Understanding the Fall in Mormonism – Part III: Adam to Michael

This is Part III in a multi-part series examining the concept of the Fall in Mormon thought. This post will focus particularly on the Adam-Michael connection and its implications for understanding the Fall. Part I and Part II explores the Fall as described in the Book of Mormon.  Part IV explores the Fall in light of a plurality of worlds. Part V explores the birth of the distinction between sin and transgression.

Taken as a whole, the Book of Mormon teachings on the fall stressed the lost and fallen nature of man and God’s designs to redeem fallen humanity.  The plan of redemption was viewed as a response to the fall of Adam and Eve, prepared from the foundation of the world, according to the foreknowledge of God (Alma 13:7).

This, however, was only the beginning of a flood of revelations that would forever change how Mormons viewed the seminal events in the Garden of Eden.

The Mormon view of the fall would be shaped by two closely interrelated revelatory developments—first, the expanding role and mission of Adam as patriarch on earth, and secondly, the rise of a cosmic identity for Adam that would foreshadow his eschatological mission and that would reach into pre-earth history as quickly as knowledge of pre-mortal life was revealed.

When is Adam Michael?

Angelology is largely under-developed in the Book of Mormon text.  Angels serve a crucial role in that they are messengers sent by God to proclaim the plan of redemption.  However, they do not yet function in Mormon theology as premortal priesthood patriarchs.[1]

From his first encounters with the angel Moroni, Joseph Smith understood that angels were in reality men who had lived on the earth as mortals.  Therefore, one could argue that, because of his experience, Joseph was predisposed or open to the notion that angels described in the Bible could have identities as mortal men.  What I hope to show is that this link between Adam and Michael is a crucial one in shaping the Mormon understanding of the fall.  Beyond the fall, this connection influenced doctrines such as the priesthood, the divine council narrative, even the concept of the Godhead.

Pinpointing exactly when Joseph drew the connection between Michael and Adam, however, proves a difficult, yet necessary exploration for the historian.  The purpose of this post is to explore the various texts and narratives as we attempt to date this development.

Michael’s Trump Awakens the Dead: 1830

A revelation given to Joseph Smith in August 1830, in Harmony, Pennsylvania (D&C 27:11.  All references will refer to the modern edition), is the first reference of Adam as Michael in modern Latter-day Saint scriptures.

It must be pointed out early in our study that students of Latter-day Saint scripture often rely upon modern headings in the Doctrine and Covenants for historical information.[2] As we shall see, such historical information is often incomplete.  In the case of the D&C 27, the original manuscript, the Kirtland Revelation Book, shows that the verse 11—“And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days”— was not part of the original revelation.[3] In fact, by March 1833, when this revelation was printed in the Evening and Morning Star, this material was still not included for publication.[4] This emendation, like many others, does not appear until the 1835 publication of the Doctrine and Covenants (as Section 50:2).[5] Therefore, August 1830 cannot serve as a historical marker for Joseph’s identification of Adam with Michael.

By September 1830, Joseph Smith had relocated to Fayette, New York.  There, he received an important revelation that reiterated the fall narrative (D&C 29).  The revelation is highly significant for two reasons.  First, the revelation does not deviate from the view of the fall as elucidated in the Book of Mormon (published early that year in March 1830).

According to the September revelation, the fall was the result of Adam transgressing the commandment of God (only one commandment is mentioned).  By so doing, Adam “became subject to the will of the Devil Because he yielded unto temptation” (D&C 29:40).  The results of Adam’s disobedience were harsh.  He was cast out of the garden becoming “spiritually dead” (D&C 29:41).  However, the Lord in his mercy sent “forth angels to declare unto them Repentance & redemption through faith on the name of mine only begotten Son.” (D&C 29:42).  This is recognizably Book of Mormon doctrine on the fall minus Lehi’s unique interpretation of the fall as positive.  Again, Lehi’s unique reading of the Fall does not get carried over in this revelation.

Secondly, the revelation is significant because both the archangel Michael (D&C 29:26) and Adam (D&C 29:34-36) are mentioned in the same revelation, but a careful reading shows that the connection between them has not yet been made.  Michael’s role is the same as described in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians.  Michael’s trump sounds the dead to rise in Christ (1 Thes. 4: 16), but nothing in the revelation suggests any connection to Adam.

