text:
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. CO GDEN  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 and  (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. CO GDEN  18:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's the source, 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.

 * 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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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 -

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

 * 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. CO GDEN  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.)

CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. -- Storm  Rider  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. CO GDEN  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. -- Storm  Rider  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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. CO GDEN  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 1 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 ).

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 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)

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.

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. 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)

title: Talk:Adam–God doctrine


text:
User talk:Factual

Hello Factual, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your contributions. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Noldoaran 01:24, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Factual


text:
Legio VI Victrix

Legio VI Victrix ("Victorious Sixth Legion") was a legion of the Imperial Roman army founded in 41 BC by the general Octavian (who, as Augustus, later became Rome's first emperor). It was the twin legion of VI Ferrata and perhaps held veterans of that legion, and some soldiers kept to the traditions of the Caesarian legion.

In Republican Service
The legion saw its first action in Perusia in 41 BC. It also served against the Sextus Pompeius, who occupied Sicily and made threats to discontinue sending grain to Rome. In 31 BC the legion fought in the Battle of Actium against Mark Antony.

VI Victrix in Spain
The legion took part in the final stage of the Roman conquest of Hispania, participating in Augustus' major war against the Cantabrians, from 29 BC to 19 BC, that brought all of the Iberian Peninsula under Roman rule.

The legion stayed in Spain for nearly a century and received the surname Hispaniensis, founding the city of Legio (modern-day León). Soldiers of this unit and X Gemina numbered among the first settlers of Caesaraugusta, what became modern-day Zaragoza. The cognomen Victrix (Victorious) dates back to the reign of Nero. But Nero was unpopular in the area, and when the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, Galba, said he wished to overthrow Nero, the legion supported him and he was proclaimed Emperor in the VI Victrix legionary camp. Galba created VII Gemina and marched on Rome, where Nero killed himself.

VI Victrix in Germany
For a brief period (approximately 110 AD to 119), the legion was stationed along the Rhine river in the province of Germania Inferior.

VI Victrix in Britain

In 119, Hadrian relocated the legion to northern Britannia, to assist those legions already present in quelling the resistance there. Victrix was key in securing victory, and would eventually replace the diminished IX Hispana at Eboracum. In 122 the legion started work on Hadrian's Wall which would sustain the peace for two decades.

Twenty years later, they helped construct the Antonine Wall and its forts such as Castlecary and Croy Hill but it was largely abandoned by 164. In 2020 a replica of the Eastermains stone was installed in Twechar. The original was found on Eastermains Farm (which adjoins Whitehill), west of Inchbelly Bridge, east of Kirkintilloch and is often associated with Auchendavy. It has been scanned and a video produced. It is similar to two other distance slabs of the Sixth Legion on the Antonine Wall.

In 175, the Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, defeated the Iazyges tribe of Sarmatians. He took them into Roman service and settled 5,500 of them in Britain; it has been claimed without evidence and contrary to legionary recruitment practices that some were assigned to Legio VI Victrix based in York. The only detachment attested in Britain is a unit at Ribchester, south of Lancaster. Less certain is evidence from Bainesse, near Catterick, where lost tiles apparently stamped BSAR may be evidence for the presence of a Sarmatian unit there.

Legio VI was awarded the honorary title "Britannica" by Commodus in AD 184 following his own adoption of the title.

In 185, the British legions mutinied and put forward one legate Priscus, a commander of their own (about whom little other information is known, but possibly Caerellius Priscus), to replace the unpopular Emperor Commodus, but the former declined. The mutiny was suppressed by Pertinax, who would later become emperor himself after Commodus was murdered.

The large fort at Carpow in Scotland was occupied from about 184 by Legio VI who completed the fort with the principia and praetorium which they roofed with tiles bearing their new cognomen.

The Legate of the legion in the late second century, Claudius Hieronymianus, dedicated a temple to Serapis in Eboracum in advance of the arrival of Septimius Severus in AD208.

An altar to Hercules was dedicated by Gaius Vitellius Atticianus, Centurion of the Legio VI Victrix, at Whitley Castle (Epiacum), illustrated above left.

