When Did Adam First Walk The Earth?

[danieldemol]

What is JoD?

[cinepro]

I don't understand why people keep asking this type of question.  When I saw 10 pages of responses to this thread, I didn't read any of them because I don't care to hear people opine without scripture support for their stance.

 

These are the facts:

 

1- We DON'T know when Adam "first walked on the Earth."

2- We DO know (give or take) when Adam fell and the earth became temporal.

 

Adam's fall and death are the only dates that we have documented in scripture.

 

So what was the date of Adam's fall, as "documented" in scripture?

[Calm]

What is JoD?

Journal of Discourses

[jkwilliams]

At least three times in the last three months I have posted on this. Without advocating in any way(in fact I absolutely reject the ancient alien theory) for the ancient alien theory I must say they have a large array of information on ancient evidences.  Just for kicks seriously look at their evidences and see if you can formulate a different theory other than ancient  alien theory and different than standard evolution theory.

 

I haven't been around during the last three months, so I haven't seen anything you've posted on this subject. Sorry.

[JLHPROF]

The JoD isn't the word of God.  It's not doctrine either except those lines quoted in actual LDS publications.

 

That is such a crock.  JoD WAS an actual LDS publication and most of the discourses were given over the pulpit in the tabernacle or the Bowery at major Church meetings, like General Conference.

It really annoys me when people talk about the discourses like they were something Brigham Young scribbled on a bit of paper as part of a brainstorming session.  These were Church doctrine at the time.

 

The JoD is as much official doctrine as anything said by any GA in General Conference and published in the following month's Ensign, whether we agree with them or not.  And we can only accept the parts that the Church has quoted in official publications recently...I didn't realize that the publishing department of the Church was the real source of all God's truth.

Edited October 15, 2013 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

I don't understand why people keep asking this type of question.  When I saw 10 pages of responses to this thread, I didn't read any of them because I don't care to hear people opine without scripture support for their stance.

 

These are the facts:

 

1- We DON'T know when Adam "first walked on the Earth."

2- We DO know (give or take) when Adam fell and the earth became temporal.

 

Adam's fall and death are the only dates that we have documented in scripture.

 

CFR

[thesometimesaint]

That is such a crock.  JoD WAS an actual LDS publication and most of the discourses were given over the pulpit in the tabernacle or the Bowery at major Church meetings, like General Conference.

It really annoys me when people talk about the discourses like they were something Brigham Young scribbled on a bit of paper as part of a brainstorming session.  These were Church doctrine at the time.

 

The JoD is as much official doctrine as anything said by any GA in General Conference and published in the following month's Ensign, whether we agree with them or not.  And we can only accept the parts that the Church has quoted in official publications recently...I didn't realize that the publishing department of the Church was the real source of all God's truth.

 

Incorrect.

SEE http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Journal_of_Discourse

[JLHPROF]

Incorrect.

SEE http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Journal_of_Discourse

 

Your link is missing the final "S", but let me help you out - the Church "official position" on the JoD (which started to be espoused in the 70s):

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

 

The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

 

but oddly enough they also say

 

President Brigham Young supported the plan, and a letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume encouraging Church members to cooperate in the “purchase and sale” of the journal.

 

and President George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency wrote that:

 

 "The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill.^{"  JoD 8:3.}

 

So, no, I don't really care what the Church's official position now is on what its official position used to be.  Everything in the JoD may not be scripture, but it is not subject to current authorization to be true either.

[Stone holm]

That is such a crock.  JoD WAS an actual LDS publication and most of the discourses were given over the pulpit in the tabernacle or the Bowery at major Church meetings, like General Conference.

It really annoys me when people talk about the discourses like they were something Brigham Young scribbled on a bit of paper as part of a brainstorming session.  These were Church doctrine at the time.

 

The JoD is as much official doctrine as anything said by any GA in General Conference and published in the following month's Ensign, whether we agree with them or not.  And we can only accept the parts that the Church has quoted in official publications recently...I didn't realize that the publishing department of the Church was the real source of all God's truth.