Michael Battles Satan at the End of Times: 1832

In Kirtland on March 1, 1832, Joseph Smith received a revelation to organize “literary and mercantile establishments” in Zion in order to advance the temporal welfare of the Church.  The modern edition of the Doctrine and Covenants contains reference to Michael and Adam-Ondi-Ahman (D&C 78:15-16).  Again, the Kirtland Revelation Book makes it clear that this Adam material was not part of the original manuscript.  The material first appears in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (Part Second, Section 75:3).

But during this year Joseph was engaged in the project of translating the New Testament.  From July 20 to July 31 he translated chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation.[6] Joseph understood this chapter to speak of the end of times.

And there appeared a great sign in heaven, in the likeness of things on the earth . . . And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought against Michael; And the dragon prevailed not against Michael, neither the child, nor the woman which was the church of God, who had been delivered of her pains, and brought forth the kingdom of our God and his Christ. [7]

While still in Kirtland, in September of 1832, Joseph receives a revelation on the priesthood (D&C 84).  This revelation is significant as it identifies Adam with the priesthood.  However, this revelation makes no mention of Adam’s alternative identity as the archangel Michael (despite Adam and Michael appearing in the previous D&C 29 revelation, and despite his study of Michael in the New Testament).

At the close of the year, on December 27 and 28, Joseph receives an unusually lengthy revelation (D&C 88), which he describes to W. W. Phelps as “the olive leaf which we have plucked from the tree of paradise.”[8] The three Kingdoms of Glory are for the first time introduced before the revelation launches into a description of the eschaton.  The angel motif looms large in this revelation, which enumerates seven angels and seven trumps, culminating with the archangel Michael who battles the devil and his angels such that they are “cast away, into their own place; that they shall not ^have power, over the saints any more at all . . . ”[9] This revelation is significant because Michael does battle with the Devil at the end of times, consistent with his recent emendations to the Book of Revelation, and in much the same sense that many Christians interpreted the apocalyptic scene set forth within its pages.[10]

The story of the origin of Satan was told in the Book of Mormon.  Lehi and Jacob preached that an angel had fallen from the presence of God (2 Ne. 2:17; 9:8).   The September 1830 revelation (D&C 29) also relates the event of Satan being cast out from heaven.  We might briefly mention the account of Satan’s rebellion in heaven as given in the Book of Moses in June 1830.  There, God says “by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that [Satan] should be cast down” (Moses 4:3).  But no mention is made of the archangel Michael in any of these accounts.  At this time, Satan’s origins narrative seems to be held distinct from Michael’s future battle with the dragon.  The Adam-Michael connection had not yet been revealed and faint notions of pre-mortal existence waft lightly in the air, not yet grasped.

It is only later that this cosmic chronology will be reversed, merged, expanded or bifurcated, and Michael shall battle the devil not at the end of times, but before the foundation of the world, in a premordial struggle for the agency of man.[11] But for now, the December 1832 revelation makes no connection between Adam and Michael.

“Informed from a Proper Source”: 1833-1835

The Blessing

Now, there is evidence that suggests that, at least by December 1833, Joseph believed that Adam would be called the Archangel Michael by his posterity.  One piece of evidence is a blessing included in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith and published in 1938.  Oliver Cowdery records a blessing given by Joseph Smith, Jr. to his father, dated December 18, 1833.  According to Teachings, the Prophet conferred his father to the office of Patriarch.   In this blessing Cowdery records Joseph as stating the following:

Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch and Methuselah, who were High Priests, with the residue of his posterity, who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him, I have set thee to be at the head: a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a Prince over them forever.[12]

Clearly, this material is identical with D&C 107:53-55, published in 1835.  Less clear is whether this material originated with the 1833 blessing or whether Cowdery retroactively added this material to the 1835 recording of the 1833 blessing.