Epigraphic inscriptions

 * - Dis Manibus Gai Iuli Galeria tribu Caleni Lugduno veterani ex legione VI Victrice Pia Fideli heres a se memoriae fecit. Lincoln (Lindum), U.K. RIB 252 = CIL VII 182.
 * - Dis Manibus sacrum Nig̣ṛiṇae vixit annos XXXX Aurelius Casitto legionis VI Victricis Piae Fidelis curavit. Great Chesters (Aesica), U.K. RIB 1746 = CIL VII 740.
 * - Dis Manibus Titi Flavi Flavini legionis VI Victricis Classicius Aprilis heres prius quam obiret fieri iussit. York (Eboracum), U.K. RIB 675.
 * - Dis Manibus Lucius Bebius Augusta (tribu) Crescens Vindelicum miles legionis VI Victricis Piae Fidelis annorum XLIII stipendiorum XXIII heres amico faciendum curavit. York (Eboracum), U.K. RIB 671.
 * - Dis Manibus Flaviae Augustinae vixit annos XXXVIIII menses VII dies XI filius Saenius Augustinus vixit annum I dies III vixit annum I menses VIIII dies V Gaius Aeresius Saenus veteranus legionis VI Victricis coniugi carissimae et sibi faciendum curavit. York (Eboracum), U.K. RIB 685 = CIL VII 245.
 * - Dis Manibus Gaius Iulius Gai filius colonia Flavia Ingenuus miles legionis VI Victricis Piae Fidelis. High Rochester (Bremenium), U.K. RIB 1292 = CIL VII 1057.
 * - Dis Manibus Flavius Agricola miles legionis VI Victricis vixit annos XLII dies X Albia Faustina coniugi inconparabili faciendum curavit. London (Londinium), U.K. CIL V 25.
 * -Lucio Pompeio Luci filio / Quirina (tribu) Faventino / praefecto cohortis VI Asturum / tribuno militum legionis VI Victricis (...). Astorga (Asturica), Spain. CIL II 2637 = AE 1966, 187.
 * - Lucius Valerius Silvanus / miles legionis VI Victricis / Deo Turiaco / votum solvit libens merito. Porto (Portus), Portugal. CIL II 2374 = AE 1959, 103. ·
 * - Titus Pompeius Titi filius / Tromentina (tribu) / Albinus' domo Vienna / IIvir tribunus militum legionis VI Victricis. Mérida (Emerita Augusta), Spain. AE 2002, 929.
 * - Dis Manibus sacrum Gaius Iulius Severus veteranus legionis VI Victricis annorum LXI Iulia Danae liberta ex testamento (...).Mérida (Emerita Augusta), Spain. CIL II 490.
 * - Marcus Tavonius / Marci filius / Romilia (tribu) / Firmus domo Ateste / miles legionis VI Victricis (...). Mérida, Spain. Museo Nacional de Arte Romano - Mérida.
 * - Dis Manibus sacrum / Gaius Iulius Severus / veteranus legionis VI Victricis / annorum LXI / Iulia Danae liberta ex testamento (...). Mérida, Spain. CIL II 490.
 * - Dis Manibus sacrum Lucius Maelonius Aper veteranus legionis VI Victricis Piae Fidelis annorum LXX militavit beneficiarius (...). Mérida, Spain.  CIL II 491.
 * - Dis Manibus sacrum / Lucius Maelonius Aper / veteranus legionis VI Victricis Piae Fidelis annorum LXX / militavit beneficiarius (...). Mérida, Spain. CIL II 491.
 * - Legio VI victrix. Moers, Nordrhein-Westfalen. AE 2005, 1069b.
 * - Lucius Helvius Luci filius / Papiria tribu / Rebilus Augustanus / veteranus legionis VI Victricis. Mérida, Spain. AE 2006, 616.

In popular culture
The legion is mentioned in Robert Heinlein's novel Have Space Suit – Will Travel and in the book From Scythia to Camelot by C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor. It is also mentioned in the video game Total War: Attila as the only Western Roman legion in Britannia

Reenactment
A modern reenactment group based in Los Angeles reenacts this legion.

Another one exists based in Denmark and Sweden found under the name Legionord

Legio VI Victrix, Eboracum reenacts this legion in York.