 

You really don't want to go there the JoD is better classified as "teachings", otherwise you get into a long discussion of what is and what is not "doctrine".  Doctrine changes over the years because it turns into teachings, then traditions, then sometimes anathema.  We belong, or at least I belong, to a living Church which reserves the right to change its mind as the Lord reveals the truth more clearly, or when its traditions set off a cultural powder keg, from time to time.

[Stone holm]

Your link is missing the final "S", but let me help you out - the Church "official position" on the JoD (which started to be espoused in the 70s):

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

 

but oddly enough they also say

 

and President George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency wrote that:

 

So, no, I don't really care what the Church's official position now is on what its official position used to be.  Everything in the JoD may not be scripture, but it is not subject to current authorization to be true either.

 

Yes well I got my set from the Seventy's bookstore in the 70's and by then it had been demoted to teachings (some of which were then considered a little "wild")  great reading though!  Course the rowdy local 70's Quorum no longer exist either.

[JLHPROF]

You really don't want to go there the JoD is better classified as "teachings", otherwise you get into a long discussion of what is and what is not "doctrine".  Doctrine changes over the years because it turns into teachings, then traditions, then sometimes anathema.  We belong, or at least I belong, to a living Church which reserves the right to change its mind as the Lord reveals the truth more clearly, or when its traditions set off a cultural powder keg, from time to time.

 

I want to clarify, that while I don't consider the JoD as scripture, it just bothers me when we apply a double standard to them.

The discourses in the JoD have the exact same origins as the General Conference talks in the Ensign.  Both were published with the approval and encouragement of the First Presidency.  Both were considered official Church teachings at the time they were published.

 

I don't like it when we apply standards unevenly to the teachings of Church leaders.  Having a living church should not prevent us from finding truth in the past teachings, or worse, allow us to treat them dismissively.  JoD is not scripture, but it is as much part of the spectrum of official church teachings over time as anything said by David O. McKay, Spencer W. Kimball, Gordon B. Hinkley, or today's leaders, and we shouldn't ignore the teachings of our early prophets any more than we should ignore the Old Testament or New Testament in favour of the D&C.

Edited October 15, 2013 by JLHPROF

[pmccombs1]

...  We belong, or at least I belong, to a living Church which reserves the right to change its mind as the Lord reveals the truth more clearly, or when its traditions set off a cultural powder keg, from time to time.

 

Oh, I like what the heretic, Daymon Smith, has to say on the matter of a living church that changes its mind:

 

By “continuous” do we often mean, that which supplants, replaces, or alters the previous thing in the sequence?  If I told [you] I had continuing disease, would you think I meant I had syphilis  the clap, then gonorrhea, then liver cancer, and then the flu?  Or would you think I had a disease which had some consistency beyond disease-ness, some quality that was the same besides being disease?  Just so: continuing revelation should not supplant nor replace: that is discontinuous, by definition.  It should continue to add light and knowledge, not simply swap out a 45 Watt bulb for a 30 Watt one, and then a red one because times have changed.  Continuing light should be continuous, a continuum, not an interrupted, punctuated supplanting and alteration whenever times demand a change.

[Stone holm]

I want to clarify, that while I don't consider the JoD as scripture, it just bothers me when we apply a double standard to them.

The discourses in the JoD have the exact same origins as the General Conference talks in the Ensign.  Both were published with the approval and encouragement of the First Presidency.  Both were considered official Church teachings at the time they were published.

 

I don't like it when we apply standards unevenly to the teachings of Church leaders.  Having a living church should not prevent us from finding truth in the past teachings, or worse, allow us to treat them dismissively.  JoD is not scripture, but it is as much part of the spectrum of official church teachings over time as anything said by David O. McKay, Spencer W. Kimball, Gordon B. Hinkley, or today's leaders, and we shouldn't ignore the teachings of our early prophets any more than we should ignore the Old Testament or New Testament in favour of the D&C.