There are several problems with this source.  Oliver Cowdery apparently did not record this blessing until September 1835, two years later.[13] The Adam-Michael material is not mentioned in Joseph Smith’s journal entry for December 18, 1833.[14] Contemporaneous reprints of this blessing, such as the Times and Seasons reprint, does not contain this material.[15] Robert J. Matthews points out the Adam-Michael material is not contained in the Manuscript History of the Church and suggests the possibility that the Teachings version does not reflect the original blessing and is a latter emendation.[16] In addition, scholars have also doubted Cowdrey’s date of December 18, 1833 as the date Joseph Smith, Sen. was ordained as Patriarch.[17] Notably, Quinn argues that Joseph’s father was not present on the date and the first blessings are not recorded until 1834.[18]

The Letter

Despite the failure of the original source materials to account for this blessing to help us in dating the Adam-Michael connection, there is another piece of evidence to consider: a letter written by Oliver Cowdery to John Whitmer, dated January 1, 1834 in Kirtland.  Cowdery writes to Whitmer:

Since I came down I have been informed from a proper source that the angel Michael is no less than our father Adam and Gabriel is Noah. I just drop this because I supposed that you would be pleased to know.[19]

While Quinn suggests that Cowdrey obscured the 1833 date as “part of the larger pattern of revising the historical record to suggest orderly evolution of church priesthood and hierarchy,”[20] Cowdrey’s personal letter to Whitmer suggests the Adam-Michael connection did in fact exist, in some form, during December 1833, possibly independent of the December 18 events.[21] At any rate, the Adam-Michael link would become explicit in the publication of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

Post-Mortal and Pre-Mortal Identities: Early Reactions

How would the early saints have understood the implications of this connection?  Benjamin Park explains:

Identifying two Old Testament figures (Adam and Noah) as the two archangels mentioned in the Protestant Bible (Michael and Gabriel) removed the traditionally sacred distance between the earthly and the celestial. In Commerce, Smith taught that “the innumerable company of Angels” was only that group that had been “resurrected from the dead.” [22]

This connection may also be possibly relevant in tracing the doctrinal development of the pre-existence.  Several months earlier on May 6, 1833, Joseph learned that “Man was also in the beginning with God” (D&C 93:29). Scholars have explored how Joseph and his contemporaries may have understood this revelation.[23] Did this connection assume an understanding of premortal existence?   Inasmuch as the connection links angels to their prior mortal existence, as the angel Moroni was the post-mortal prophet Moroni, no underlying premortal existence is required to allow the linkage.  Notice how Cowdery’s letters unveils the previous mortal lives of angelic messengers, not their premortal lives.  This direction of identity is crucial.

In the June 1835 edition of The Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, W. W. Phelps responded to a series of questions submitted to him by Oliver Cowdrey on the topic of angels (a number of letters appear in the paper).  Notice the temporal connections with Michael:

I am truly glad you have mentioned Michael, the prince, who, I understand, is our great father Adam. New light is occasionally bursting in to our minds, of the sacred scriptures, for which I am truly thankful. We shall by and bye learn that we were with God in another world, before the foundation of the world, and had our agency: that we came into this world and have our agency, in order that we may prepare ourselves for a kingdom of glory; become archangels, even the sons of God where the man is neither without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord: A consummation of glory, and happiness, and perfection so greatly to be wished, that I would not miss of it for the fame of ten worlds.

Notwithstanding your nine questions may be in the breasts of many saints; yet thousands of your readers may not understand them: therefore let me repeat them and give such answers as may be drawn from scripture.

Firstly, “Are the angels in glory the former prophets and servants of God?” Yes, or how could Elijah come before the great and terrible day of the Lord, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, &c. Peter, James and John saw Elias, along with Moses, in the mount.
***
Sixthly, “Will Michael, the archangel, the great prince, stand up in the last days for Israel?”
Seventhly, “Will he defend them from their enemies?”
Eighthly, “Will he lead them as they were once led?”
And, ninthly, “Will he be seen?”
I shall proceed to answer these four last together. Daniel says: “And at that time shall Michael, stand up, the great prince, which standeth for thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, to that same time; and at that time shall thy people be delivered: and if they are delivered they will undoubtedly be defended from their enemies. If Joshua saw the captain of the Lord’s hosts; or, if Nebuchadnezzer, in his astonishment, exclaimed, seeing with his own eyes in the daytime, “Lo, I see four men, [three only were cast into fire] loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt: and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!” then in very deed shall the saints see father Adam, the ancient of days, even Michael the archangel, on the earth. [24]

Notice that the discourse surrounding Michael is of what he will do in the future.  Phelps explains that angels are “the former prophets and servants of God” and that men can become angels.  Thus, Gabriel is revealed as the former prophet and post-mortal identity of Noah.  Michael is revealed the former prophet Adam.  No mention is made of Michael’s role in a premortal war in heaven, despite Phelps explicit mention of premortality.  As we have seen in our survey, none of the Michael material in the Doctrine and Covenants refers to his role in a premortal war in heaven, only to his role at the end of times.

