Edward was released as Bishop of Bunkerville in 1883 and his son Edward Bunker, Jr. was chosen to replace him. Edward, Jr. chose Myron Abbott (his uncle), and Joseph Ira Earl as councilors. Edward, Sr. was still traveling and returned to Bunkerville in 1884. Sometime after Edward's return, a discussion arose in Bunkerville about doctrinal issues presented in a lecture in the St. George temple.

The discussion resulted in "The Bunkers" (Edward, Sr. and Edward, Jr.) taking a position critical of the lecture, while Myron Abbott supported it. The conflict focused on two issues, "Adam" and "adoption", and began to divide Bunkerville into two camps.

Edward Bunker, Sr. may have first heard the issues surrounding a discussion of Adam as early as 1852. In the fall of that year, Orson Pratt and William Clayton had discussed the matter while traveling east with Edward. William Clayton was clerk of the company of missionaries traveling east and recorded that he and Apostle Pratt spent some time trying to settle a controversy which had grown out of a statement President Young had made at the previous conference:

"our Father Adam came into the garden of Eden with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him....He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

Clayton, at that time, recorded in his diary:

"Another subject which has occupied much of the time, and in which the difference in opinion seems to be wider...is in regard to Adam's coming on this earth. On this subject brother Pratt and myself have rather locked horns...it will be wise to let such subjects alone when we get amongst the benighted nations."

Later, as Edward was completing the first year of his mission, an article appeared in the December 10th, 1853 issue of the Millennial Star titled: "Adam, The Father and God of the Human Family." It discussed the eternal nature of the family and government and how Adam is like unto a God being the father of all the children that he had created and was responsible for. No doubt Edward read the article with interest and pondered the issue at some length.

Over the years Orson Pratt, one of the Apostles, and others had taken exception to some points concerning Adam as presented by Brigham Young. From the time Edward first came in contact with the Mormon church, he had been impressed with the words of Parley P. Pratt when he wrote in A Voice of Warning that the scriptures were to be interpreted literally. Perhaps Edward leaned toward dissent because Orson Pratt shared similar views and the doctrine appeared to deviate from a literal interpretation of scripture.

At the time of the dedication of the St. George Temple in 1877 President Brigham Young dictated a lecture that was to be recited word for word at a certain place in the temple. The lecture contained statements about the nature of Adam and his relationship to Jesus Christ. Not only did the lecture reiterate President Young's previous position, but it provided additional statements that expanded on the topic.

Edward's position was undoubtedly nurtured over a period of thirty-plus years of study and thought. Since 1884 Edward, Sr. and particularly Myron Abbott, his brother-in-law, had numerous confrontations at Bunkerville. The dialogue became more polarized and vocal as time passed. Finally, in 1890, Edward, Jr., then Bishop of Bunkerville, made a written request to the St. George leadership that Myron Abbott be released as his counselor in the Bishopric.

In November of 1890 an apparent climax was reached as Myron Abbott and Edward Bunker, Sr. had an exchange that drove Myron Abbott to seek guidance from the stake presidency. Abbott accused "The Bunkers" of advancing incorrect doctrine. The Stake Presidency had been aware of the continuing debate through the years and had made several attempts to ease the controversy through "gentle persuasion". But now the issue had become too intense.

Many authors have attempted to use "the Bunker Case" to assess the doctrinal nature of Mormon theology. No attempt will be made here to do that. Edward's motivations and consequences are more pertinent to a discussion of his life.

In 1890, a High Council Court was called to openly discuss the matter in St. George. While many in the church had felt uneasy about the origins of Adam, it had never been challenged in a church court before. Edward Bunker, Sr. and the Bishopric of Bunkerville were requested to meet at the St. George Tabernacle. Edward, Sr. was ill and did not attend. The Stake Presidency and the twelve members of the Stake High Council met with Edward Bunker, Jr., Myron Abbott, and Joseph I. Earl. Each member of the Bishopric was asked to express his views on the issues.

Myron Abbott began by saying that for a number of years, questions on church teachings had been "agitated in Bunkerville Ward". He stated that Bishop Bunker had openly expressed his opinion that some teachings in the temple were wrong. Bishop Edward Bunker, Jr. responded that he felt certain things taught in the lecture regarding Adam were "certainly wrong". The court proceeded for some time with two successive sessions. The issue of the correctness of Church doctrine was set aside and the focus placed on leadership and unity. By the end of the second session, everyone involved expressed regret and "felt they had done wrong in contending on the subjects referred to".

