Talk:Adam–God doctrine

Old comments

please site your sources. Noldoaran 01:15, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.'s concepts of the Eloheim and Godhead

Joseph Smith, Jr., explicitly and openly taught a doctrine of Eloheim by at least the early 1840s which is the foundation upon which the Adam-God doctrine rests. This doctrine was that the Grand Council of the Gods was the meaning of the word Eloheim. Today, the Latter-day Saints teach 'Elohim is God the Father'. Which, while technically correct, is much less specific than Joseph Smith's more elaborate discourses on the subject. I have typed up exhaustive excerpts from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Church Historian and tenth President, on this subject in my user page: User:Jizzbug/Mormon. Some of Joseph Smith's material on this matter should rightly be incorporated in this article somehow.

BY Journal Reference

COGDEN - One issue I have with a recent edit is the statement below:

In 1877, while Brigham Young was, for the first time, recording and standardizing the Endowment ceremony for use in the Saint George temple, Young introduced the Adam-God theory to the temple as part of the Endowment's "Lecture at the Veil" (later removed)... (Journal of L. John Nuttall, personal secretary of Brigham Young, Feb. 7, 1877 in BYU Special Collections).

Brigham Young approved (shortly before his death in 1877), and did not record nor write the Endowment ceremony down. Wilford Woodruff was given that task to write it down while president of the Saint George Temple, which was done after the dedication of the temple in April of 1877, a few months after the entry you referenced. The First Presidency felt it too sacred to write anywhere but in the "House of the Lord." Although I am unfamiliar with the journal entry, I'll take a look when I get a chance. Do you have a source where you've seen that? Please provide it in the talk page (or let me know it was your own research).

Also, please correct the statement about Young recording the ceremony and place it in its proper context - was he preparing some statements prior to the standardizations for Woodruff? The journal should shed light on this, because in the context you placed it it seems very odd, based on other comments made by Young about the recording of the Endowment. -Visorstuff 00:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, according to Nuttall, some portions of the ceremony were written down before BY's death, and transcribed by himself and J.D.T. McAllister. See the following:

"In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young, in following up in the Endowments written, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elder J.D.T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

"A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which Presi-dent Young refers to Adam in his creation &c.

"/s/ L. John Nuttall

"For Presidents W. Woodruff

"Geo. Q. Cannon

"Jos. F. Smith

"June 3, 1892

"Salt Lake City"

The source of this is BYU Special Collections (Mss 188, Letterpress copy book #4, p. 290).

I haven't personally seen Nuttall's journal, but these portions are cited in a few books and essays on the subject, so I assume the quotes are correct. The main non-online source everyone cites is Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I found an online source at http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/adamgod.shtml (where I also found Nuttell's statement above) and a partial online source at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm (from the Tanners' book, which unfortunately they put online).

COGDEN 01:53, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So, is the account an 1892 account recreated as it was 1877, or an actual 1877 account? -Visorstuff 21:02, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The above statement looks like a re-creation of history (or a recollection) in 1892, from what I have been able to find, and therefore the accuracy is in question in light of other historical documents that Woodruff wrote the entire ceremony down. -Visorstuff 23:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Major additions