The Antonine Guard, a living history society based in Scotland, recreates a unit of Legio VI during the Antonine occupation of Caledonia in the 2nd century AD.

title: Legio VI Victrix


text:
Talk:Trojan War

Semi-protected status
Isn't it about time to remove the semi-protected status of this page? It's been more than 13 years now, semi-protected should not become the default state of any page on Wikipedia. 2001:1C03:3B11:DD00:179:D1B7:6A9B:1F89 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
I want to help people understand things better UwU Varii.mp4 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what you're asking for. If you wish to edit this article yourself, you must be an autoconfirmed user, which means you need to perform a few edits over several days.  This page is protected due to a high level of vandalism, but you should be able to edit other articles.  Once you're autoconfirmed, you may be able to make the changes you want here.  Or simply ask for specific changes—as long as they're supported by reliable sources, or merely helpful changes to grammar, spelling, or punctuation, other editors will gladly assist you.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
lemme edit i see a typo Munasar12358952543 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please indicate what mistake you see, so that an editor can review the passage in question and make any corrections necessary. If you want to edit the article yourself, you must be an autoconfirmed user, because this article is protected due to a high level of vandalism.  Editing other articles over a period of time will help you become autoconfirmed.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agamemnon's role in mustering
"Menelaus then asked Agamemnon to uphold his oath, which, as one of Helen's suitors, was to defend her marriage regardless of which suitor had been chosen." But Agamemnon wasn't one of the suitors. Agamemnon entreated Tyndereus on Menelaus's behalf. The article itself narrates it that way.

"Agamemnon agreed and sent emissaries to all the Achaean kings and princes to call them to observe their oaths and retrieve Helen." Why is it Agamemnon calling on all the Achaean rulers, and not Menelaus himself? The movie "Troy" had Agamemnon as recently-established high king of all Greece; is that the case in any of the ancient sources?

Cythraul (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Presumably "his" refers to Menelaus, not Agamemnon. If Menelaus asked Agamemnon to change a tire on his chariot, we might assume that Menelaus is referring to his own chariot, not Agamemnon's.  But this can easily be reworded to remove the ambiguity.  I believe that Agamemnon is always treated as the chief of all the Greek forces arrayed against Troy, although sometimes we find him associated with his brother as joint leaders of the expedition.  I imagine this was because he was the elder brother, and head of the House of Atreus.  Menelaus would only have had moral authority as Helen's husband, but he might not have persuaded the other Greek kings to fulfill their oath.  It was much harder to say "no" to Agamemnon!  P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trojan War


text:
Saturn I SA-3

Saturn-Apollo 3 (SA-3) was the third flight of the Saturn I launch vehicle, the second flight of Project Highwater, and part of the American Apollo program. The rocket was launched on November 16, 1962, from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

History
The Saturn I launch vehicle components were delivered to Cape Canaveral by the barge Promise on September 19, 1962, but erection of the first-stage booster onto its launch pedestal was delayed until September 21 due to a tropical depression that moved over the Florida peninsula. The dummy second and third stages (S-IV and S-V) and payload were assembled on the booster on September 24. Ballast water was loaded into the dummy stages on October 31, and the RP-1 fuel was loaded on November 14.

For this launch, Cape Canaveral director Kurt Debus asked Marshall Space Flight Center director Wernher von Braun, who was overseeing the Saturn project, that no outside visitors be allowed on NASA grounds due to the ongoing tensions of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Flight
Saturn-Apollo 3 was launched at 17:45:02 on November 16, 1962, from Launch Complex 34. The only hold in the countdown sequence was for 45 minutes due to a power failure in ground support equipment. This mission was the first time the Saturn I rocket was launched with a full load of propellant, carrying approximately 750000 lb of fuel.

The vehicle's four inner H-1 engines shut down at 2 minutes 21.66 seconds after launch and an altitude of 61.46 km, and its four outer engines shut down at 2 minutes 29.09 seconds and 71.11 km; both sets burned slightly longer than was initially estimated, reaching a maximum velocity of 4046 mph. The vehicle continued to coast to an altitude of 167.22 km and range of 211.41 km, at which point, 4 minutes 52 seconds after launch, officials sent a terminate command to the rocket, setting off several charges which caused the dummy stages of the vehicle to destruct. The first stage remained intact, though uncontrolled, until it impacted the Atlantic Ocean around 270 mi from its launch site.

