Adam-God: Spencer W. Kimball's Take
We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.
CES Letter, Page 62
President Kimball defined the “Adam-God theory” as the combined interpretations placed on Brigham Young's words by present day dissidents. He also declared that it is false.
Shortly after President Kimball’s statement, Elden Watson was privileged to meet with the Church President to ask more precisely what he meant. “In a private interview President Kimball made the following clarifications: He said that he did not say that President Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him, nor did he claim that they were falsely reported. Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine. What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam-God theory is false, and the Adam-God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young's words by present day apostates and fundamentalists - their understanding of what Brigham Yong meant is false.”
President Kimball distinguished between the Adam-god Theory and the teachings of Brigham Young, calling the former “false” without elaborating on the meaning of President Young’s references.
Adam-god theorists seem willing to ignore all of Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations regarding Adam because they all contradict it.
Some Adam-god supporters alleged that deities simply carry different titles at different times (like changing hats or assignments). Supportive revelation for this idea is absent and it contradict multiple plain teachings about God in LDS theology.
It is unsurprising that later prophets clarify what former prophets have declared. Spencer W. Kimball clarified Brigham Young's teachings. In contrast, when Brigham taught of Adam, he did not attempt to address Joseph Smith's teachings on the subject, but apparently believed them to be congruent and possibly expansive.
It seems less likely that President Young would blatantly disagree with Joseph without explanation, but that is the position of advocates of the Adam-god theory.
The CES Letter fails to address the entire issue, instead embracing a sound-bite mentality on a topic that has been discussed for over a century. This approach is at best incomplete and at worst, useless from a scholarly standpoint.