Well some of what you say is true, except the D & C does override the Bible to the extent the latter is not translated correctly. But getting back to the JoD. The problem is that GAs tended to actually say something back then, which is not very fashionable right now, especially since our late Prophet was projecting that we are really just like plain old American Christians as they were in the 1950s except we have more Scriptures, and golly gee we don't emphasize or much teach that stuff anymore. So since the most recent teachings or lack thereof trump older stuff, unless of course Joseph Smith happened to say it and it got written down. You see we believe in modern prophets and they communicate with the world primarily through Correlation. So don't read that old stuff it might cause your brain synapses to fire too frequently.

[jkwilliams]

Since we're fighting chatting amicably about the Journal of Discourses, some thoughts:

 

1. The JoD was sort of quasi-official, in that it was published as a means of income for George Watt, who was Brigham Young's "reporter" in charge of recording talks and meetings and such. It likely wouldn't have been published otherwise (my guess, anyway).

 

2. The publisher was "F.D. Richard and S.W. Richards of London: Latter-day Saints Book Depot." Why is this important? Apostle Franklin D. Richards was the mission president in England at the time, and was responsible for publishing the Millennial Star, which was the church's official magazine/publication in Britain until 1970 (this date is important, as I'll explain later). Thus, the JoD was published by the church, not some outside publisher.

 

3. The JoD begins with a letter from the First Presidency recommending the publication to members and missionaries but does not say that the volumes have any doctrinal authority.

 

4. The document contains what are discourses from the prophets, apostles, and others reflecting their understanding of doctrine at the time.

 

5. When I was working at the Church Office Building in curriculum, we were told repeatedly (and in writing) that the Correlation review process, which had begun in 1971 allowed us to determine what is authoritative and consistent with church doctrine--and what is not. Basically, anything published before 1970 has not been approved by the Correlation committee and thus is not authoritative. Thus, the JoD is not considered authoritative and doctrinal because it has not been reviewed by Correlation.

 

6. Publications made after January 1971 have been Correlated, which means that anything they have quoted, whether a bad poem or something from the JoD, reflects church doctrine authoritatively. Even then, we were encouraged to quote mainly from post-1970 publications because such quotes would not need to be reviewed by Correlation.

 

What does this all mean? It means that, according to the present-day church, the JoD is not "an authoritative source of Church doctrine" because it has not been reviewed by Correlation. It's also clear that many Mormons considered it doctrinal when it was first published (G.Q. Cannon said it was up there with the standard works, IIRC). In a church that believes in continuing revelation, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

I understand why the church began the Correlation program as they did: the different organizations and auxiliaries were putting out their own publications with little central oversight to ensure consistency and accuracy. That said, I'm not a fan of turning over the job of determining doctrine to a bureaucracy.

 

If nothing else, the JoD tells me that there was a lot more doctrinal speculation (often offered as doctrine) coming from the pulpit in the tabernacle than there is today. That makes the volumes pretty interesting reading. Plus, reading them gave me some real insights into Brigham Young's character. He was a fascinating man.

[Stone holm]

Oh, I like what the heretic, Daymon Smith, has to say on the matter of a living church that changes its mind:

 

By “continuous” do we often mean, that which supplants, replaces, or alters the previous thing in the sequence?  If I told [you] I had continuing disease, would you think I meant I had syphilis  the clap, then gonorrhea, then liver cancer, and then the flu?  Or would you think I had a disease which had some consistency beyond disease-ness, some quality that was the same besides being disease?  Just so: continuing revelation should not supplant nor replace: that is discontinuous, by definition.  It should continue to add light and knowledge, not simply swap out a 45 Watt bulb for a 30 Watt one, and then a red one because times have changed.  Continuing light should be continuous, a continuum, not an interrupted, punctuated supplanting and alteration whenever times demand a change.

Do you really think we should be stuck with what say Joseph Fielding Smith may have uttered, or that we should repeatedly trot out Ezra Taft Benson's Cold War paranoia rants from when he was an Apostle? I don't think so. Prophets are human and they should be allowed to go off the rails from time to time, if for no other reason than to keep us from going comatose during Gospel discussions.