Primary
The main objectives of SA-3 were much the same as the previous two Saturn I flights in that it was primarily a test of the first-stage booster (S-I) and its H-1 engines. According to the NASA report Results of the Third Saturn 1 Launch Vehicle Test Flight, SA-3 aimed to test four areas: the booster, the ground support equipment, the vehicle in flight, and Project Highwater.

The test of the booster involved the propulsion system, structural design, and control systems. The ground support test involved the facilities and equipment used in the launch, including propellant systems, automatic checkout equipment, launch platform, and support towers. The vehicle in flight test measured aeroballistics, which confirmed values of aerodynamic characteristics such as stability and performance; propulsion, which ensured the engines could provide enough thrust to propel the vehicle at the correct velocity and trajectory, as well as provide data on the performance of all eight engines during flight; structural and mechanical, which provided measurements of the vehicle's stress and vibration levels through all phases of flight; and guidance and control, which demonstrated that spacecraft systems could accurately provide orientation and velocity information.

The fourth objective, Project Highwater, was an experiment previously flown on SA-2. This involved the intentional release of ballast water from the second and third stages which allowed scientists to investigate the nature of Earth's ionosphere, as well as noctilucent clouds and the behavior of ice in space.

For Project Highwater, tanks in SA-3's dummy upper stages were filled with 192528 lb of water, approximately 22900 USgal, which was used to simulate the mass of future Saturn payloads. The water was divided roughly in half between the two dummy stages. When the terminate command was sent to the rocket, primacord charges split both stages longitudinally, instantly releasing its load of water. The experiment was tracked by cameras and other equipment on the ground and in aircraft. Observers at Cape Canaveral reported that the ice cloud was visible for about three seconds and was "several miles across".

NASA declared all engineering goals of the flight as achieved, despite occasional issues with telemetry during flight and some measurement data being unusable or only partially usable. Project Highwater on SA-3 was also declared successful, though again, telemetry issues produced questionable results.

Special
The NASA Results report states that ten special tests were included in the SA-3 flight, all focused on technologies and procedures intended for use on future Apollo missions.

As mentioned earlier, SA-3 was the first Apollo flight to carry a full load of propellant, compared to earlier flights that carried approximately 83% of maximum capacity. This had the effect of testing the rocket's reaction to slower acceleration and extended first stage flight time. Also on this mission, the outboard engines were allowed to fire until depletion of the rocket's liquid oxygen (LOX), rather than the timed cut-offs of previous flights.
 * Propulsion

SA-3 also featured the first use of retrorockets on Apollo hardware. These were the only functional part on SA-3 of what would become the S-I/S-IV stage separation system, which would separate the two stages in later missions. These four small solid rockets were located 90 degrees apart around the top of the S-I stage, with their nozzles aimed up. At 2 minutes 33.66 seconds after launch, the rockets fired for about 2.1 seconds. A minor misalignment of the rockets caused a 4.3 degree per second roll of the vehicle, which caused the spacecraft's ST-90 and ST-124P inertial platforms to fail after 15 degrees of rotation. This was considered incidental to the flight and did not impact mission success.

The ST-124P inertial platform ('P' for prototype) was a component of the guidance and control system, and contained gyroscopes and accelerometers that fed information to control computers. Once out of the atmosphere, this information provided steering signals to the gimbaled engines. During SA-3, this platform was an inactive component; while functioning and monitored during the flight, it had no control over the vehicle, and was used only to compare performance with the then-standard ST-90 platform, which was also an inactive component for the flight. For this mission, both platforms were located on the interstage between S-I and S-IV; Saturn IB and Saturn V vehicles would have one on the Instrument Unit atop the S-IVB stage.
 * Instrumentation

Two new transmitters were included on SA-3. The pulse code modulated (PCM) data link transmitted digital data, which would be vital to providing automated spacecraft checkout and launch procedures on future flights. The unit operated with high signal strength, indicating that it would provide very accurate data. An ultra high frequency (UHF) radio link was also tested on SA-3. It would be used to transmit sensor measurements which could not be effectively transmitted at lower frequencies. The system performed satisfactorily, and post-flight documentation indicated engineers may expand its role for future telemetry transmission.