I just doubled the size of the article and then edited/re-organized. I also removed a sentence about Young stating that he had the doctrine revealed to him as I could not source it. Although I remember reading it, I must have missed the source. Also, he never presented it as official revelation, and he would have considered all of his beliefs as revealed truths, so that could get somewhat misleading and confusing to the reader. Let's figure out where it is appropriate to put back in. Anyway, am looking for some clean-up/help editing my work. -Visorstuff 23:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great work. I think it's turning into an excellent and fascinating article. COGDEN 23:50, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to find some of my sources (its all tucked in boxes somewhere) but I was quite fascinated by the statements by Brigham Young that led to this Adam-God Theory and also by the reactions that others have had to it. I'm impressed with the current content but I think there's some clarifying material that could be added. Let me present it superficially first and then I can find my sources. Note that this is my personal interpretation as understood from several sources and from my own personal discussions with (local) church leaders. It is important to remember that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were adamant in their teachings with regard to the nature of God. One vitally important doctrine taught by both (I'll get sources) is that God the Father (Elohim) was once a mortal man. James E. Talmadge stressed this doctrine in Jesus the Christ as the reason for Christ's use of the epithet Son of Man to refer to himself. Also, there are old testament references to David being the father of the Messiah and new testament references to the Son of David, namely Jesus Christ. It seems to me, taking into account Young's myriad other speeches (it is quite ridiculous to view any one speech at one time as an autonomous object) that any direct or indirect reference to Adam as the father of Jesus Christ would be in a metaphorical form in the same way that David was also his father, using father as a loose term for ancestor. So now to break down the quote. Celestial body is an interesting term. I believe that Young meant celestial not Celestial but I have no proof. The bible states very clearly that Adam lived for several hundred years and it is definitely within Church doctrine that early prophets (and others) were explicitly instructed by God to have multiple wives. Adam's job in the baby making process is easy, Eve's is not (due precisely to the fall). It doesn't surprise me at all that Brigham would teach that Adam had multiple wives but I would say that these women became his wives after the Fall. Again, by the above analogy with David and the fact that Brigham says that Adam is our father I don't see how one can interpret our father as metaphorical and Jesus' father as literal in nearly the same breath. I'm not completely sure about the next phrase the only God with whome we have to do. However, there is one interpretation that is certainly consistent with Church doctrine. At the judgement day it is commonly said that man and woman will have to stand before God to be judged. Specific Church doctrine actually dictates that it will be more that just God, or possibly (I think I can find a reference for this) that it will be done by those Apostles who were alive while you were, or if there were none then ...? There is a definite reference in Doctrine & Covenants that says that Adam presides over these and other Church meetings since he was the first prophet on the earth. So then in that sense, when it comes time to answer for your sins, it is to Adam (as a delegate for God) and to others as delegates for Adam that you will have to answer. The comment with regards to the comment about Mary and the Holy Ghost, I think there should be a note (I don't see one currently) that this was a direct statement against the teaching of that time (and the present) by many protestant sects that the Virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost. The very offical Church doctrine is that Christ is the literal son of God, the Father, Elohim (not Adam). The 'first of the family' reference is probably a large source of the controversy but it seems to me that since Brigham was explicit as Joseph was about teaching that God was once a mortal man and is now an immortal man that he would most certainly qualify as the 'first of the human family'. Finally, the last sentence is definitely misunderstood. I think the best reference for this is the 14th installment of a series published (in the 70s I think) in the Ensign about Enoch called "A Strange Thing in the Land" by Hugh Nibley in which Nibley clearly references the teaching that Adam walked with God in the Garden of Eden and was taught explicitly by Him. So then both Adam and Elohim were in the Garden of Eden but only one was our Father in Heaven a term which I think makes more sense considering everything else that Brigham taught. Once I find my copy of Brigham's talk, I think it would be useful to incorporate a longer quote as well since I think some context provides a better understanding. I don't mean for any of this to be immediately included in the article but rather as fodder for discussion and revision and eventual inclusion. -Robert Van Dam 01:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look forward to your edits. I loosely believe (please call it a speculation) that Young was meaning something quite different than what he explained, just had a hard time explaining it. I think he meant that like us getting approval from JS (as head of our dispensation) we must get approval from Michael/Adam to go to heaven. In addition, Adam is a god on two accounts - first he is already exalted, like abraham; and second, he was the literal son of god (see luke and matthew's geneaology) but not the only begotton son in the flesh (meaning mortality). Adam was born to God in a celestial body and placed on the earth (hense God was in the garden) and had to choose to be mortal. A God fell (Michael) and a God overcame all (Christ). It took one god to get us into this mess of mortality and one God to get us back out. Both were sons of God (elohim). The Father could not be responsible for either decision, it had to be the sons' decisions. But I digress - I look forward to your edits... -Visorstuff 16:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few corrections and additions needed.

In the section on "The distinction between Father Adam and Father Elohim" it is worth noting that that there is a different view - the word Eloheim was used by Brigham Young to denote a calling of 'head God', and when speaking of the Godhead before this world was formed Brigham seemed to indicate that the Eloheim at that time was Adam's grandfather God, whilst the Jehovah calling was fulfilled by Adam's heavenly Father. The idea of Jehovah being Jesus is a more modern idea, which James E. Talmage popularized - in the early Endowment Jesus had a small part seperate from Jehovah, and Jehovah spoke of Jesus as a seperate being. I'll go through my notes and get the references, before proposing any changes though.

Look forward to your notes/references. I'm personally unaware of such a change in the endowment - see [1] and [2] (and even from my research into the Nauvoo/Endowment house version. I'm also unaware of any support for the idea that "Brigham seemed to indicate that the Eloheim at that time was Adam's grandfather God," although I'm familiar with where that idea is promulgated. I don't see any support for it historically. Would love to see your references, however, as this is a topic I've much-researched for many years. -Visorstuff 16:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Substantiation for Eloheim not always being heavenly father idea

Still trying to plow through my notes, but here is one of Brigham's quotes - "Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, son, and grandson. They made this earth and Michael became Adam." (Joseph F. Smith journal, 17 June 1871) Thus infering that Michael is the son of the Jehovah involved in the earth's creation (who of course could not be Jesus if this were true). I think I have a quote somewhere from Lorenzo Snow saying the same thing, I'll keep checking.

This idea was picked up by Bishop Heber Bennion in 1920 (Supplement to Gospel Problems, p. 8-9): "Elohim may signify the Father or Grandfather, or Great Grandfather - God or the Council of Gods, and Jehovah may be applied to any of them in the capacity or relationship of a son ..."

Most scholars question what was meant?

Also the line "Most scholars believe that the few statements about the theory are inadequate to properly understand what was meant by the teachings." needs to be qualified. The only serious scholars (non apologists) who seem to have treated the subject are Buerger and Turner, both of whom concluded that Brigham's teachings unambiguously equated Adam with the Father of our Spirits etc. Even some LDS apologists says that is what Brigham taught, but that it was just an opnion on his part (as pointed out earlier in the article).

Joseph Smith - attributed teachings

Also, there needs to be a section on the quotes attributed to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, and showing Eliza R. Snow's belief in it. I'll work on it.

An example of a few -

It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God ... God comes to earth and partakes of the fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him. (Brigham Young Papers, Meeting of Quorum of Twelve, 4 April 1860.)

President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and that Joseph taught this principle. (16 December 1876, Meeting of School of Prophets, Wilford Woodruff Journal.)

Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God. (Brigham Young Papers, 14 May 1876.)

I heard Joseph say...”Adam is the Father of our bodies. Who is to say He is not the Father of our spirits.” (John Taylor, 13 January 1880, L. John Nuttall Papers.)

Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet - an immortalized being and brought his wife Eve with him - and by eating of the fruit of the earth, became subject to death and decay - was made mortal and subject to death. (Joseph Smith to Anson Call, John M. Whitaker Papers.)

He taught us that God was the great head of human procreation - was truly the Father of both our spirits and our bodies. (Benjamin F. Johnson, October 1903, Letter to G.S. Gibbs, UR 61:18)

Eliza R. Snow poem

The Ultimatum of Human Life

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation He arose to be

Clothed with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And what to Him in His probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?

Whatever His offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By His obedience He obtained the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all Her daughters on earth, who will

All My requirements sacredly fulfil.

And what to Eve, though in Her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?

What did She care, in Her lowest state,

Whether by fools, considered small, or great?

'Twas all the same with Her - She'd proved Her worth -

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth

Eliza R. Snow, An Immortal, p. 188-9; Poems of Eliza R. Snow 2:8,9.

She wrote a couple of other poems on the subject, and "Women of Mormondom" (Co-edited by her) speaks of her Hymn of Invocation (the original title of "O My Father" being on this subject.

Quotation needs a citation and context

I deleted the following quote, until we get a citation:

"According to one researcher on the subject, “those familiar with LDS history and practice are well aware that official doctrine must meet certain requirements which were not met by the Adam-God theory. The fact is it was never a part of the LDS canon, never presented in an official statement, never the subject of any known revelation, and never declared church doctrine by any recognized Church authority.”

It's very important to know who wrote this, because if it's just some Joe Schmoe on the internet, I'm not sure it's a valuable addition to the article, especially since it's a conclusory statement without an explanation as to why the researcher arrived at this conclusion. COGDEN 18:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the source [3], although I don't remember adding this one in - I thought you did, but I may have.

Incidentally, I do disagree with some of User:Tobeyjaggle's conclusions above, and I'll show why later. But for now, I'm going back to look at the journal entires and papers mentioned above by Tobeyjaggle. I will need time to get the primary documents in front of me, unless you have photocopies of them handy Tobeyjaggle? Or are you getting them from another source? Also, you may want to read another viewpoint that does not relate to either of the major camps at [4].

Also Tobeyjaggle, can you provide publications for the papers listed int eh reference set? If not, let's remove, as they will not seem like additional "resources" from scholarly sets/publications, but seem to be promulgated internet references (I know they are not, but you can't just have a date and an author - need where the work was accepted or published as well. ISBN numbers work good, or issue and date of specific publications. -Visorstuff 20:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could section it into scholarly, apologetic LDS, apologetic Fundamentalist, Protestant Christian etc.? I've added a few ISBN's, but some of the books don't have them, but are important references because they typify different approaches to the subject. For example - to not include Briney's book would be a tragedy - it is 658 page hardback tome by an LDS Church member containing virtually all the source material on the subject.

Whenever I've seen a Wikipedia article get sectioned by POV, there has always been a problem. I think it's much better to organize the material either by date or by topic, and first set forth the primary sources, and then include the naturalistic, apologetic, fundamentalist, etc., interpretations. The advantage of doing this is that nobody can dispute the primary source material (such as, what is published in the J.D. or the Deseret News or somebody's journal)--it's the way it is, and nobody can change it. But at the same time, there is room for various people to reinterpret the primary source material to fit their viewpoints. But such reinterpretation does not disrupt the structure of the article. COGDEN 22:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. and lets at least include a publisher for source material. Just a name and date is not adequate. I am flatly against dividing up the article into "differing" points of view - ie scholarly, aplogetic, critic, anti, etc. If we do, we'll open the door to Wikipedia becoming a proselytizing forum, or a pro/con forum on such topics. Wikipedia is not a message board. I am for providing as much direct quotes and primary document research as possible, along with the popular thoughts about it (both pro, con, and other) but then letting the reader decide. Once we try to interpret things that no two scholars agree on and place them as absoutes, we more out of the realm of being an encyclopedia into evangelizing our points of view. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research or a place for pushing ones point of view. That is why the article is as bland and neutral as it is currently. Let's put what we know, what we don't know, and why we know/don't know, and leave out the speculation. Let the reader decide. Sorry to be hard line on this, but I don't want the article turning into another Archaeology and the Book of Mormon or Mormonism and Christianity or (heaven forbid) Opposition to Mormonism type debate and forum (you can read those page histories to understand what I mean). If there's anything I've learned in my wikipedia experience, it is to avoid such a strategy. -Visorstuff 22:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added some publishers to the list of references, and will try to get the full reference for every publication listed. I agree with the need for the article to be unbiased. Although it is better than most treatments, it still seems a little too weighted towards the 'official LDS Church position' if there is such a thing, and I worry that at the moment it doesn't full represent the views of those serious scholars who have weighed in on this subject, or of those who have alternative views. Some of the presumptions are disputable, whether we personally agree with them or not. I will help where I can though.