Even as those involved in the Court appeared to reconcile and agreed not to contend on issues they did not fully understand, the question was not resolved for Father Edward Bunker. He asked that he be allowed to submit his views in writing to the stake presidency, which was allowed and which he did in a ten-page letter. The letter was dated April 25th, 1891 and read in High Council meeting on May 15th. After reading the letter, the stake presidency decided the issues were beyond their authority. They forwarded the letter to President Wilford Woodruff in Salt Lake seeking to know what course they should pursue.

Edward must have felt very strongly about his position. But the question remains: Did he anticipate the consequences of pressing the issue to the highest levels of the Church? Almost every participant in any organization comes to a point where they question key philosophical teachings or practices of that organization. Certainly the individual must determine for himself the extent to which he will go to challenge those in authority on the issues.

The situation regarding Edward offered three possible outcomes: 1) The Church would alter its position, 2) Edward would change his position, or 3) Edward would be asked to leave the Church. It seems highly unlikely that the Church (or any large organization) would suddenly acquiesce on doctrinal or policy positions when challenged by a singular complaint. Therefore, the consequences of pursuing his challenge would result in Edward either dropping his claim or leaving the Church.

The following excerpts from Edward's letter are not intended as a review of doctrine, but to provide insight into Edward's logic, his commitment to the Church, and his basic communication skills. Edward presented a copy of the letter with his autobiography, excerpts of which are included as follows:

"After my return from Arizona, a controversy arose in the settlement, on points of doctrine principally between myself and Brother Myron Abbott. We mutually agreed to submit our views to the High Council. I was permitted by the Council to submit mine in writing."

"Having been represented before you as not believing certain doctrines as held to be correct by Myron Abbott and others; and not being present at the Council when represented because of sickness, and having heard the minutes read since and with your permission to answer the charges in writing, I herewith submit to you my belief and unbelief."

"First I do not believe that Adam is the father of Jesus Christ, and the God we worship, and the God of this earth. Now, I wish to present to the Council my views fully on this subject, that those who read may not misjudge my views."

"First, I will take the word of the Lord to Abraham [Abraham 1:16]. Now, who is this God that ministered unto Abraham? The same that ministered unto Moses [Exodus 6:3]. The same God that appeared unto Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple [D&C 110:2-4]."

"Now we will let the Book of Mormon make plain who this God Jehovah is [3 Nephi 15:5]. [He is Jesus Christ] When did Jesus Christ covenant with [Israel]? Hundreds of years before he took a tabernacle of flesh [3 Nephi 11:14,17]. I will give you a few more references and show that he is the God of Enoch [Moses 6:43]."

"Why counsel we ourselves and seek to supplant the God of heaven with some other God [such as Adam]? [Moses 7:69 and D&C 38:1-4] This ought to settle the question on this item of doctrine to those who believe in revelation."

"Now in regard to the law of adoption: I believe it is a correct principle and when it runs in the lineage it looks consistent, but the adoption of one man to another out of the lineage, I do not understand and for that reason I would not enter into it. And adopting the dead to the living is as adopting the father to the son. I don't believe there is a man on earth that thoroughly understands the principle. If there is, I have never heard it taught so I could understand it. I believe it is permitted more to satisfy the minds of the people for the present until the Lord reveals more fully on the principle."

"In regard to Adam coming to this earth in the creation...a resurrected Celestial being and a God; having had a second probation on another planet, and that his body was of the dust of another planet. I do not believe this item of doctrine, and I will give you the scriptural references as I believe them."

"First, the sacred record as given to us is for the earth and the heavens belonging to this earth. Here is what the Lord said to Moses [Moses 2:1]. Now this record has come to us direct from the heavens through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Shall we receive it in whole or in part? If it is not all correct, what confidence can we have in any other communication which has come from the same source?"

"We will now take the record of the creation [Abraham 5:7]. This is plain to me that Adam came to this earth a personage of Spirit. He might have been a Celestial spirit, because he kept a Celestial law in his first estate. What ground was Adam's body taken from? That which he was sent forth from the garden of Eden to till [Moses 4:29, Gen. 3:23, and Alma 42:2]."

"Now, in regard to Adam being a God here is what the Lord said concerning Abraham [D&C 132:37]. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are Gods. Surely Noah and Adam are Gods. Do the children of Abraham worship and pray to him? I think not. Noah was the father of all living in his day. Neither do the children of Noah worship him, or Adam's children worship him. To me there is great difference between those Gods and the God Jesus Christ who created the earth and redeemed it."

"Every God in his own order: Honor to whom honor is due; a place for everything and everything in its place."

"With due respect the Council and to all my brethren, I cannot, I dare not ignore the written word of God. I subscribe myself your friend and brother in the Gospel of Christ."