A Block II antenna panel was tested during flight. Located between propellant tanks, it provided stronger and more consistent signal strength than the Block I panel.

Temperature measurements of the S-IV dummy stage and interstage fairing were carried out with eighteen temperature probes, called thermocouples. These were used to detect temperature changes around protuberances on the stage's skin and in the area of the retrorockets during operation. For the S-IV stage, temperatures were within expected levels, though a heating rate around twice that predicted was encountered. On the interstage, during retrorocket firing, a maximum temperature of 315 C was seen, indicating something unknown may have caused an abnormally high reading.

A single panel of Block II M-31 heat shield insulation, along with one of the spacecraft's calorimeters, was mounted on the base of the first stage by the engines. This test measured heat flux through the new insulation compared to the material normally used on Saturn I Block I flights.
 * Engineering and ground equipment

A dynamic pressure study was conducted for the Centaur program, in which two aluminum panels were mounted to the payload adapter atop the S-V stage and equipped with 11 pressure sensors. This study was performed due to the failure of the first Centaur vehicle flown, suspected to result from an adverse pressure environment around the shoulder of the vehicle. The test found that a very low pressure region formed just behind the shoulder while the vehicle was at Mach 0.7.

Finally, a new 240 ft umbilical tower and Block II swing arm were used for the first time in preparation for future Block II Saturn I flights.

title: Saturn I SA-3


text:
President of the Church

In the Latter Day Saint movement, the President of the Church is generally considered to be the highest office of the church. It was the office held by Joseph Smith, founder of the movement, and the office assumed by many of Smith's claimed successors, such as Brigham Young, Joseph Smith III, Sidney Rigdon, and James Strang. Several other titles have been associated with this office, including First Elder of the church, Presiding High Priest, President of the High Priesthood, Trustee-in-Trust for the church, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator. Joseph Smith was known by all of these titles in his lifetime (although not necessarily with consistency).

Smith died in 1844 without having indisputably established who was to be his successor. Therefore, his death was followed by a succession crisis in which various groups followed leaders with succession claims. Years later, the office of President was reorganized in many of the resulting Latter Day Saint denominations, the largest of which are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), and The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Some smaller denominations, such as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), reject the office as an unscriptural creation.

Joseph Smith: the first president
The concept that the Church of Christ would have a single presiding officer arose in late 1831. Initially, after the church's formation on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith referred to himself as merely "an apostle of Jesus Christ, and elder of the church." However, there was one other apostle—Oliver Cowdery—and several other elders of the church, making the formal hierarchy of the church unclear.

In September 1830, after Hiram Page claimed to have received revelations for the church, a revelation to Smith stated that "no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses." This established Smith's exclusive right to lead the church.

In early June 1831, Smith was ordained to the "high priesthood", along with twenty-two other men, including prominent figures in the Latter Day Saint movement such as Hyrum Smith, Parley P. Pratt, and Martin Harris. As "high priests", these men were higher in the priesthood hierarchy than the elders of the church. However, it was still unclear whether Smith and Cowdery's calling as apostles gave them superior authority than that of other high priests.

On November 11, 1831, a revelation to Smith stated that "it must needs be that one be appointed of the high priesthood to preside over the Priesthood and he shall be called President of the high priesthood of the Church ... and again the duty of the President of the high priesthood is to preside over the whole church." Smith was ordained to this position and sustained by the church on January 25, 1832, at a conference in Amherst, Ohio.

In 1835, the Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ were revised, changing the phrase "an ... elder of the church" to "the first elder of this Church." Thus, subsequent to 1835, Smith was sometimes referred to as the First Elder of the church. The 1835 revision also added a verse referring to the office of "president of the high priesthood (or presiding elder)", which had since been added to the church hierarchy.