[Stone holm]

Since we're fighting chatting amicably about the Journal of Discourses, some thoughts:

 

1. The JoD was sort of quasi-official, in that it was published as a means of income for George Watt, who was Brigham Young's "reporter" in charge of recording talks and meetings and such. It likely wouldn't have been published otherwise (my guess, anyway).

 

2. The publisher was "F.D. Richard and S.W. Richards of London: Latter-day Saints Book Depot." Why is this important? Apostle Franklin D. Richards was the mission president in England at the time, and was responsible for publishing the Millennial Star, which was the church's official magazine/publication in Britain until 1970 (this date is important, as I'll explain later). Thus, the JoD was published by the church, not some outside publisher.

 

3. The JoD begins with a letter from the First Presidency recommending the publication to members and missionaries but does not say that the volumes have any doctrinal authority.

 

4. The document contains what are discourses from the prophets, apostles, and others reflecting their understanding of doctrine at the time.

 

5. When I was working at the Church Office Building in curriculum, we were told repeatedly (and in writing) that the Correlation review process, which had begun in 1971 allowed us to determine what is authoritative and consistent with church doctrine--and what is not. Basically, anything published before 1970 has not been approved by the Correlation committee and thus is not authoritative. Thus, the JoD is not considered authoritative and doctrinal because it has not been reviewed by Correlation.

 

6. Publications made after January 1971 have been Correlated, which means that anything they have quoted, whether a bad poem or something from the JoD, reflects church doctrine authoritatively. Even then, we were encouraged to quote mainly from post-1970 publications because such quotes would not need to be reviewed by Correlation.

 

What does this all mean? It means that, according to the present-day church, the JoD is not "an authoritative source of Church doctrine" because it has not been reviewed by Correlation. It's also clear that many Mormons considered it doctrinal when it was first published (G.Q. Cannon said it was up there with the standard works, IIRC). In a church that believes in continuing revelation, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

I understand why the church began the Correlation program as they did: the different organizations and auxiliaries were putting out their own publications with little central oversight to ensure consistency and accuracy. That said, I'm not a fan of turning over the job of determining doctrine to a bureaucracy.

 

If nothing else, the JoD tells me that there was a lot more doctrinal speculation (often offered as doctrine) coming from the pulpit in the tabernacle than there is today. That makes the volumes pretty interesting reading. Plus, reading them gave me some real insights into Brigham Young's character. He was a fascinating man.

Love the comments about Correlation, and here I thought the Holy Ghost had a role in that function.

[thesometimesaint]

Your link is missing the final "S", but let me help you out - the Church "official position" on the JoD (which started to be espoused in the 70s):

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

 

but oddly enough they also say

 

and President George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency wrote that:

 

So, no, I don't really care what the Church's official position now is on what its official position used to be.  Everything in the JoD may not be scripture, but it is not subject to current authorization to be true either.

 

Actually all doctrines are subject to current authorization. The Mormons and BY were and are a practical people. If something doesn't work or is changed by revelation we seek and apply those new things.

[JLHPROF]

Actually all doctrines are subject to current authorization. The Mormons and BY were and are a practical people. If something doesn't work or is changed by revelation we seek and apply those new things.

Yes, but they really shouldn't be.

And I don't believe for one second that the "Correlation" department that determines authorization receives ongoing revelation as to which items are true and which are not.  Can we receive further light and knowledge on truth, yes.  Does that mean that the Correlation department get to determine the only doctrines that should be considered true and official , no.  I'm guessing they don't exactly run every piece of doctrine past the prophet either.

 

My goodness, it's like the Council of Nicea and the other early Christian councils all over again...which teachings are true Christian Doctrine and which should we drop?  Which discourses are scripture and which should be labeled as uninsipired?  Which doctrines can we accept as true and which should we label as heresy (or speculation).

If we're not careful, Church members will end up following creeds that tell us what we can and can't accept as doctrine, and we could easily end up with another Trinity fiasco.  And we all know what Joseph Smith said about creeds...

[Stone holm]

Yes, but they really shouldn't be.

And I don't believe for one second that the "Correlation" department that determines authorization receives ongoing revelation as to which items are true and which are not.  Can we receive further light and knowledge on truth, yes.  Does that mean that the Correlation department get to determine the only doctrines that should be considered true and official , no.  I'm guessing they don't exactly run every piece of doctrine past the prophet either.