Joseph is notably silent on the issue even after the doctrine of premortal existence was fully revealed with the Abraham papyri.  His 1839 sermons on priesthood do not speak of Adam-Michael playing a role in creation and his 1844 sermons on the divine council say nothing of Michael.  Therefore, we need to use caution in assuming that the identification of Michael with Adam was immediately understood within a context of premortal existence.

Tracing the development of Michael as one of the gods involved in the creation of the world is fraught with great difficulties.  The temple liturgy developed by Joseph Smith was never written down during his lifetime.  The earliest descriptions of the temple liturgy date to December 1845, after Joseph’s death.  William Clayton recorded in his journal on Dec 13, 1845:

Last evening an arrangement was made establishing better order in conducting the endowment. Under this order it is the province of Eloheem, Jehovah and Michael to create the world, plant the Garden and create the man and give his help meet. [25]

Whether this had been a part of Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo temple ceremony or whether it was a later modification by Brigham Young cannot be answered conclusively.[26] Either way, by this time Michael’s role was expanded as one who assisted in the creation of the world, a powerful figure among the Lord’s premortal leaders.  One can perceive that this framework would later pave the way to Young’s more controversial teachings on Adam and Eve, with powerful implications for a positive view of the Fall in Mormonism.[27]

As we have seen thus far, the archangel’s battle with the dragon had been early understood as taking place at the end of times.  The fall of Lucifer took place before the foundation of the world, but Michael had not yet been incorporated into that narrative.  A full-blown account of a pre-mortal archangel Michael engaging Satan in the “war in heaven” (before the foundation of the earth) would later be detailed by the “gauge of philosophy” Orson Pratt in 1853:

[I]n the revelations which God gave through Joseph Smith, the prophet, we are informed that Adam was Michael. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose, that Michael who headed the armies in Heaven against the Devil’s forces would continue the command until the close of the war or until the Devil’s army were banished to the earth. To have left his post, and resigned his command before the enemy was overcome, would have been only a partial victory, and the trial in the first estate would have been incomplete. Nothing short of a full discomfiture of the enemy’s forces and their banishment from Heaven, would have rendered the victory complete; nothing short of this, would have entitled them to the praise of having kept their first estate. It is plain, therefore, that the war in Heaven had ended, before Michael left Heaven, and entered a body of flesh and bones under the name of Adam. [28]

Implications for the Fall in Mormonism

The significance of this developing understanding by the early saints cannot be understated—Adam had a premortal history.  Influenced by these revelatory developments, the story of the fall breaks from traditional moorings—not a story of God’s first creations gone awry, but rather the story of participants in a larger salvation drama that started before the creation of the world.  The subsequent actions of those participants would no longer be judged based only on what took place in Eden, but what took place prior to Eden and also what has been and will take place elsewhere.  The actions of Adam in the Garden were the actions of Michael, the Prince, the archangel who banished Satan from Heaven and who will defeat him at the end of times.  With this understanding in place, Latter-day Saints would increasingly view the acts in the Garden as purposeful, even deliberate, rather than mistaken.