Removal
Though there has never been a popular movement in the church to have a president removed or punished, he could theoretically be removed from his position or otherwise disciplined by the Common Council of the Church. The only president of the church brought before the Common Council was Joseph Smith, who was tried for charges made against him by Sylvester Smith after the return of Zion's Camp in 1834. The Council determined that Joseph Smith had "acted in every respect in an honorable and proper manner with all monies and properties entrusted to his charge."

President of the LDS Church

The President of the LDS Church is the church's leader and the head of the First Presidency, the church's highest governing body. Latter-day Saints consider the president of the church to be a prophet, seer, and revelator, and refer to him as the Prophet, a title originally given to Joseph Smith. When the name of the president is used by adherents, it is usually prefaced by the title "President". Latter-day Saints consider the president of the church to be God's spokesman to the entire world and the highest priesthood authority on earth, with the exclusive right to receive revelations from God on behalf of the entire church or the entire world. The President of the Church serves as the head of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes and of the Council of the Church. The President of the Church also serves as the ex officio chairman of the Church Boards of Trustees/Education.

Prophet-Presidents of the Community of Christ
In the Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), the president of the church's formal title is the Prophet-President. The Prophet-President is the highest priesthood leader of the church. The position is composed of several roles: (1) President of the Church, (2) President of the High Priesthood and (3) Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the church.

As President of the Church, the Prophet-President is the church's chief executive and is the leader of the First Presidency, the church's chief executive council. As President of the High Priesthood, the Prophet-President is the church's leading priesthood official. (Since the initiation of the ordination of women in 1985, it is now possible for this position to be filled by a woman, though all Prophet-Presidents to date have been men.) As Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, the Prophet-President is Community of Christ's spiritual leader and can present revelations to the church to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants—an open canon of scripture, which stands with the Bible and the Book of Mormon as sacred text. In the church, only the Prophet-President is considered to be a prophet, seer, and revelator, and so far, each person to hold this position has presented additional revelations or spiritual writings to the church, which have been added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

Succession to the Presidency
Generally, the Prophet-President will name or ordain a successor prior to his death or retirement. The office was traditionally referred to as President of the High Priesthood. Prior to 1995, these successors had been chosen consistent with lineal succession, even though it was not a church rule. Accordingly, the first six Prophet-Presidents following movement founder Joseph Smith were his direct descendants.

In 1995, Wallace B. Smith broke with the precedent of lineal succession by naming W. Grant McMurray as his successor. In November 2004, McMurray resigned from the office of Prophet-President without naming a successor, citing medical and personal issues. The First Presidency, composed of McMurray's two counselors, continued to function as the church's chief executive council. A Joint Council of church leaders led by the Council of Twelve Apostles announced in March 2005 that Stephen M. Veazey would be Prophet-President designate. Veazey had been serving as president of the Council of Twelve. Delegates elected to a special World Conference of the church approved Veazey and he was ordained as the Prophet–President on June 3, 2005.

Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints continued to believe in the lineal succession through the Jewish Laws of Inheritance. As such, the president of the Remnant Church following its formation, Frederick Niels Larsen, was a direct descendant (maternal 2nd great-grandson) of Joseph Smith, Jr. Following Larsen's death in 2019, Terry W. Patience became President of the Remnant Church.

President of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

Similar to other denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, in The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), the President of the General Church is also a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

President of the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
The tiny Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), headquartered in Independence, Missouri, has a First Presidency with a President and two Counselors. Succession generally goes to the First Counselor at the time of the previous President's death or resignation (no Cutlerite president has ever resigned), subject to approval of the church membership.

President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
In the earliest years of its existence, the Mormon fundamentalist Short Creek Community regarded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) as "the only true and living church," viewing itself merely as a "body of Priesthood" set apart to perpetuate plural marriage and other "crowning ordinances" of the Gospel, such as the United Order. Hence, they tended to express a degree of admiration for contemporary LDS Church Presidents, while simultaneously insisting that they had compromised on serious matters and did not truly hold the "keys of the Presidency of the Church," which had allegedly been returned to the spirit world at the death of Joseph F. Smith in 1918. Thus, they generally valued Church direction less than direct pronouncements from their own Priesthood Council. This "Council of Friends" consisted of seven "High Priest Apostles" or "Presiding High Priests," the seniormost of whom was considered "President of the Priesthood" or Prophet.

