirth. Ultimately, a scripture-first Restoration strips away the folk-theological assumption of universal entitlement, replacing it with a high-stakes, covenantal reality that centers every ounce of human exaltation upon the infinite grace of Jesus Christ.

7. The Path Forward: Pedagogy and Curriculum Reframing

For BYU faculty and institutional educators, implementing this scripture-first model requires no fundamental dismantling of existing instructional manuals. Rather, it demands a deliberate pedagogical shift from secondary commentary to textual analysis of canonized materials based on their source voice.

7.A. Teaching the Premortal Realm as the Divine Council

Instructors should reframe the traditional pre-existence lesson. Instead of describing a passive cosmic nursery, educators can ground the discussion strictly in the text of Abraham 3, Abraham 4, and Doctrine and Covenants 93.

Classroom discussion should emphasize that plural Elohim initiated a plan to organize and form pre-existing, co-eternal intelligences into a male and female divine likeness, instantly changing the student’s identity from a passive product of birth to an active steward facing a divine invitation.

7.B. Utilizing Official First Presidency Clarifications

When navigating cultural texts or traditional hymns like “O My Father,”[17] educators can seamlessly transition to the Church's official 1916 document, The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve.[18] While this text functions as a human-voiced exposition rather than direct revelation, it represents the unified, official interpretation of the presiding keys. This document identifies four precise meanings of the word “Father” in scripture:

Father as Creator (Organizer)
Father of the Spirits of Mankind (the Organizer of our spirit forms)
Jesus Christ as the Father of those who abide in His Gospel (Spiritual Rebirth)
Jesus Christ as Father by Divine Investiture of Authority

Instructors can highlight that the title “Father of our spirits” operates scripturally under the definition of Creator and Organizer (Abraham 3:22), perfectly preserving traditional language while aligning the operational mechanic with the scriptures rather than biological speculation.

7.C. Reframing Ordinances as Adoption Proceedings

In a standard entitlement model, saving ordinances frequently function as administrative checklists for entities who are already natural-born heirs. Instructors can utilize the Book of Mormon to reframe baptism and temple covenants as formal, legal adoption proceedings.

By teaching that covenants are the literal, juridical mechanism by which an independent intelligence is legally bound into the “Church of the Firstborn” (D&C 76:54), the spiritual gravity of ordinances is amplified.[19] Students recognize that their divine inheritance is not guaranteed by an ancient biological birth, but is securely authorized only through a lifetime of active, intentional covenant keeping.

Works Cited

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Specific focus: Mosiah 5.

———. The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Specific focus: Doctrine and Covenants 76, 93.

———. The Pearl of Great Price. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Specific focus: Moses 1, 3, 5, 6; Abraham 3, 4, 5.

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve.” Ensign, April 2002, 13–18. Originally published in 1916.

Kimball, Spencer W. “Our Own Liahona.” Ensign, November 1976.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. “The King Follett Discourse.” Times and Seasons 5, no. 15 (August 15, 1844): 612–617.

Smith, Joseph F., John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund. “Sermons and Writings.” Improvement Era 10, no. 10 (August 1907): 731–734.

Snow, Eliza R. “O My Father.” Times and Seasons 6, no. 17 (November 15, 1845): 1039.

Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language. New York: S. Converse, 1828. Reprint, Anaheim, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education, 2002.

Young, Brigham. Sermon, April 9, 1852. In Journal of Discourses, reported by G. D. Watt, 1:46–53. Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1854.

[1] See Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, “Sermons and Writings,” Improvement Era, Vol. 10 (August 1907): 731–734. This serves as the historic baseline defining standard church doctrine vs. localized commentary.

[2] For the foundational public address introducing this theology, see Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50–51 (April 9, 1852).

[3] See Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, November 1976. President Kimball formally clarified that the Adam-God framework was not an official doctrine of the Church.

[4] Doctrine and Covenants 93:29 (Class 1, Verbatim Divine Voice).

[5] Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), s.v. “intelligence.” Webster explicitly defines the noun as “A spiritual being; as, a created intelligence. It is believed that the universe is peopled with innumerable superior intelligences.” This contemporaneous definition demonstrates that the linguistic environment of the early Restoration treated “intelligences” as independent, individual spiritual entities prior to divine organization, rather than abstract mass materials, mental capacity, or a liquid substance.

