Brigham Young was ordained an Apostle on Feb 14, at the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith, under the hands of the three witnesses. This ordination was then confirmed by the laying on of hands by the First Presidency of the Church. Later he became president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and held that office for nearly thirty years, which is a longer period than that of any other church president. Reports, synopses and reviews of over of his talks are on record by comparison, the Journal of Discourses contains of these talks.

Author:Mugor Arami
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):4 June 2009
PDF File Size:12.64 Mb
ePub File Size:15.16 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Noldoaran , Dec 5, UTC. Joseph Smith, Jr. This doctrine was that the Grand Council of the Gods was the meaning of the word Eloheim. Which, while technically correct, is much less specific than Joseph Smith's more elaborate discourses on the subject.

Some of Joseph Smith's material on this matter should rightly be incorporated in this article somehow. Brigham Young approved shortly before his death in , 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 , 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. 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. So, is the account an account recreated as it was , or an actual account? The above statement looks like a re-creation of history or a recollection in , from what I have been able to find, and therefore the accuracy is in question in light of other historical documents that Woodruff wrote the entire ceremony down.

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.

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. 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 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. 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. Smith journal, 17 June 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.

Also the line "Most scholars believe that the few statements about the theory are inadequate to properly understand what was meant by the teachings.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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 page hardback tome by an LDS Church member containing virtually all the source material on the subject. 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. 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 -. 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?

Need to state when and by whom! Spencer W. Kimball in ? If so - that was over years after Brigham first taught it. This is subjective - Some early Mormons, Fundamentalists, and anti-Mormons would dispute this! It is important to note that he referred to it as a doctrine on at least a couple of other occasions. Can cite. Evidence please? Made other references between , as well as being part of Lecture of the Veil as already mentioned.

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. This article is WAY too long and detailed on a topic that is very obscure and speculative.

Gospel hobbies. 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. 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. Chopping good-faith edits without discussion, and without even commenting the edit, is bad form. Please be courteous. The dubious assertions in this section are uncited. The entire paragraph seems without merit or foundation.

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 August UTC. 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. 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. 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. Anon , 21 April UTC. 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. 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:".

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


So just how do you explain Noah's ark?

Noldoaran , Dec 5, UTC. Joseph Smith, Jr. This doctrine was that the Grand Council of the Gods was the meaning of the word Eloheim. Which, while technically correct, is much less specific than Joseph Smith's more elaborate discourses on the subject. Some of Joseph Smith's material on this matter should rightly be incorporated in this article somehow.


Archive: "Adam humans before" Tag

The purpose of these articles is 1 to call attention to some of the long-ignored aspects of the Joseph Smith account of Enoch in the book of Moses and in the Inspired Version of Genesis and 2 to provide at the same time some of the evidence that establishes the authenticity of that remarkable text. Contemporary learning offered few checks to the imagination of Joseph Smith; the enthusiasm of his followers presented none. Yet, though free to roam at will over a boundless plain, the Prophet never once in his account of Enoch strays from the narrow and exacting path that later Enoch texts have so clearly marked. To present and discuss all the ancient parallels to the Joseph Smith Enoch would require a work of immense scope, but such is not necessary for our purpose. Many important questions, such as the real age of the Enoch tradition, how the various texts are related, their relevance to modern life, etc. For the present the message and the bona fides of the Joseph Smith account of Enoch are our sole concern.

CSA Z462-12 PDF

“Shuddering Before the Beautiful”: Trains of Thought Across the Mormon Cosmos

Sessions and Craig J. Chapter 1. Many Latter-day Saints have become suspicious of science and consider a number of currently accepted scientific theories irreconcilably at odds with the teachings of the faith. Compounding this difficulty is the fact that the scientific aspects of Mormon theology have not been thoroughly studied, especially in the last few decades during which a virtual explosion of scientific knowledge has occurred. Nearly thirty years ago Mormon philosopher Sterling McMurrin lamented that no one had yet seriously attempted to place Mormon theology on a scientifically rigorous and philosophically acceptable foundation.



Theology challenge: Christians have a hard enough time, but Mormons have it tougher with a story originating in Missouri. This is an archived article that was published on sltrib. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted. Christians who try to take the biblical story of Noah's flood literally have a hard enough time defending it scientifically. But Mormon theology, with its teachings about the Garden of Eden being in Missouri, have an even harder sell, said a Brigham Young University biologist Thursday. Not to mention trying to figure out how all those finned, feathered, furred, scaled and smooth-skinned creatures got along on a boat cubits long that's about yards these days for a month and a half. As related in the Book of Genesis, Noah is warned of a coming global flood.

Related Articles