Glad to have you on board. You can sign your posts with a date stamp by typing four tildes ~~~~. Although my personal view is only somewhat partially represented (as are most), I think the article does not give the LDS position, except where it is stated that the view of the church is that it is false doctrine. On the contrary, the article points out what is not known, and why theories on what was meant are a dime a dozen and there is too much that is unknown. But, we look forward to your help in improving the article. -Visorstuff 23:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am only just finding the time to catch up on this. I will jot a few notes below on some general criticisms I have about biases shown in the current article -

• "the doctrine was unpopular and confusing even among some contemporary Latter-day Saint leaders such as Orson Pratt and Amasa M. Lyman"

Apart from Amasa Lyman criticizing the excommunication of someone because they didn't believe in the doctrine - which may just have indicated a disagreement with cutting soemone off solely for their beliefs - what evidence is there that he disagreed with the doctrine?

I probably knew this at some point, but I forgot. If you have good citations about what Lyman though, we should put them in, or discuss them here. COGDEN 22:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• "However, the Adam-God theory has been rejected as false doctrine by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Need to state when and by whom! Spencer W. Kimball in 1976? If so - that was over 100 years after Brigham first taught it.

Right. By S.W. Kimball in 1976. I don't see how the 100+ year gap is relevant, though. Kimball's denunciation of the doctrine in general conference is just as official (if not more so) as Young's preaching of the doctrine at general conference over a decade earlier. COGDEN 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The 100 year gap seems very relevant information to me - the reader is likely to ask "at what point was this condemned publically as a false doctrine?" I cannot see how a condemnation of a doctrine in 1976 can be more official than an approval of one in 1852 or 54. Some may indeed argue that neither is official because they weren't given in official First Presidency statements. --Tobey 16:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Young never fully explained Adam-God theory"

This is subjective - Some early (1852-90) Mormons, Fundamentalists, and anti-Mormons would dispute this!

I agree. The word fully doesn't have a lot of useful meaning here. COGDEN 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Young said that he would not expound anymore on the doctrine as it would be a stumbling stone to the Elders of Israel. This implies that not all of the information Young knew about it was taught. If it was "fully" taught then why were additional revelations on the doctrine given in at least two other fundamentalist sects (one at least is referenced in the article)? Wording can be improved, but it is important to note that Young admitted to sharing only a portion of the doctrine, but the doctrine in its fullest. Visorstuff 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Because he said that he wouldn't speak anymore on the subject does not necessarily mean that he felt he did not explain himself sufficiently in the past (or only taught an insufficient portion of the doctrine for us to understand what he taught properly), but could just as well mean that because he felt that so many didn't accept his teachings that he did not feel inclined to continue to teach them. Whether the two small Fundamentalist sects claim to have received additional revelations on this subjects seems irrelevant to me, it only indicates their view. --Tobey 16:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Young's statements on this subject are somewhat ambiguous"

Again subjective!

I agree. COGDEN 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. Yet again, better wording would be there is no consensus on the precise meaning by most historians. -Visorstuff 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• "There is some controversy as to whether or not Young considered the Adam-God theory to be official church doctrine"

It is important to note that he referred to it as a doctrine on at least a couple of other occasions. Can cite.

We should cite them, but note that some apologists have reinterpreted those statements, or disputed their authenticity. COGDEN 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. However, Church doctrine and gospel doctrine are different in nearly all Latter Day Saint sects. This is difficult to explain. He may have said that something is "good doctrine" but that does not mean it is Church doctrine. There is controversy about whether or not Young considered it church doctrine or a truth. He didn't clarify it as church doctrine in the Pratt/Young doctrinal clarifications in the Des News, and left it alone. Everything else was considered a final doctrinal pronouncement. This he did not. It is suspect because of these events and ideas. I'm not an apologist, but this is where the controversy comes into play, and readers should understand. Let's let the quotes exist for themselves. Please add in any you have. -Visorstuff 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• "After 1854, Young also generally declined requests to elaborate on the doctrine."

Evidence please? Made other references between 1855-76, as well as being part of 1877 Lecture of the Veil (as already mentioned).

I think the point is that he declined to give detailed public elaborations, probably because he didn't want to "cast his pearls before swine", from his perspective. COGDEN 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This again is probably an incorrect date, based on his last major discourse on the subject. However, IMHO it should be modified to the date of the Orson Pratt/Brigham Young dispute. Part of the publishing in the paper and the Journal History states that Young didn't want to expound on the doctrine further because of the dispute. Cogden - do you have that source still? -Visorstuff 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Although Brigham Young minimized the importance of this doctrine to salvation."

On several occasions he linked a belief in the doctrine to salvation. Can cite.

There are some Young quotes that minimize, and others that maximize. COGDEN 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Cogden -Visorstuff 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Regardless of interpretation, the mystery of Young's teachings in regard to exactly what he meant in the few statements he made on the subject apparently died with him and his close associates. Most scholars believe that the few statements about the theory are inadequate to properly understand what was meant by the teachings."

Need to qualify this - most modern LDS Church members may believe the first sentence, but if we include scholars from other 'Mormon' groups as well as those outside Mormonism then the majority of scholarly treatments on this subject (including some from LDS Church members) conclude that he did teach that Adam was the Father of our spirits, and the father of Jesus Christ. So the above conclusion is untenable.