 

My goodness, it's like the Council of Nicea and the other early Christian councils all over again...which teachings are true Christian Doctrine and which should we drop?  Which discourses are scripture and which should be labeled as uninsipired?  Which doctrines can we accept as true and which should we label as heresy (or speculation).

If we're not careful, Church members will end up following creeds that tell us what we can and can't accept as doctrine, and we could easily end up with another Trinity fiasco.  And we all know what Joseph Smith said about creeds...

Oh gee, you don't remember sustaining the Correlation system as prophets, seers, and revelators...why that is just awful.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, but they really shouldn't be.

And I don't believe for one second that the "Correlation" department that determines authorization receives ongoing revelation as to which items are true and which are not.  Can we receive further light and knowledge on truth, yes.  Does that mean that the Correlation department get to determine the only doctrines that should be considered true and official , no.  I'm guessing they don't exactly run every piece of doctrine past the prophet either.

 

My goodness, it's like the Council of Nicea and the other early Christian councils all over again...which teachings are true Christian Doctrine and which should we drop?  Which discourses are scripture and which should be labeled as uninsipired?  Which doctrines can we accept as true and which should we label as heresy (or speculation).

If we're not careful, Church members will end up following creeds that tell us what we can and can't accept as doctrine, and we could easily end up with another Trinity fiasco.  And we all know what Joseph Smith said about creeds...

 

How could it be any other way? Personally I like ham and cheese sandwiches, and Shrimp. Yet we have the God of the OT through prophets telling the children of Israel not to partake of them, along with a host of other things. What, if anything, makes OT prophets better than NT prophets, or even modern day prophets?

 

I never said a word about the Correlation Committee. Though I do see a need to make sure all doctrine is on the same page, so to speak. It really does more harm than good to have, say a Sunday School treacher in outter Slobovia teaching something different than what a Sunday School teacher in downtown Salt Lake City; Utah does.

 

I never said uninspired either. Just not terribly applicable to our times. BY as great as he was, and often inspired, didn't know a thing about the computer or the  internet. He also wanted long flowing dresses on ballet dancers. So why should we project our times, and circumstances onto him or visa versa? For me it is take what is good and true, and discard the rest.

 

We don't have Creeds in the Church, and i would personally object if we started down that road. However I do know what the Church teaches as doctrine and what no matter how well thought out, or not, is personal opinion which may or may not be applicable to me in my circumstances. IE; I am well past the stage where I'm looking for that first "Real" job. So I could have all the tatooes and ear piercings I want, I don't have any, but there is no doctrine concerning it applicable to me.

[cinepro]

Well, here's what we'll be hearing about soon in Gospel Doctrine:

 

 

 

Explain that the purpose of Church correlation is to preserve “the right way of God” (Jacob 7:7). Ultimately it is intended to help accomplish the mission of the Church, which is to invite all people to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him” (Moroni 10:32; see also D&C 20:59).

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church. Correlation includes:

a. Maintaining purity of doctrine.

....

Edited October 15, 2013 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

Well, here's what we'll be hearing about soon in Gospel Doctrine:

 

 

 

 

Well I think they have accomplished the "simplicity" goal very, very well.  Milk before more milk as they say, anyone Got Milk?

[thesometimesaint]

I still enjoy a big glass of cold chocolate milk.

[JLHPROF]

Well I think they have accomplished the "simplicity" goal very, very well.  Milk before more milk as they say, anyone Got Milk?

 

Milk just isn't sufficient for all.  But it is tasty.

Sooner or later, I really crave a steak...Not sure there is a source for steak in our current classes.

Edited October 15, 2013 by JLHPROF

[jkwilliams]

Milk just isn't sufficient for all.  But it is tasty.

Sooner or later, I really crave a steak...Not sure there is a source for steak in our current classes.

 

I can't even have milk, as my doctor has me on a dairy-free diet until the end of the month. I guess if I want milk, I'll have to go to Sunday School.