It was Orson Pratt who would not bend to BY's teachings on AG (Adam God). Here is a book, called "Conflict in the Quorum", specifically about these controvercies.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...866933-7518306
The book is actually well done, but I was sort of disappointed with it as I would hoping there would be more I was not already aware of. But for someone who has little to no background on the subject, it would probably be an intruiging read.
The rest of the Q12 accepted AG. It was only Orson who was the outsider with regards to it. He almost got booted from the quorum because of it too. AG was taught and emphasised from about 1860 until the Joseph F. Smith presidency at the turn of the century. George Q. Cannon and the correlation committee recommended that it be deemphasised and the church focus on the basics (though the nature of God is, in a way, sort of a basic, fundamental cornerstone). That is what happened. But AG was taught in the temple (at the lecture at the veil) explicitly until, IIRC, around after the turn of the century (beginning the 1900s that is). Do a google search for the "John Nuttal" and "lecture at the veil" and "Adam-God", and I am sure you will find it without much difficulty. Nuttal was BY's secretary who recorded the lecture in his journal which was used in the temple.
I think people who are bewildered a bit by the AG concept, through a sort of cognitive dissonance, make comments that BY "massaged" it or contradicted on it. It is true that there are some contradictions in some of BY's discourses, but that is really expected when you consider how they were transcribed and then passed down over time. The editing process is not the same then as today. Plus, there are different levels of meaning involved that could look like contradictions though in the mind of the speaker they are not at all. Basically, if people think it is a false concept, they HAVE TO conclude that BY was sort of a bumbling fool on the issue. There is no way around it. Plus you would have to indict the rest of the Q12, minus Orson, as sort of weak-minded, follow your file leader mentalities.
The church never issued a formal statement defining the concept or repudiating it, until Spencer W. Kimball said it was a false doctrine at general conference. But, it is really unclear if SWK meant everything about it, or just some aspects of it. Still even if SWK was right, most of the pre-eminent leadersafter Joseph through the 1800s were, one would have to conclude, completely wrong regarding the identity of God. One thing I have found is that people today who know about the controversy often times actually believe it is a true doctrine (I am talking about orthodox members here).
It is a whole separate discussion as to the events that led to the de-emphasis and eventual denial of the concept.