I agree. This should be reframed as an apologetic interpretation or reinterpretation. COGDEN 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. I'm unaware of many "scholars" from "those outside Mormonism." Who outside of the Mormonism camp has written about this topic in an academic setting? I'm aware of a handful of fundamentalist papers, but hardly any that are circulated in academic settings. Rewording may be needed here. Can you clarify the scholarly sources you are referring to? -Visorstuff 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If we are talking about studies by those with respected scholarly credentials then perhaps only the following qualify - Rodney Turner (now Prof) and David Buerger. John Farkas might be considered a scholar in evangelical Christian circles too. Who else would qualify? Maybe Briney work - I'll have to look at it more closely. Interestingly all of these men conclude that Brigham's teachings were unambiguous and clear, that he did indeed teach that Adam was the Father of men's spirits etc. - even Turner who is a very orthodox Mormon and loyal LDS Church member. --Tobey 16:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A little rewording will go towards addressing these issues.

There are many inadequacies in the article also that need to be ultimately addressed -

• Adam-God teachings attributed to Joseph Smith
• Eliza R. Snow's belief in and promotion of the doctrine.
• Perhaps an overview of other LDS General Authorities who believed it would also be useful.
• Refutations those who believe in the Adam-God doctrine give to the "two-Adam theory"

--Tobey 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think these additions are very much needed. Wanna take a stab at this Tobeyjaggle? -Visorstuff 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is WAY too long and detailed on a topic that is very obscure and speculative. Gospel hobbies. 64.178.145.150 20:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And it just got longer. (64, I moved your newish comment to the bottom of the page, following WP convention.) AuntieMormom 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

More suffering just from being a long article, it gave (at least before my recent edit) too much space to detailed arguements against a claim. I put those into their own article in case anybody cares to read them (which seems pretty unlikely for the average reader intersted in the general topic). User:WikiEditi 14 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Jewish Doctrine

Mormons cannot claim exclusivity on this topic. Jewish doctrine equating Adam with God -- which is much older than the Brigham Young speculation -- has first dibs. Since the Talmudic commentary has chronological superiority, it appears first in the article. AuntieMormom 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This Jewish theory about Adam's soul being transmitted to the Messiah is not an Adam-God theory. In Judaism, the Messiah is decidedly not the same as God. I think it's clear that this belongs in a different article, perhaps entitled the "Adam-Messiah theory." Therefore, I'm moving it here to the talk page until we decide what to do with it. COGDEN 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The removed text is as follows:

A relatively obscure doctrine within the Jewish faith, the notion that the soul of Adam passed through King David and on to the Messiah has its foundation in Rabbinical commentary on passages found in the Tanakh (Old Testament).

The Talmud records the following comments about the relationship between Adam and the Messiah:

The sages of truth (the Kabbalists) remark that Adam contains the initial letters of Adam, David, and Messiah; for after Adam sinned his soul passed into David, and the latter having also sinned, it passed into the Messiah. The full text is, "They shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up to them" (Jer. 30:9); and it is written, "My servant David shall be their king forever" (Ezek. 37:25); and thus "They shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king" (Hosea 3:5). --Nishmath Chaim, fol. 152, col. 2.

(See also supporting Rabbinic commentary on the migration of souls in Yalkut Reubeni, Nos. 9, 18, 24. and Yalkut Chadash, fol. 127, col. 3.)

COGDEN 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be doin' that

Chopping good-faith edits without discussion, and without even commenting the edit, is bad form. Please be courteous. AuntieMormom 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam as the father of Jesus Christ

The dubious assertions in this section are uncited. The entire paragraph seems without merit or foundation. Disputants? --AuntieMormom 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

None here. The Jade Knight 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is very poorly written, but it contains verifiable facts. Somebody just needs to find the citations in the J.D. I think I remember there being more about this in previous version of the article. I wouldn't delete it, just rewrite it and find citations. COGDEN 20:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a total bastardization of the Adam God theroy. First off, it was always conjecture never a doctrine. In JD it was discussed how Adam siting now with God sharing in his glory. Much like any father and son relationship, a good Father wants to share all he has with his children. Power, wealth, property, knowledge,love, all things. BY was trying to say that Adam had received all things. Nothing more then that. I will research more so I can give better citation then JD. But what is written on the subject is just false. Jodaman7 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

This entire article reads more like original research than an encyclopedia entry. I did a little cleaning on the intro - and not sure if I stayed with that tone or improved it to be more encyclopedic - anyway - it needs a serious overhaul. --Trödel 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No Merge Required on Nuttall Distraction

I just removed the following sentence: "This unquestioned assumption that this journal entry contains the text of Brigham Young’s 1 February 1877 lecture at the veil is very surprising because there are several reasons to question that assumption." I removed this because it seemed extraneous given the article's prior statement. The article already gives the fact, but this sentence encourages the reader to be surprised when the reader can make that decision herself. Also, the proposal to merge with the verbose arguments about Nuttall's journal should be rejected. Let's just drop that unnecessary distraction from the article. WikiEditi 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mormonism-related controversies

Inclusion of this article in Category:Mormonism-related controversies is opposed by only one editor so far, with myself, SESmith, CoolhandLuke, and BRMo arguing for inclusion. SESmith originally linked it, and CoolhandLuke proposed its inclusion in the MRC category talk pages. BRMo supported its inclusion on the category deletion proposal (which failed as a proposal).

