A well-meaning but very errant apologetic is that Brigham Young never taught the Adam-God doctrine; instead, he used “Adam” in a polyvalent sense, with “Adam” being a title for God the Father, and that he was not often clear about “Adam” as in the person whose personal name as “Adam” and the title when applied to the Father. Elden Watson has an article on this:
There are many problems with this, including how it has zero explanatory value for Orson Pratt and many other early Latter-day Saints who understood Brigham to be teaching that God the Father and Adam were numerically one and the same person, and that those who commented on the dispute between Orson and Brigham understood it thusly. For a lengthy treatment of the topic from a more defensible position, see:
Matthew B. Brown, Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam
Indeed, such an interpretation appeared all over the globe, including Wales. In the Welsh LDS periodical, Zion’s Trumpet, or Star of the Saints, Dan Jones, prompted by an article in the Millennial Star (vol. xv, no. 48 [1853]) by Orson Pratt on God, wrote a series in response thereto and in defence of Brigham Young’s theology entitled “The God To Worship! Who is He?” which began in the February 4, 1854 issue (vol. vii, no 5, in Zion’s Trumpet: 1854 Welch Mormon Periodical [trans. Ronald D. Dennis; Provo/Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2015], 69-72). In the final installment which appeared in volume VII, No. 9, March 14, 1854, (Ibid., 133-40), part of a series on the nature of God, the author explicitly teaches that Adam and God the Father were numerically identical. For example, after quoting Rev 20:11-15, the author identifies God in that text with the Ancient of Days (Adam/Michael in LDS theology [per D&C 27; 116]) in Dan 7, and that this figure is the Father of Jesus:
The same glorious person called God by John, “God the Father” by the Son according to the foregoing quotation, is here called the “Ancient of Days.” The great work that he will do, that of judging the world, proves that the same time period is referred to by the one and the other; also, the fact that there will be but “one judgment day,” proves that the judge will be the same although he is called “God the Father,” but the one, and “the ancient of days” by the other. Also this kind of subjection of the Son to the “Ancient of days,” according to the vision of Daniel, which is, according to Paul, “God and his Father,” proves that the two were referring to the same person. (Ibid., 136-37)
Elsewhere, Michael (who is the same person as Adam in LDS theology) is identified with God the Father by the author in the following:
This Michael was our Leader in the early council,--Lucifer fought against him, and He and his armies cast him out of heaven: he will bind him with a “great chain,” and will drive him and the “beasts” who worship him, to the “second death.” If Michael was not the Father of the spirits in that war, who was their father, and why is he not mentioned, or why did he not support his obedient children against the oppression of the traitor? We learn through revelations that the Father asked the spirits in the early council, who would go to give his life for his brethren? His eldest Son responded, “Here am I, send me.” His second son said, “send me.” I shall send the first, said the Father, and the second son was angry, and “at that time he began to be Satan.” According to this, the two brothers were Jesus and Lucifer, sons of the same father,--who was that? If we have proved that the “Ancient of Days,” whom Jesus called “Father,” is the same as he who is called Michael, then Jesus acknowledges that Michael was his Father; if he is his father, and Jesus is our brother, why is this Michael not the Father and the God of all spirits, yes, the father of Lucifer also? It is strange, then, that he would be a suitable judge of the one, and the God of the others who obey him? If he is the God of the spirits, why is he not a suitable God for them while they are men? (Ibid., 138-39)
Dan Jones, of course, was in the know, if you will. He was a personal friend of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s and was an ardent defender of Brigham Young. If Brigham was actually teaching that Adam and God the Father were not the same person, and instead, “Adam” was a title (similar to “Elias” being used, both for OT Elijah and in a generic sense for a forerunner), he would have known, and so would have countless others who commented on the topic (e.g, Orson Pratt; Heber C. Kimball)
Indeed, many who left the LDS Church for other branches of the Restorationist movement clearly understood Brigham to be teaching that Adam and God the Father were the same person, contra Watson and others. One prime example is that of John Piece Hawley (1826-1909) who, later in his life, would join the then-RLDS Church. Commenting on his reasons for rejecting “Brighamism,” Melvin J. Johnson wrote:
Hawley next considered the Adam-God doctrine taught by Brigham Young, despite his thinking of it as “too insignificant to talk about.” Brigham Young taught Adam-God as early as 1852:
