Your Spring 1982 was excellent, superb, unsurpassed (which is to say you printed articles on my main interest preferences). I found David Buerger's finally honest treatise of Brigham Young's involvement in the Adam-God doctrine well worth reading.

He did a creditable job attempting to see if there was any link between Brigham and Joseph Smith on that doctrine. Even solid adherents to the Adam-God doctrine must admit that little exists to actually link them, though there is some reason to believe that the two prophets may have held similar views.

I found one further link which no one to my knowledge has previously explored in the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" attributed by many to Joseph Smith, Jr. The document consists of a series of lists of glyphs (not really hieroglyphs) which were purportedly the working sheets Joseph Smith used in his translation of the papyrus found on mummies in his possession.

The glyphs appear in the left column, followed by lines of explanation to the right, supposedly translations of the strange markings. If one checks the list it will be found that one glyph appears to be a kind of checkmark stroke written backwards. In the several lists the explanatory note appears similar but with more information as the lists develop.

For this glyph the notes give the following information:

(glyph represented) = Phah-eh:

the first man-Adam, first father

(glyph represented) =Ah lish:

the first being clothed with supreme glory (supreme power)

(glyph represented) =Ah lish:

the first being--supreme intelligence; supreme power; supreme glory--supreme justice; supreme mercy without beginning of life or end of life; comprehending all things, seeing all things--the invisible and eternal godhead.

All of these notes occur after the same glyph represented in each list. It can be seen that the glyph representing Adam also represents the eternal godhead and the first being, supreme intelligence. It must be said, also, however that another glyph also represents "Adam or the first man, or first king."

This document needs, however, to be further studied in light of the question of whether Joseph and Brigham taught the same doctrine (however secretly) about Adam being God. Photocopies of the "Egyptian Grammar" are, of course, obtainable at some Salt Lake City bookstores.

However, I still have yet to see a good article on the real question that arises out of the Adam-God maelstrom: How could Brigham Young be a true prophet of God and teach a "false God" for twenty-five years as president of the Church?" He did, in fact, claim that he knew the doctrine from God himself and enunciated the magic words: "Thus saith the Lord." How do we defend that?

It also strikes at the heart of the problem of a cohesive definition of testimony. Though I have been unchurched for belief in Adam as God, I still feel the glow of a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and his father (whoever that may turn out to be).

A young girl recently arose in our ward and said, "I don't care if what Spencer W. Kimball does is contrary to scripture or the words of previous prophets. When he speaks it is truth. He is the prophet." She was quite worked up and wept as she said those words. I wept too. She has decided on one side of the conundrum, I on the other. But regardless of what side I or she has taken, it is a solid theological question. Do we have testimonies of doctrine, history, reality, philosophy, or the positions and qualifications of men? Does it really matter what the man in the position says, as long as he holds the position that allows him the privilege of saying it ? Does our faith in the system of Mormon religion overarch true doctrine? I have heard tearful testimonies in my thirty-nine years of many things. Some testify that the shadow-leadership program a few years ago was a direct revelation from the Lord. I have heard testimonies of the divine origin of the Constitution, the Boy Scouts of America, the Adam- God doctrine, the anti-Adam-God doctrine, and godly support for various individuals touted as being called the infallible. Did the hundreds of dead in Guyana not bear terrible testimony with their own lives and the lives of their children that they believed the words of a man as being the words of their God? And it couldn't happen in Mormonism? Let's ask the Fancher party.

Someone, sometime, with talent and an ability to write needs to address the question of testimony. What is it? What is its origin? What is it of? Do we believe in a system, a man, or a God?

Merle H. Graffam

Palm Desert, California