The introduction itself correctly lists the Adam-God theory as a dispute, and the bulk of the article exists by virtue of its controversy (not its criticism). Anyone familiar with it knows it to be an internal doctrinal controversy based on historical arguments which are interpreted and qualified as to their meanings, which has both apologists and critics involved. Please make your wishes known FOR or AGAINST inclusion in the category. Anon166 21:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• For By the same reason it is called a theory today and not the doctrine that divided the theologians in early Mormonism. Anon166 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted section

I removed the following section from the artcile today:

====Controversy arises again====

As both Kimball and Young are revered as prophets, some apologists and devout Mormons believe that two prophets cannot disagree on a matter of doctrinal interpretations and have interpreted Kimball's statement not as a denunciation of Young's teachings, but as a denunciation of how some of Young's contemporaries interpreted his teachings.

Some have argued that the LDS church leadership does not openly discuss the historical evidences of Adam-God being taught because it may undermine their claim that the President of the church will never be allowed by God to lead the church astray. If Young could be wrong about this matter, then the church President today could also be wrong in his teachings etc.; in fact, he could be wrong about President Young being wrong. Those who believe this feel that to avoid this inevitable conclusion, the LDS church leadership have chosen to ignore the matter as much as possible.

There is also the viewpoint that certain doctrines and teachings are sacred and although might be revealed as appropriate at certain times and places they can also be withdrawn from an apostate and unworthy people. President Young felt inspired to reveal this doctrine which he claimed he had received from the Prophet Joseph Smith but later withdrew his statements after witnessing the controversy it had caused.

The Adam-God doctrine, in various forms, however, is still accepted by many post-Utah-migration period Latter Day Saint splinter organizations.

The reasons for doing so it that it is opinion, original research, and seeks to editorialize and draw conclusions that are not in evidence. If it is to be included then it need to be referenced, i.e. a reputable source providing a deduction that this seeks to provide. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues with introduction

Big issues with how this is presented - there is too much interpretation going on in the intro. For example, the intro used this paragraph to illustrate that Young taught that Adam was "the Father" and "the literal Father of Christ:"

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later (Young 1852, p. 50).

Okay, so the interpretation the reader is left with is that Elohim or the Father is Adam, who was married to Eve.

However, the full text of the sermon does not support this. Consider this passage that identifies Michael as the Holy Ghost, and that the literal "Father" of Christ was not the Holy Ghost; ie Adam:

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever,that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.

There is just too much leading the reader in this. Thoughts on how to fix? -Visorstuff 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory vs. Doctrine

I have only heard this concept referred to as a "theory" by Mormon leaders and apologists, which in my mind suggests a minimization of the teachings of Brigham Young on this point since it is so controversial. Why is this article not titled "Adam-God Doctrine"? What is it called by academics (outside of FARMS)? Perhaps Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought has some insight. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Brigham young himself only ever referred to it as a doctrine.140.196.24.2 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well now let's see. We are attempting to explain a possible teaching of Brigham Young, the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That Church specifically and categorically states it is a false doctrine and teaching. It was never accepted by the Church as doctrine. What do you call something that is not a doctrine? Who would actually want to call it a doctrine and why? I can see why those antagonistic to the LDS Church would like to call it a doctrine because it allows them to say, "see what those crazy Mormons believe"; but the problem is that it was not and is not a doctrine. Should we allow religious groups to identify their beliefs or should we allow only those outside of a religious group to define their beliefs? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A false doctrine is still a doctrine. Just a false one. Like the Bush Doctrine: it's bull crap, but it's still a doctrine that some people believe in. And fundamentalist Mormons do believe in the doctrine, so it's a doctrine to them. The term "theory" implies that it should be doubted, and that is non-neutral. The term "doctrine," however, does not pre-judge the issue. I agree that it should be doctrine. COGDEN 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, doctrine has a specific definition; dictionary.com defines doctrine as follows:

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Attempting to call something a doctrine, but is not taught by the LDS Church is deceiptful. Do we call Arianism a doctrine of the Catholic Church? False doctrine is not doctrine; to be doctrine it must be taught by the respective church in question. --^StormRider 05:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an actual doctrine taught by fundamentalist Mormons. This article is not specific to the LDS Church. Plus, it is at least arguable that it was an LDS Church doctrine at one time. But the most important factor is that it is a doctrine taught right now by the fundies. You wouldn't call the Jesus' Name doctrine a "theory" simply because only a few crazy Pentecostals believe in it. It's still a doctrine, and calling it a "theory" only places a big symbolic question mark in the name, which is not neutral. COGDEN 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I continued to think about this after my last edit. I think we could work around this by redrafting the article, at least the introduction, in order to focus on the FLDS, etc. For them, it is apparently is a doctrine of their respective churches. However, I reject allowing the tail to wag the dog; when the LDS Church gets painted by the doctrines of the very small minority groups we create unnecessary problems.

What is wrong with a question mark? I think the title is still accurate. Readers could not care less what the FLDS think or believe; what readers are primarily interested in is the LDS Church. It is the focus of almost all media attention. When the FLDS are in the news, it is always focused through the lens of the LDS Church.