________
[1] For an exploration of angels in early Mormonism see Park, Benjamin E. “‘A Uniformity So Complete’: Early Mormon Angelology.” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 2.1 (2010):1-36.
[2] Scriptural headings lead Turner, for example, to date the Adam-Michael connection too early.  Turner, Rodney “The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint Scripture and Theology” (Provo, Utah: master’s thesis, BYU, 1953). http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTNZ,25104
[3] Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Steven C. Harper, eds., Revelations and Translations, Volume 1: Manuscript Revelation Books. Vol. 1 of the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman. (Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2009), 41.
[4] “A COMMANDMENT GIVEN, SEPTEMBER 4, 1830.” The Evening and the Morning Star, Vol.1, No.10 (Independence, Mo. March, 1833), p.78.  See also, Book of Commandments (1833), chapter 28.
[5] Doctrine and Covenants (1835) 50:2.
[6] Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds. Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004, p. 59.
[7] Original Manuscripts, p. 575-77.  Spelling corrected. Italics represent added material.
[8] History of the Church 1:316.
[9] Revelations and Translations, p. 503.
[10] For a brief discussion of interpretations of Revelations 12 see Stella P. Revard, “The Warring Saints and the Dragon: A Commentary upon Revelation 12: 7- 9 and Milton’s War in Heaven,” PQ.53 (Spring 1974):181-194. “Though this text was in the popular mind connected with Satan’s war of rebellion, it was also thought by serious Biblical scholars are ordinary Christian alike to describe future war.”
[11] See Orson Pratt, “The Pre-Existence of Man”, The Seer, 1:4: (April 1853): 49-57.
[12] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.38.
[13] The blessing contains this note: “Oliver Cowdery, Clerk and Recorder. Given in Kirtland. December 18, 1833 and recorded September 1835.” Patriarchal Blessings Book, Vol. 1.
[14] Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, vol. 1 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 21-23.
[15] Times and Seasons, vol. 6. no. 12. Pp. 947-948.
[16] Matthews, Robert J. “Adam-ondi-Ahman,” BYU Studies, 13.1, (Fall 1972): 35n6.  See Bates Irene M. and E. Gary Smith, Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch (Urbana, Illinois, 1996), p. 34n23.
[17] Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), p. 614n48; Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 46.  For Cowdrey’s original statement see Cannon, Brian Q., et al. “Priesthood Restoration Documents.” BYU Studies, 35.4 (1996): 183.
[18] Quinn, Origins of Power, 46.
[19] Cowdery to John Whitmer, 1 January 1834. Oliver Cowdery Letterbook, Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.  See Buerger, David John. “The Adam-God Doctrine,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15.1 (Spring 1982): 25n41.
[20] Quinn, Origins of Power, 48.
[21] Here, we are less concerned with dating the office of patriarch as we are dating the Adam-Michael connection.  It makes more sense to delink these issues.
[22] Park, Benjamin E. “‘A Uniformity So Complete’: Early Mormon Angelology.” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 2.1 (2010), p. 34.
[23] Ostler, Blake. “The idea of pre-existence in the development of Mormon thought.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 15:1 (Spring 1982): 59-78 and Harrell, Charles. “The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830-1844,” BYU Studies 28:2 (Spring 1988):75-96.
[24] W. W. Phelps to Oliver Cowdery, “Letter No 8″ The Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Vol.1, No.9, (June 1835) pp.129-131. See Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps, “Letter V” The Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Vol.1, No.6, (March 1835) pp. 95-96.
[25] Smith, George D., ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991, 1995), p. 210.
[26] Hutchison explains: “The crucial question here for those interested in the possibility of Joseph Smith’s later reworkings of the creation narratives is, of course, just how much creativity Brigham Young manifested in the disposition of the endowment allegory itself.” But argues that Young and others saw themselves as “preservers and not innovators.”  Hutchinson, Anthony A. “A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21.4 (Winter 1988): 11-74; See 63-64n29; Kirkland feels safe to assume that the “gods” referred to in the 1845 ceremony “were the same as had been given by Joseph himself.” Boyd Kirkland, “Jehovah As Father: The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine,” Sunstone 9 (Aug. 1984): 41n26.
[27] Brigham Young,  April 9, 1852. Journal of Discourses 1:46.
[28] Notice that by this time it’s Adam’s premortal identity that is revealed “Adam was Michael” in contrast than Cowdrey’s initial statement that “the angel Michael is no less than our father Adam.”  The direction is subtle but significant.  Orson Pratt, “The Pre-Existence of Man”, The Seer, 1:4: (April 1853), pp. 50-51 (paragraph 38).  “The Pre-Existence of Man” is an eight-part series published in The Seer from February to September 1853, with 113 numbered paragraphs.  Bergera explains:  “The series afforded Pratt an opportunity to embark on the most detailed—detractors might say tedious—presentations yet of his views, including several veiled rebuttals of Young’s Adam-God teaching.” Bergera, Gary James. Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), p. 99.  Given that context, it is possible that Young’s teachings on Adam-God may have served as a catalyst for Orson Pratt’s synthesis of Michael as the premortal spirit who casts out the Devil from heaven before coming to earth as Adam.  In that way the “war in heaven” as articulated by Pratt serves as a foil for Young’s position. See The Seer (April 1853, paragraph 50).