Following LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball's 1978 Revelation on Priesthood, extending the right of ordination to black African males in perceived contradiction to the teachings of Brigham Young and other early LDS leaders, the fundamentalists in Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, began to regard their parent organization as a "complete Gentile sectarian church." In 1991, Rulon Jeffs, by that time sole surviving member of the Priesthood Council and thus Prophet of the group, incorporated his followers into "the Corporation of the President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" or FLDS Church, with himself as president. Upon his death in 2002, Jeffs was succeeded by his First Counselor and son, Warren Jeffs. Despite the younger Jeffs' resignation from the Presidency in 2011 following his imprisonment for child sexual assault, and a brief tenure by Wendell Loy Nielsen as President of the Church's corporate assets, most FLDS members continue to regard Jeffs as a prophet.

Latter Day Saint sects without a President of the Church
Some sects in the Latter Day Saint movement do not accept the office of President of the Church as a valid office in the priesthood; these groups often maintain that because Jesus' original church was led by twelve apostles, not by a president or a three-man presidency, the latter-day church should be similarly organized. For instance, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) is governed by a Quorum of the Twelve; the members of the quorum are generally regarded as co-equal holders of the highest office in the church.

title: President of the Church


text:
Old Brick Capitol

The Old Brick Capitol in Washington, D.C., served as the temporary meeting place of the Congress of the United States from 1815 to 1819, while the Capitol Building was rebuilt after the burning of Washington.

"Old Brick" served as a private school, a boarding house, and, during the American Civil War, a prison known as the Old Capitol Prison. It was demolished in 1929, and its site is now occupied by the U.S. Supreme Court building.

Site history
The site was located on Capitol Hill and was acquired from the Carroll family to accommodate the U.S. Capitol. Located at 1st and A streets NE in Washington, D.C., on the eastern slope of Capitol Hill, the site's first building was a red brick tavern and hostel called Stelle's Hotel, built around 1800. It was part of a neighborhood of rooming houses catering to the U.S. Congress.

Temporary U.S. Capitol, 1815–1819
In August 1814, during the War of 1812, the British burned the nearby United States Capitol building. The Congress, forced to meet in temporary quarters, pulled down the hostel at 1st and A streets, and built a temporary brick capitol building in the Federal style, laying the cornerstone on July 4, 1815. Congress then occupied the brick capitol from December 8, 1815, until 1819, while the original U.S. Capitol Building was rebuilt. The first inauguration of President James Monroe took place at the brick capitol on March 4, 1817.

The building was actually financed by Washington real-estate investors, who had heard rumors that some members of Congress were considering relocation of the national capital in the aftermath of the burning. The investors wanted to prevent their land values from decreasing by keeping the government in Washington.

Old Brick Capitol, 1819–1861
The building acquired the title "Old Brick Capitol" in 1819 when Congress and the Supreme Court returned to the restored U.S. Capitol Building. Until the time of the Civil War, the building was used as a private school, then as a boarding house. South Carolina Senator and former Vice President of the United States John C. Calhoun, who had been a leading member of the Fourteenth Congress when it met in the Old Brick Capitol, died in the boarding house in 1850.

Old Capitol Prison, 1861–1867

With the start of the Civil War in 1861, the Union repurchased the building to use as a prison for captured Confederates, as well as political prisoners, spies, Union officers convicted of insubordination, and local prostitutes. Famous inmates of the prison included Rose Greenhow, Belle Boyd, John Mosby, and Henry Wirz, who was hanged in the yard of the prison.

Many people arrested following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln were also held here. These included Dr. Samuel Mudd, Mary Surratt, Louis Weichmann, and John T. Ford, owner of Ford's Theater, where Lincoln was shot. The adjoining row of houses, Duff Green's Row, was also used as part of the prison.

Post-War use and demolition
The government sold the Old Capitol Prison in 1867 to George T. Brown, then sergeant-at-arms of the U.S. Senate, who modified the building into three rowhouses collectively known as "Trumbull's Row." In the 20th century, they were used as the headquarters of the National Woman's Party. In 1929, the site was acquired by eminent domain and the brick building was razed to clear the site for the U.S. Supreme Court Building.

title: Old Brick Capitol