Where is lds resource about garment of Adam passed down

[Christian Mormon]

On BYU Radio I had heard that the coat of skins that Adam got from God in the Garden of Eden was passed down through the generations. So I was hoping that I could get LDS sources to tell me the true story.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Christian Mormon said:

On BYU Radio I had heard that the coat of skins that Adam got from God in the Garden of Eden was passed down through the generations. So I was hoping that I could get LDS sources to tell me the true story.

It comes from a bunch of old Jewish stories and some Christian ones. You will not find it in LDS scripture. The true story is in the sealed portion of the plates. So to get the full account all you have to do is live righteously enough that God opens then visions of eternity to you. Good luck and let us know how it goes.

[JAHS]

What happened to Adam's garment mostly comes out of Jewish Traditions. Here are some references about this subject:

"In the Pseudepigrapha the celestial garments of Adam and Eve are often identified with the garments the righteous receive in the hereafter. Adam's garments of skins were generally perceived to have mystical qualities and were identified as high priestly garments which Adam passed down with the priesthood to his righteous posterity. "
(MAN ADAM by Robert L. Millet, Joseph Fielding McConkie)

"The garment given by God to Adam represents not merely protection and repentance, but authority as well.  Of extraordinary brilliance and splendor and possessed of supernatural qualities,  Adam's garment was passed down from Adam to his descendants, who wore it as priestly robes. Thus the Numbers Rabbah states that "as Adam was about to sacrifice, he donned high priestly garments; as it says: 'God made for Adam and his wife coats of skin' (Genesis 3:21). They were robes of honor which subsequent firstborn used."  The firstborn sons sacrificed while wearing the garment before priests took over the role of sacrificing the offerings.  Similarly, according to the Midrash Tanh.uma, "the liturgy was performed by the firstborn in [Adam's garment]."  It was this garment, passed through the generations from Seth to Noah,  that was worn by Noah when he sacrificed on an altar.  It was one of the items that Noah saved and carried with him in the ark."
(TEMPLES OF THE ANCIENT WORLD: RITUAL AND SYMBOLISM  by Donald W. Parry
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 24; cf. LJ, 1:177; M. Sel, "Nimrod," in The Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 vols.)

"According to one tradition, the garments, though stolen by Ham, were recovered by Shem who, as Melchizedek, gave them to Abraham as his successor. Abraham passed the garments to his son Isaac and he to his eldest son Esau."
(Bershit Rabbah, 420-22; Midrash Va-yiqra Rabbah 25:6; Midrash ba-Midbar Rabbah 4:8; TB Nedarim 32b; Tanhuma Buber Genesis 76; Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. The Book of the Rolls f.110b (in Gibson, Apocrypha Arabica) notes that Melchizedek's priestly clothing was made of animal skins.)

[halconero]

In a certain sense it's found in the temple ordinances, though it is only symbolically passed down. I'm not sure how several million endowed members would share one (lost) garment.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, Christian Mormon said:

On BYU Radio I had heard that the coat of skins that Adam got from God in the Garden of Eden was passed down through the generations. So I was hoping that I could get LDS sources to tell me the true story.

Adam and Eve represent humanity. There's not a literal coat. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Adam and Eve represent humanity. There's not a literal coat. 

That's one element. If there was an actual Adam and Eve and if they had actual ritual clothing it's certainly possible that was passed down. However all the traditions we have are extremely late - typically well after the return from the exile. So they are best tell us how people thought about the traditions, not anything about actual history.

From a Mormon perspective as others note it's interesting because so many aspects of our temple ceremony can be found in these Jewish traditions. While I keep a skeptical eye towards these Jewish (and gnostic) traditions they can be illuminating in terms of how to think about the endowment. 

One should note that reading about the more general role of sacred clothing can be very informative as well. Some of Mircea Eilade's work is interesting there.

[Maidservant]

I've always considered the coat of skin(s) to be our bodies (i.e. =priesthood garments).  But this doesn't really answer the OP, it's from my own mind of reading the scripture and attending the temple.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Adam and Eve represent humanity. There's not a literal coat.