I tend to have a more strict definition than you do on doctrine. For the LDS Church it was never doctrine, but was at least contemplated by some leaders at one time or another. To be doctrine of the Church, it would need to arise to the point of being entered into the standard works of the Church. Too often in the LDS history men share their ideas and then the Church is accused of the passing ideas of individual men. It was easier for this type of thing to occur in the early church because of a lack of quick correction. In the modern world, very few ideas are allowed to percolate without being quickly accepted or rejected by the hierarchy. --^StormRider 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know this thread is old, but I just did a search on both Google Scholar and Google Books, and the term "Adam-God doctrine" is used more often than "Adam-God theory" in both databases. I'm increasingly uncomfortable calling this a "theory", as it contains the not-so-subtle implication that the teaching is false. "Doctrine", on the other hand, contains no such implication. Both theories and doctrines can be either true or false, but use of the term theory in a religious context carries a strong implication. (Imagine if we titled an article "Jesus resurrection theory" or "Golden plates theory"!) Given this, and the fact that scholars are apparently more likely to use the term "doctrine" than "theory", I think it's time to make the change. COGDEN 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen or en-dash in title

The mark between "Adam" and "God" in the name of the article was recently changed back to a hyphen from an en dash. My reading of the manual style would suggest that it should be an en dash, since the mark is used to connect two independent names. (Compare WP:HYPHEN with WP:DASH.) Is there some reason I'm not seeing that would indicate that it should be a hyphen? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I hadn't read the Manual of Style for a while, and I had thought that we were still substituting hyphens in titles. I'll change it back. COGDEN 05:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem--it can be confusing, even if you keep up with it. For instance, I think the latest consensus is the hyphen vs. dash rules don't apply to categories. Go figure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: The MOS has continued to develop since this discussion, and I've asked a question here about its specific application to this issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Brigham Young sources in context

I went back and read the sources for some of this article and there are some problems with the context:

in the section called Brigham Young's 1852 announcement the article implies that Young was teaching that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ. However in context the comments are an unclear way of pursuing the overall idea of the discourse that God the father got a body from somewhere (presumebly the father of the human family some time in the past) and created the bodies of Adam Eve and Jesus Christ in the same way that his was created. (see particularly the end of p. 50) in that same sentence that the quote from the article comes is this line "from the fruits of the earth the first earthly tabernacles were organized by the father" in reference to the bodies of adam and eve. This article's interpretation would indicate that Adam created his own body before inhabiting it (an idea which goes against a similar mormon theology from the time that only Gods to that type of creating and one has to have a body to be a God).

in addition, the quote that says something like jesus christ was begotten by the same character that was in the garden of eden, earlier on p. 50 Young indicates that at one point all three entities (Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael) were in the garden of eden; and the article also calles Eloheim God the Father or our Father in heaven on several occasions (see p. 49 and 51).

It seems that the whole point of Young's comments is to point out that 1) the Holy Ghost did not father Jesus Christ, 2) that Jesus Christ gets his divinity from the fact that God is his father, and 3) that the bodies that were given to adam and eve were celestial before they consumed the fruit.

After reading some of the previous discussions about this page (about this being an original research article), and not being an expert on this subject it seems to me that the article's author might taking advantage of some poorly worded sentences to establish the basis for this whole idea (again not an expert but given the historical treatment of mormon theology by non-mormons this may simply be a case of distortion by somebody who likes to make hay about some non-standard christian ideas)

Personally I think that someone besides the author (and somebody who has way more time than I do) should review the original sources carefully to see if these citations make sense (it only tooke me a few min of casual browsing to notice these particular inconsistencies). it also might be useful to know what the interpretation of "God" meant at the time given Wilford Woodruff's quotation in the Church's official position section (Woodruff said basicaly the same thing as Young several years after the church had repudiated the doctrine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.28.191 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As to the first point, I think the established non-apologetic interpretation (and I think this is the most obvious one, and actually the one that most apologists probably admit nowadays) is that Young was saying that Adam's body was created by his father, and that as the Father of the human race, it was Adam who "organized" (by giving birth to, the same way Adam was born) the first earthy tabernacles born on the earth (i.e., "Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve"). There are two fathers being referred to here: "the Father", who Young says was Adam, and then there is "his Father". This takes care of your concern that usually, Mormon gods have bodies, because Young believed both Adam and his Father had bodies.

As to your theory of interpreting the first 1852 sermon, I think that is pretty much refuted by the second 1852 sermon (on August 28), where Young explained pretty explicitly that he believed Adam and Eve first became exalted gods, and then moved to Earth where they regressed to mortality. COGDEN 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Elden Watson: not a reliable source

I'm challenging the inclusion of "Statement by Elden Watson", as it appears not to be a reliable source. This is just some guy's obscure website, which has not been subject to fact-checking or peer review, or any reliable publication process. As such, it would not be directly citable in any academic work without some additional fact-checking legwork. Such material normally cannot be used as a citation for Wikipedia. COGDEN 02:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the above. Seems totally arbitrary to include this one person's opinions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link in Citation #46

The website, "http://user.xmission.com/~country/by/100861.htm" linked by this citation no longer exists, nor is readily available in internet archives such as the wayback machine (http://wayback.archive.org). A casual Google Search turned up no usable result that would match the original source document. If anyone has a new link, it should be updated. Otherwise, this citation should be removed. Nyozekian (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Free-wheeling speculation, original research, personal explanations

Over the years, this article developed a lot—and I mean A LOT—of commentary in the text which appears to be various users attempting to explain what Young really meant when he preached the doctrine. I have removed most of this stuff—none of it contained any references, except to the primary material in the Journal of Discourses that is quoted to back up the points being made. If there are reliable sources that have written about such speculation or explanations, then they by all means can be included in the article if properly cited. But this article is not the place for users to advance their own pet theories or explanations which are substantiated only by only their own original research. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidence needed

