I saw Father Adam, Abraham, and Michael

[divinenature]

I am reading from An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith. Where it records the vision he had that is currently D&C 137 I took note of an interesting omission.

The journal states:

I saw Father Adam, Abraham, and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin that has long since slept.

D&C 137 now states:

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

The History of the Church states:

I saw Fathers Adam and Abraham, and my father and mother, my brother, Alvin, that has long since slept...

Anyone know when Michael was revealed to be Adam? I'd like to find the earliest source.

D&C 137 was inserted into the scriptures in 1981. The History of the Church in 1978. The book I'm reading was published in 1987.

Does anyone have Vol. 1 of the Joseph Smith Papers? I'd be interested to know how it is recorded there. Thanks!

I did find this earlier reference. The 1835 version of the Book of Commandments mentions Adam and Michael as being the ancient of days. It was added to what is now D&C 27 and became verse 11. It was not in the 1833 version.

So, it was an idea before the 1835 printing, at least.

[Calm]

Anyone know when Michael was revealed to be Adam? I'd like to find the earliest source.

I believe there was at least one reference to Adam as Michael a year prior to this vision.

I'm trying to remember what I read recently on this....IIRC the scholarship from examining the manuscripts is that this may have been a scribal error...something misheard in the dictation, the use of "my" in front of several words ("my father", "my brother" etc.) following "Michael" may indicate that "Michael" was something with a "my" at the front that sounded similar to "Michael".

I'll see if I can track down the source.

[Nofear]

Here is the FAIR, er, "Chapel" response:

Matthew Brown noted that the original text of this revelation may help explain what happened:

[Warren] Parrish

[David T]

Here is the footnote as recorded in Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, v. 1, p.168, footnote 319

Parrish's transcription of JS's vision seems to differentiate Adam and the archangel Michael as two separate individuals. Yet JS identified Michael as Adam at least a year earlier and made the same identification four years later. (Oliver Cowdery, Kirtland OH, to John Whitmer, [Liberty, MO], 1 Jan. 1834, in Cowdery, Letterbook, 15; Revelation, ca. Aug. 1830, in Doctrine and Covenants 50:2, 1835 ed. [D&C 27:11]; Richards, "Pocket Companion," 74-75; Robert B. Thompson, Sermon notes, 5 Oct. 1840, JS Collection, CHL).

Due to the fact that it was taught and published before, its being a scribal error seems likely.

Back to your other question, I tried to ask the same question concerning the original dating of the Michael/Adam origins in the D&C 27, Part B: Origin of the Michael/Adam/Ancient of Days Doctrine thread, but there were no serious responses.

[divinenature]

Thanks for the helpful responses!

It seems that it was just an odd mistake for whatever reason.

[divinenature]

Here is the footnote as recorded in Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, v. 1, p.168, footnote 319

Due to the fact that it was taught and published before, its being a scribal error seems likely.

Back to your other question, I tried to ask the same question concerning the original dating of the Michael/Adam origins in the D&C 27, Part B: Origin of the Michael/Adam/Ancient of Days Doctrine thread, but there were no serious responses.

Dang, that is too bad there were no responses to your question. It is exactly what I would love to know.

[Calm]

Here is the FAIR, er, "Chapel" response:

Ah, now I don't have track down where I read it, it's this text I was thinking of.

[Lachoneus]

It seems that it was just an odd mistake for whatever reason.

Could this have anything to do with this statement by Brigham Young:

Adam

[David T]

President Young seems to be aware of at least two individuals named Adam. Maybe Joseph Smith was also aware of two individuals named Adam.

Highly Doubt it. Although I do know that Elden Watson makes the connection you brought up, and uses the original recorded version of this revelation as evidence for his Adam Jr/Adam Sr Theory. I don't buy it.

[Lachoneus]

Highly Doubt it. Although I do know that Elden Watson makes the connection you brought up, and uses the original recorded version of this revelation as evidence for his Adam Jr/Adam Sr Theory. I don't buy it.

Your response is nonsensical as a response to the quote from Brigham Young. In that quote President Young clearly refers to at least two individuals named Adam. Do you doubt that President Young said those words? If you do not think he is referring to two individuals named Adam, please explain the quote.

[David T]

Your response is nonsensical as a response to the quote from Brigham Young. In that quote President Young clearly refers to at least two individuals named Adam. Do you doubt that President Young said those words? If you do not think he is referring to two individuals named Adam, please explain the quote.

Sorry, my statement was as a reference to Joseph's thought, in the context of the 1836 journal entry, and not Brigham. I see I wasn't clear.

I'm familiar with the BY quote. It's part of an exposition of the meaning of New Names. In the full context, BY appears to be expounding that Father Adam (the same as God the Father, in his mind at this time) was given a New Name corresponding to an ancient priesthood holder from the past, from his former world.

It's a completely different development than was ever even hinted at by Joseph. The evidence all points to the 1836 appearance of Michael being an error in this context, and nothing to read into doctrinally.