The letter was well prepared by a faithful and respected member of the Church. After reading Edward's letter, the Stake Presidency in St George determined that the issue was beyond their authority and required the attention of the President of the Church.

On July 11th, 1892 a High Council Court was convened to deal with the case of Edward Bunker. In addition to the Stake Leadership, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church and his first counselor George Q. Cannon, had traveled from Salt Lake to St. George specifically for the court and were in attendance.

Edward had challenged the Church on three issues: 1) Was Adam the Father of Christ and God of this earth, 2) Was Adam a resurrected being when he was brought to this earth, and 3) Was adoption currently practiced correctly in the Church. During the court the authorities systematically refuted Edward's letter, point by point.

The first challenge to Edward's position was that he had in error tried "to scripturally disprove a doctrine that had little scriptural basis". Edward was instructed that things would be continuously revealed to the church that had been "kept hide from the foundations of the world."

The second challenge was that Edward had misinterpreted the scriptures. The pivotal point was that Edward's confusion was the result of misunderstanding. He was warned that his course was dangerous, could lead to darkness, and possibly loss of church membership.

President Wilford Woodruff then said: "We should not spend time over these mysteries. Let them alone. All beings were created as we are created. Let them alone and don't quarrel over them."

Edward was called to repentance. At the same time, the authorities counselled Myron Abbott to not become "puffed up on pride" over the victory. Edward was not told to abandon or change his belief but to leave those things alone which he did not understand. He was counselled to eliminate contention and bring about unity. How ironic that he had worked all his life in various leadership capacities to foster unity and cooperation, and now he was accused of sowing seeds of discontent and disruption. Edward did not lose his membership in the Church over this issue. He was instructed and apparently accepted the censure imposed.

Edward's letter demonstrates a diligence in the study and understanding of the scriptures. He was a logical thinker and good communicator. But his reasoning was faulty, not only in his exploration of scripture, but in his anticipation of the outcome of his challenge. The verdict that was offered was the only one possible: Cease challenging authority or leave the Church. Edward believed in the Church so deeply that he used its own teachings to support his position. He believed so deeply that he was willing and submissive in accepting the verdict of the court.

So why all the fuss? Perhaps it was Edward's pride as a past leader in the community being challenged by Myron Abbott, whom he had mentored and taught. Perhaps it was that "familiarity breeds contempt", and he knew Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff on a very personal basis. But perhaps he felt so strongly the doctrine was wrong that he was willing to push it to a point near excommunication, in order to bring attention to the issue.

Three years later, on April 18, 1894, President Wilford Woodruff offered a public discourse titled "The Law of Adoption." He is quoted in Messages of the First Presidency:

"Joseph Smith...did a great deal of...work. Who could expect him, during the short time he lived in the flesh, to do more than he did? In fact it is a marvel and a wonder that he performed as much as he did."

"I want to say, as the President of the Church...that we should now go on and progress. President Young... accomplished all that God required at his hands. But he did not receive all the revelations that belong to this work; neither did President Taylor, nor has Wilford Woodruff. There will be no end to this work until it is perfected."

"I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption."

"I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me...let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowment, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, not to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people."

One point raised by Edward was heard by the prophet, who in turn went to the Lord and received an answer. This must have quietly given Edward comfort and reassurance that answers to prayers do in fact come, but it may be with some work on our part and in a fashion unexpected.

The writing of Isaiah, in the Bible state:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little."

Just as individuals are taught one step at a time, from principle to principle, the community of the Church can only receive what it is prepared to receive. Foundations must be laid before a full understanding can be achieved. Perhaps regarding the issue of "adoption", Edward was forward thinking and looked to the complete fulfillment of the promise. When the members were prepared, it was given.

In 1901, ten years after Edward's church court, the origin of Adam discussion was removed from the lecture in the temple and official discussion within the Church. Was Edward vindicated at last? There was general confusion and misunderstanding about the doctrine. It was a very advanced topic the Church membership was not prepared to receive.

Most accepted the doctrine, not totally understanding it. Others such as Edward Bunker attempted to fully explore and place it within the logical context of their understanding. The bridge was evidently not sufficient to bring the general Church community to full understanding. Therefore, the doctrine was withdrawn and "line upon line" preparation commenced until the fullness could be revealed.

Edward moved into the last stages of his life and in 1894 wrote his life story. He concluded with the following:

EB: In conclusion I would say that, now at the age of 72 I am resting from my labors and am associated with a goodly portion of my family, having in all three wives, 28 children, seventeen boys and eleven girls. Three girls and two boys have died. I also have seventy grandchildren, sixty-one of whom are living and two great grandchildren.