[6] Joseph Smith Jr., “The King Follett Discourse,” Times and Seasons 5 (August 15, 1844): 612–617.

[7] Moses 3:5; see also Abraham 5:5 (Class 2, Prophetic Vision).

[8] Genesis 1 (Class ½ text).

[9] Genesis 1:26.

[10] Hebrews 12:9 (Class 3, Epistolary Commentary).

[11] Compare Romans 8:14–17 and Galatians 4:4–7 where divine sonship is framed legally through ancient adoption (huiothesia).

[12] See Gospel Topics Essays, “Mother in Heaven,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[13] Abraham 4:26–27.

[14] Proverbs 8:22–30.

[15] See Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 9:4.

[16] Mosiah 5:7 (Class 2, Prophetic Inspired Voice delivering an angelic proclamation).

[17] Eliza R. Snow, “O My Father,” Times and Seasons (1845).

[18] “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve,” Ensign, April 2002 (reprinted from the 1916 original; Class 2 Official Document).

[19] Doctrine and Covenants 76:54.

Download PDF version: Foundations of Divine Sonship PDF

Main piece: The Adam Contradiction

The Adam Contradiction

May 23, 2026

Re-examining Jesus as “Our Elder Brother” and the Doctrine of Adoption

A scripture-centered study for discussion

April 2026

Not an official publication of Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thesis Statement

This paper argues that Brigham Young’s three-part doctrinal framework—premortal spirit siblinghood, the idea of Christ as the “Only Begotten” only in mortality, and the Adam-God teaching—functions as Class 3 commentary (authoritative teaching not grounded in direct, canonized revelation). It finds no clear support in Joseph Smith’s canonized revelations or scriptures. When the scriptures are read on their own terms, they consistently teach adoption through Christ and covenant brotherhood within the Church of the Firstborn. Read this way, the so-called “Adam Contradiction” dissolves, and the doctrine of grace becomes clear, scriptural, and free of any claim to inherited divine status.

Abstract

This paper examines how the Latter-day Saint phrase “Jesus, our elder brother” came to function in later theological frameworks and asks whether those frameworks align with the canonized scriptures and revelations associated with Joseph Smith. It focuses especially on a three-part doctrinal synthesis associated with Brigham Young’s public teaching in the mid-nineteenth century—premortal spirit siblinghood, the “Only Begotten” understood primarily as mortal, and the Adam-God doctrine—and explores how elements of that synthesis continued to shape LDS discourse even after Adam-God was set aside. Reading the canon “scripture-first,” the paper argues that the dominant scriptural category for becoming “children of God/Christ” is adoption through Christ by covenant and rebirth, and that “brother” language most coherently fits the associative brotherhood of the redeemed community in the Church of the Firstborn rather than a universal biological pedigree in premortality. Reframing the question in the canon’s own terms dissolves the so-called “Adam contradiction” and clarifies grace as the unearned favor of the rightful Heir extended to covenant stewards. This is offered as an internal, canon-centered study for discussion among Latter-day Saint readers.

Abstract

1. Introduction: The Unelaborated Phrase.

2. Brigham Young’s Three-Part Doctrine (1852)

2.A. Elder Spirit-Brother.

2.B. Only Begotten in the Flesh.

2.C. Adam-God and the Contradiction.

2.D. Demise of Adam-God.

3. Authoritative Scripture Hierarchy (Joseph F. Smith Standard)

4. Joseph Smith Never Taught Brigham’s Theories.

5. Resolving the Adam Contradiction.

6. Conclusion: A Grace-Centered Restoration.

Path Forward.

Works Cited.

Footnotes

The Adam Contradiction

Re-examining Jesus as “Our Elder Brother” and the Doctrine of Adoption

1. Introduction: The Unelaborated Phrase

This is written as an internal, scripture-centered inquiry for Latter-day Saint readers. It assumes good faith across generations of Church leadership and treats nineteenth-century doctrinal development as a complex process of teaching, transmission, and reception. The aim is not to “debunk” figures of the Restoration, but to ask a narrow interpretive question: when later frameworks are placed alongside the canonized revelations and scripture, do they clarify the text—or create tensions that the canon (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) resolves in a different way? What follows first traces how the phrase “our elder brother” entered later LDS theology, then compares those developments with the canonized scriptures, and finally considers how the canon itself resolves the apparent tension.

