While Clark has provided a great deal of helpful information for the members
of the list, I just want to make sure that everyone FULLY realizes that
there are two camps on this issue, and his presentation is a very lop-sided
representation of one of them.  

The two sides of the issue are: 
1) The Two-Adam theory
2) The Adam-God theory (exactly as taught by Brigham Young)

I could provide an even more extensive post in direct response to Clark's
(that run counter to almost everything he said), but that would likely be
outside the scope of the list, and quite frankly, I don't want to give the
impression the I am firmly in either camp, and I don't think it would be
very profitable.  Plus, I am trying to be as objective as possible as I read
new information that comes to light.   Honestly, I truly hope the Two-Adam
theory is right.  It certainly makes things a lot more comfortable. 
However, while the two-Adam theory is very refreshing for Latter-day Saints
within the current context of orthodox LDS theology, it is only IMPLIED AT
BEST in Brigham Young's discourses on the subject.  If that's what he meant
when he said what he did, he never stated it clearly at all.  

I have read as many talks that I could find that he gave on the subject,
including one found within the last 10 years or so by Andrew Ehat, which
Wilford Woodruff called "the greatest sermon I ever heard preached."  It is
quoted in full in the book, "The Adam-God Maze" listed below.  Nowhere in
that discourse, which is, in my opinion, the most lengthy and explicit
discourse he gave on the subject, does he state anything close to a
second-Adam.  True, you can IMPLY it to reconsile current LDS theology, but
the fact remains, he never taught it that way.

In the end, I think the statements of Wilford Woodruff at the trial of
Edward Bunker Sr. are appopriate.  This was a trial based on
statements/arguments similar to those you have read by Clark in his posts. 
This man and his son had been contending with church leaders on this matter
for years, and he (EB Sr.) had written a lengthy letter which showed many of
the scriptural contradictions with the doctrine (and admittidly, there are
many).  But what's worse, he was attempting to counter what was being taught
in the endowment ceremony at the time that Adam  was an exalted being when
he came into the Garden of Eden - not created from the dust as the
scriptures say he was - definitely no mention of a second Adam there).  WW
made it clear before the trial was over that any attempt to prove by the
scriptures that the doctrine is false is futile, because it (Adam-God) has
such little scriptural basis.  And, quite frankly, this is the reason why
any lenghty discussion of it is really out of scope of this list.

Here is a quote from a portion of the minutes of the Bunker Sr. trial, "Said
it was not wisdom for the Elders to contend about such matters, and things
they did not understand, and not to teach such things to the children in the
Sunday schools they could not comprehend them. Pres Woodruff spoke of . . .
the false teachings of the late Orson Pratt one of the twelve.... Pres.
Woodruff told of Orson's unyielding stubborness . . . spoke of the firmness
of Pres Young in correcting Orson Pratt and setting him aright. . . . Had it
not been for firmness of Pres Young in maintaining the Right . . . Orson
would have been out of the Church. Showed the folly of some men because they
cannot look up and prove by the Bible the glorious Revelations that God has
given they receive them doubtfully. Showed that God had, and would yet
reveal many glorious things men could not prove, and search out of the old
Bible."

You can clearly see that even Orson Pratt's (please keep in mind that I love
the man's doctrine and I have the utmost respect for him) attempt to
disprove the doctrine by the scriptures (and this was a huge matter of
contention between OP and BY) almost lead to his dismissal as an apostle, as
well as his leaving and/or excommunication from the church.  What was
Orson's disagreement?  It didn't line up with the scriptures and doctrines
as publicly taught.  If the truth be known, the real source of the Two-Adam
theory is Orson Pratt.  He had to come to grips with what what Brigham Young
taught somehow.

What will our disagreement be when we read source texts of the teachings of
President Brigham Young (NOT COMMENTARY ON THE MATTER)?  It doesn't line up
with what is currently taught/accepted.  Obviously it's quite clear that the
doctrine is not to be taught publicly right now.  But, never forget
statements like the following by Joseph Smith, "I have tried for a number of
years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God;
but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the
work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is
contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all."  What in
the world was he talking about?  I have no idea, but he said many times how
much there was yet to be revealed  to the Saints, and how much he wished he
could teach them, but the saints would not receive them.  That's not to say
I'm thinking he wanted to teach Adam-God, just to illustrate the idea that
there is so much more to be revealed that is completely outside of our
current understanding.  For goodness sakes, that's our 9th Article of Faith.

At any rate, please don't take this as my attempt to lead anyone into
apostasy or counter to the leaders of the church, I just want to make sure
people understand what was actually said and taught, and then they can
decide for themselves what they want to believe.  Finally, lest we get too
unnecessarily caught up in this, the most wise counsel I know of in dealing
with this matter was given by Wilford Woodruff as the doctrine was in the
beginning stages of being "phased-out."  In a discourse given in April 1895
he said, "God is God.  Christ is Christ.  The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. 
That should be enough for you and me to know.  If we want to know any more,
wait till we get where God is in person."  Honestly, people have left the
church over things like this, so be wise and cautious as you pursue this
type of information.  And never, never, never forget Alma 12:29, "It is
given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid
under a strict command that they shall not impart ONLY ACCORDING TO THE
PORTION OF HIS WORD WHICH HE DOTH GRANT UNTO THE CHILDREN OF MEN, according
to the heed and diligence which they give unto him."  The fact of the matter
is, Adam-God is not according to the portion which he has granted unto the
children of men right now.

If you are curious, and would like to read/understand more, the following
are comprehensive treatments on the subject:

1) Start with David Buerger's article "The Adam-God Doctrine", Dialogue,
Spring 1982, vol 15 #1, pp. 14-58.

Then see the following books:
1) "The Adam-God Maze" by Culley K. Christensen
2) "Adam-God" by Craig L. Tholson 

Respectfully Yours,

-Richard T. Livingston
rlivingston@novell.com