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later! (Journal of Discourses 1:51)
On January 9, 1855, Eliza R. Snow, a plural wife of Brigham Young read a poem extolling “Father Adam, our God” at a gathering in the home of her brother, Lorenzo Snow:
Father Adam, our God, let all Israel extol,
And Jesus, our Brother, who died for us all:
All the praise is imperfect, we now can bestow--
Our expression is weak, and our language too low:
But when Zion that dwells on a plant of light,
With the Zion perfected on earth, shall unite:
Sweet, rich, high-sounding anthems, all heaven will inspire,
As the pure language flows from the lips of the choir. (“Address,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 17, no. 20 [May 19, 1855]:320)
And Jesus, our Brother, who died for us all:
All the praise is imperfect, we now can bestow--
Our expression is weak, and our language too low:
But when Zion that dwells on a plant of light,
With the Zion perfected on earth, shall unite:
Sweet, rich, high-sounding anthems, all heaven will inspire,
As the pure language flows from the lips of the choir. (“Address,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 17, no. 20 [May 19, 1855]:320)
The church membership accepted it with various levels of scepticism or agreement. Historian Poly Aird wrote that George A. Hicks remembered that if Brigham said “Adam was the God of this world, the people believed it or pretended to believe it” (Polly Aird, Mormon Convert, Mormon Defector: A Scottish Immigrant in the American West, 1848-1862, 144). The day following the President’s announcement, Heber C. Kimball, Young’s first counselor, was recorded as saying that the “God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam.” Ten years later, he wrote: “the Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all of the inhabitants of this Earth” (Wilford Woodruff, Journal, April 10, 1852).
Apostle Orson Pratt, on the other hand, opposed the doctrine or some time. Samuel W. Richards and Wilford Woodruff recorded in their journals for April 11, 1856, of contention in the upper room of the President’s Office. President Young and Apostle Pratt engaged in a quarrelsome discussion about Adam-God. The President, according to Woodruff, said that “Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness & unbelief in what President Young said that will destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways. For when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel & tries to lead the prophet—he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling” (Samuel W. Richards, Journals and Family Record, 1846-1876, 113; Woodruff, Journal, March 11, 1856). The following month Woodruff recorded that
I met with the Presidency & Twelve in the prayer-circle. Brother G.A. Smith spoke in plainness his feelings concerning some principles of O Pratt’s wherein he differed from President Young concerning the creation of Adam out of the dust of the Earth & the final consummation of knowledge & many other things I am afraid when he come to write he will publish in opposition of President Young’s views but he promises he would not. (Woodruff, Journal, April 20, 1856)
As late as 1860, Orson Pratt still disagreed with the President, writing “that [the idea that Adam is the Father of our spirits] is revolting to my feelings, even if it were not sustained by revelation” (Thomas Bullock, “Minutes of the Council of the Twelve in upper room of Historian’s Office, April 5, 1860). Hawley recognized that Pratt had fought Young “on this, but Brigham had said it, and it was Pratt’s business to believe and teach what Brigham taught.” John Hawley though that Pratt, realizing “his living in the church and was liable to be taken from him,” submitted in shame to keep his position. So Hawley too “laid that [doctrine] to one side as not being profitable” (Hawley, “Experiences,” 238). (Melvin C. Johnson, Life and Times of John Pierce Hawley: A Mormon Ulysses of the American West [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2019], 148-50)
As one final example (much more could be reproduced), in a synopsis of Brigham Young’s comments given to the Salt Lake school of the prophets for December 11, 1869, we read the following:
Man will have to be sealed to man until the chain is united from Father Adam down to the last Saint. This will be the work of the Millennium and Joseph Smith will be the mane to attend to it or to dictate it . . . Some may think what I have said concerning Adam strange, but the period will come when this people will be willing to adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer, Revelator and God, but not the Father of their Spirits, for that was our Father Adam. (Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 1867-1883 [ed. Devery S. Anderson; Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018], 42-43)
For more, see:
It is my hope that well-meaning but errant LDS apologists will drop this problematic apologetic and “explanation” of Brigham’s teachings on Adam/God.