The title “our elder brother” for Jesus is first associated with Joseph Smith in an 1833 School of the Prophets context recorded later by Zebedee Coltrin.[1] In that recollection, Joseph identifies a personage as “Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother,” and then the Father. Earlier revelations already use family language (e.g. “brethren”) for believers (D&C 45:5). Joseph also spoke of an “eternal Mother” and called God “the father of us all,” while D&C 27:11 titles Adam “the father of all… the ancient of days.”[2]

What remains less explicit in Joseph’s canonized teachings is whether “elder brother” was ever intended as a doctrinal foundation for universal premortal siblinghood, or whether it functioned primarily as covenant language for the redeemed community. In the generation after Joseph, leaders explored broader syntheses that attempted to relate premortal life, mortality, and the Adam narrative into a single framework.

2. Brigham Young’s Three-Part Doctrine (1852)

Brigham explicitly stated he extended beyond Joseph’s expressed teachings.[3] In 1852 he publicly wove the phrase into a new system:

2.A. Elder Spirit-Brother

Brigham read D&C 93:21-23 as literal spirit begetting by the same Father. He declared: “Christ is our Elder Brother, and God is the Father of our Spirits, as well as of the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[4] This reading competed with the canon’s dominant adoption motif (Mosiah 5:7; D&C 25:1; Romans 8:15-16).

2.B. Only Begotten in the Flesh

To protect Moses 5:9 (“I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning”), Brigham limited the title to mortality— without explicit canonical qualification.

2.C. Adam-God and the Contradiction

Luke 3:38 / Moses 6:22 call Adam “son of God” in the flesh, which we here term the Adam contradiction. Brigham’s solution: Adam = God the Father (Michael). He became mortal, fathered humanity, died, regained immortality, and then fathered Christ as his Only Begotten in the flesh. Grandfather Elohim completed the Godhead. Brigham never recanted: “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven” (JD 1:51).[5] Later he added Eve as co-parent of spirits.[6]

2.D. Demise of Adam-God

The doctrine contradicted Alma 11:45 (immortals “can die no more”) and D&C 107:54 (Adam = archangel Michael). It was never sustained by the Church. Joseph F. Smith (1897) rejected it as never presented to councils and contrary to scripture.[7] Once its proponents died, Adam-God was set aside. The elder-spirit-brother and “in the flesh” qualifiers remained—leaving both the Adam contradiction and the premortal “Only Begotten” title unresolved.

3. Authoritative Scripture Hierarchy (Joseph F. Smith Standard)

Joseph F. Smith’s 1897 private refutation of Adam-God established the principle: revelation-based scripture, not prophetic commentary, is the Church’s standard. The Book of Mormon demands it: “Have they not read the scriptures?” (3 Nephi 27:4-5).

Class 1 (supreme): God’s words verbatim—“saith the Lord.” Inviolable except by God (D&C 1:38; 3 Nephi 24:1).
Class 2: Messenger’s own words recounting visions/revelations—authoritative yet subject to later clarification (3 Nephi 23:1).
Class 3 (lowest): Commentary, policy, and leader teachings—most error-prone and revisable.[8]

Brigham’s framework is Class 3. When it conflicts with Class 1–2 canon, it must yield.

4. Joseph Smith Never Taught Brigham’s Theories

Joseph’s entire revelatory canon distinguishes “children of men” (humanity) from “children of God/Christ” by covenant adoption. Premortal Christ is Only Begotten without qualification (D&C 76:25; Moses 1:6; 5:9). “Firstborn” in D&C 93:21 and Colossians 1:15-18 refers to creation, resurrection, and headship of the Church—not eldest sibling among billions. King Follett and “Great Parent of the universe” statements use ancient inclusive language or refer to Christ’s adoptive role among believers and His role as creator of all things (planets, stars, plants, animals, and humanity).[9][10]

Joseph’s 1833 “elder brother” fits perfectly with the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76:54; 78:21; 93:22; 107:19)—believers elevated above “sons and daughters” to associative “brethren” in Christ’s house (Isaiah 56:5; Hebrews 2:11-12). This is covenant brotherhood, not premortal biology.