I am quite familiar with the history of President Young teaching Adam-God. But I have never seen any record of Presidents John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff teaching this doctrine. Yet that is among the first things this article says. Unless someone can give any evidence that these two men did in fact TEACH Adam-God doctrine, this point should be taken out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichard (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. The article currently quotes a private letter in which Woodruff (when he was president) confirms the doctrine as being legitimate but states that the LDS Church won't be publicly teaching it or debating it with the RLDS Church anymore. There is also the First Presidency's public correction of Edward Bunker in 1892 when Bunker taught that the doctrine was wrong. That's about all I can see—nothing at all from Taylor, though. Perhaps what was being suggested was that the teaching was implicit in that it remained in the temple endowment teachings until the 20th century. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. Presidents Taylor and Woodruff must have implicitly accepted Adam-God teachings, but there is no record of them teaching it themselves. If no one changes the article in a while I will eventually make it say something that supports this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam–God doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226111634/http://www.xmission.com:80/~country/by/100861.htm to http://www.xmission.com/~country/by/100861.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam–God doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xmission.com/~country/by/100861.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826024132/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?%2FMTNZ%2C25104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam–God doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614014538/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C2878 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C2878
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121214142743/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTNZ,25104 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?%2FMTNZ%2C25104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Major Neutrality Issues (NPOV)

This article has major neutrality issues. Honestly, it reads more like a tract written by an anti-Mormon propagandist than an accurate, balanced account written by a historian. The LDS church never officially accepted this doctrine. In fact, if you look at all of Brigham Young's statements, rather than a few cherry-picked dubious quotes, an honest historian must conclude that Brigham Young himself must not have taken the idea very seriously as he did not teach it much and in fact taught the opposite idea much more often. There are far more recorded instances of Brigham Young teaching the exact opposite (that Adam and God are separate people). However, this article gives a completely different impression. To you Wikipedia writers and editors who have an agenda of trying to make the LDS church look bad: leave your twisting of history to your personal blogs. You don't successfully fool people. You just make people conclude that Wikipedia is unreliable. I will make a few changes to try to fix this article, but it really needs a complete rewrite by a knowledgeable expert without an agenda. 66.171.208.27 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your comment above. I appreciate the concerns you have shared about the neutrality of this article. I am a Church member who has often struggled with the fact that Wikipedia focuses more on what is verifiable (through reliable sources. That said, there are always issues that need to be fixed in every article here to bring it up to the standard of true neutrality. And that in turn necessitates editors both within and outside of Church membership working together to ascertain that the proper amount of neutrality is maintained. For that reason, it is not enough to say merely that "[the whole article] reads more like a tract written by anti-Mormon propagandist than an accurate, balanced account written by a historian." It is more helpful to point out the specific issues about which you are concerned and to allow discussion and time to form a consensus (majority opinion) on how to handle each issue. The reason that the article is in its current state of wording is because there have been plenty of sources found that have been cited to verify article content. So in order to prove that any or all of this article is not neutral, other sources must be found and proven to be neutral that would clarify or correct such issues. Therefore, if you can point more specifically to those things you see as being an issue, we can get to work on fixing whatever might be problematic. But blanket statements made without context and clarification are not going to yield the result of resolving the things you see as a problem. Could you perhaps go into more specific details about what particularly bothers and troubles you? Then we can engage in dialogue that will allow us to work towards getting these things fixed, however that needs to happen. Just want to let you know that. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The above IP's edits in September 2017 substantially lessened the NPOV and overall quality of the article. Fortunately, most of these edits were reverted in March 2018 by a different IP[5]. All that is left is to remove the unwarranted "undue weight" tag that the IP added, which I have now done. 50.81.227.4 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"We believe in our God"

Under "initial reactions" several lines are quoted from the hymn "We Believe in Our God" with a reference to Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1856) p. 375. Page 375 of that book actually contains the hymn "Sons of Michael", which is quoted on the next line of the article, and the lines quoted are nowhere to be found in that book. I suspect the cite should have been on the next line, and another source needs to be found for this hymn.

However, the version I checked is the 14th edition (1871) whereas the 1856 edition is the 11th. It is conceivable that "We Believe in Our God" was omitted from the 12th edition and replaced with "Sons of Michael". (It would have to be the 12th, since the preface to the 14th edition states that no changes were made from the previous 2 editions other than adding some hymns at the end.) If so, it might be related to the "resistance" mentioned in the article, and therefore worth mentioning. Sadly there don't seem to be any (public) copies of the 11th or 12th editions outside the USA so I can't check - for the moment I've left the cite where it is and added a note that "We Believe in Our God" was not in later editions. Pastychomper (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained point about the Garden of Eden

I appreciate the various permutations and explanations of this doctrine. But none of them currently clarify this:

Who is that speaking to Adam in the Garden? Take this example-

Genesis 2:16-17 KJV - And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

There are several other passages like this set in the Garden. So, if Adam is God (however that is defined) who’s talking to him? Any clarification welcome. 67.188.70.6 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is Jehovah, the Father of Micheal, according to Brigham Young. 2600:1700:23D5:610:8D4:A2A:5FAB:726B (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)