Talk:Adam–God doctrine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't be doin' that 

message: The dubious assertions in this section are uncited. The entire paragraph seems without merit or foundation. Disputants? --AuntieMormom 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None here.  The Jade Knight 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adam as the father of Jesus Christ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Merge Required on Nuttall Distraction 

message: 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)
thread_title: Category:Mormonism-related controversies

message: 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)
thread_title: Deleted section

message: 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)
thread_title: Issues with introduction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Hyphen or en-dash in title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Elden Watson: not a reliable source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken Link in Citation #46 

message: 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)
thread_title: Free-wheeling speculation, original research, personal explanations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evidence needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Major Neutrality Issues (NPOV) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "We believe in our God" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unexplained point about the Garden of Eden