5. Resolving the Adam Contradiction

Canon never limits “Only Begotten” to “the flesh.” Ancient Jewish and Pauline thought viewed Adam as son of God in the flesh and humanity as his genetic offspring (“one blood”) (Acts 17:26, 28-29; Gen 3:22; Psalm 82:6-7). Christ as “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45) serves as the adoptive head and heir through whom believers are adopted into the family of God. Spirits were organized by subordinate elohim under Christ’s direction (Abraham 4:27; Job 38:4-7; D&C 121:32; King Follett). Christ alone is Elohim’s natural spirit Son and rightful heir.[11]

The original temple endowment offers no support for spirit siblinghood: Satan’s “brother” claim is explicitly a lie; Adam and Eve address Elohim as Father consistent with Adam’s unique fleshly sonship.

6. Conclusion: A Grace-Centered Restoration

This study has argued that a three-part doctrinal synthesis articulated in the nineteenth century finds no clear grounding in the canonized revelations associated with Joseph Smith. When Adam-God is set aside, the remaining elements generate tensions that the canon itself resolves differently. Read scripture-first, Christ stands as Elohim’s Only Begotten from the beginning and the rightful heir, while humanity’s relationship to God is consistently framed in terms of stewardship, covenant adoption, and grace.

In this light, the so-called “Adam contradiction” dissolves when the canon’s own categories govern interpretation. Grace becomes transparent—not favoritism rooted in inherited status, but unearned favor extended by the true Heir to faithful stewards. We receive adoption as sons and daughters, then (for the faithful) brotherhood in the Church of the Firstborn, purely by grace after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

Path Forward

This re-examination suggests that Latter-day Saint theology may benefit from returning more intentionally to the canon’s language of adoption and the Church of the Firstborn. Doing so preserves continuity with Joseph Smith’s revelations, clarifies the doctrine of grace, and places the Lord’s own words—not later synthesis—at the center of theological development. Revelation remains the unmovable standard (D&C 1:38).

Works Cited

The Holy Bible. King James Version. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013.

Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013.

Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013.

Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “1.14 Eliza R. Snow, ‘My Father in Heaven,’ October 1845.” The First Fifty Years of Relief Society. The Church Historian’s Press, April 13, 2021. https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-1/1-14#note4.

Excerpts from the Diary of L. John Nuttall, 1876–1889. Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/81d5e626-5861-49e9-810d-32bec36887fb/0/0. Accessed April 17, 2026.

Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Liverpool: F. D. and S. W. Richards, 1854–1886.

Pearl of Great Price. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013.

Smith, Joseph. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Edited by B. H. Roberts. 2nd ed. 7 vols. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976.

Footnotes

[1] Zebedee Coltrin recollection of the School of the Prophets meeting, 1833 (recorded in later statements and compiled in Church history sources).

[2] Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “1.14 Eliza R. Snow, ‘My Father in Heaven,’ October 1845,” The First Fifty Years of Relief Society, The Church Historian’s Press, April 13, 2021, https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-1/1-14#note4.

[3] Historian's Office, Reports of Speeches, 1845–1885, Brigham Young, October 8, 1866, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/23abc600-ff59-4c69-ad9f-85dd32e55db2/0/6 (accessed April 16, 2026).

[4] Journal of Discourses, 1:51.

[5] Journal of Discourses, 1:51 (emphasis on “our” added).

[6] Excerpts from the Diary of L. John Nuttall, 1876–1889, p. 6, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/81d5e626-5861-49e9-810d-32bec36887fb/0/0 (accessed April 17, 2026).

[7] Joseph F. Smith, private statement, 1897 (as documented in historical records; he wrote that the Adam-God doctrine “was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification”).

[8] The routine use of the title “the Prophet” for the President of the Church, and some modern proclamations that misstate Book of Mormon adoption doctrine, are examples of Class 3 material.

[9] Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse, April 7, 1844, History of the Church, 6:302–317.

[10] Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse, April 7, 1844 (History of the Church, 6:311).

[11] Moses 1:6 and 1:13 are often cited as evidence that all humanity are literal spirit sons and daughters of God the Father. However, the same chapter repeatedly refers to humanity as “children of men” (Moses 1:8, 12, 34, 41-42). Moses had also been adopted into Pharaoh’s household, and ancient usage of “son” commonly meant descendant or adopted heir rather than literal spirit offspring. This usage is consistent with the canon’s dominant theme of adoption through Christ. Moses himself acknowledged his own nothingness before God: “for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed” (Moses 1:10).

Download PDF version: Adam Contradiction PDF

Companion piece: The Foundations of Divine Sonship