You have no way of knowing that for certain.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's one element. If there was an actual Adam and Eve and if they had actual ritual clothing it's certainly possible that was passed down. However all the traditions we have are extremely late - typically well after the return from the exile. So they are best tell us how people thought about the traditions, not anything about actual history.

 

Sure, it would be interesting to know if there was a tradition about an actual coat being handed down. 

 

 

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You have no way of knowing that for certain.

 

I think we can be as certain that Adam and Eve are not historical people as we can be certain about anything - that is to say, with a high degree of confidence, but never with 100% certainty. 

[theplains]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

"The garment given by God to Adam represents not merely protection and repentance, but authority as well.

The coats of skin represent the rejection of the fig leaf aprons that Adam and Eve made to cover their nakedness
and shame. Unfortunately, people still believe wearing the fig leaf aprons is a positive thing.  They still want to have
their way instead of God's way.  The coverings (either version) have nothing to do with a priesthood.

Jim

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think we can be as certain that Adam and Eve are not historical people as we can be certain about anything - that is to say, with a high degree of confidence, but never with 100% certainty.

And since Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith and others all saw the actual person of Adam, and I believe them to be both honest and prophets of God, I can say with a high degree of confidence that they ARE historical people.  Only seeing the same for myself would give the 100% certainty.
But I am as certain of their testimony that Adam is real as I am of their testimony that Jesus is real.

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think we can be as certain that Adam and Eve are not historical people as we can be certain about anything - that is to say, with a high degree of confidence, but never with 100% certainty.

And since Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith and others all saw the actual person of Adam, and I believe them to be both honest and prophets of God, I can say with a high degree of confidence that they ARE historical people.  Only seeing the same for myself would give the 100% certainty.
But I am as certain of their testimony that Adam is real as I am of their testimony that Jesus is real.

Prophet Joseph Smith said:
“I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. He called together his children and blessed them with a patriarchal blessing. The Lord appeared in their midst, and he (Adam) blessed them all, and foretold what should befall them to the latest generation. This is why Adam blessed his posterity; he wanted to bring them into the presence of God.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

President Joseph F. Smith, wrote:
“Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,
“And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.” (D&C 138:38–39.)

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think we can be as certain that Adam and Eve are not historical people as we can be certain about anything - that is to say, with a high degree of confidence, but never with 100% certainty. 

I'd disagree. How can you possibly make that claim? You can say an Adam and Eve who were the sole originators of all the human race 7000 years ago is false. I'm not sure you can say there was no Adam and Eve and indefinite number of years ago who may have lived at the time with pre-Adamites.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Prophet Joseph Smith said:
“I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. He called together his children and blessed them with a patriarchal blessing. The Lord appeared in their midst, and he (Adam) blessed them all, and foretold what should befall them to the latest generation. This is why Adam blessed his posterity; he wanted to bring them into the presence of God.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

President Joseph F. Smith, wrote:
“Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,
“And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.” (D&C 138:38–39.)

Not to mention all the prophecies about Adam-Ondi-Ahman.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

D&C 116-  May 19, 1838
SPRING Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

"Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.157)

"A great council will then be held to adjust the affairs of the world, from the commencement, over which Father Adam will preside as head and representative of the human family. . . .
Then they will assemble to regulate all these affairs, and all that held keys of authority to administer will then represent their earthly course. And as this authority has been handed down from one to another in different ages, and in different dispensations, a full reckoning will have to be made by all. All who have held the keys of priesthood will then have to give an account to those from whom they received them. Those that were in the heavens have been assisting those that were upon the earth; but then, they will unite together in a general council to give an account of their stewardships, and as in the various ages men have received their power to administer from those who had previously held the keys thereof, there will be a general account." - John Taylor - The Gospel Kingdom, p.217


So between eyewitness of Adam to prophecies about Adam, that's good enough for me.  Certainly much skepticism doesn't seem warranted from the faithful based on scientific doubts.  We'd have to start dismissing prophecy., scripture, revelation, and vision all over the place and the gospel would eventually implode.

 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And since Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith and others all saw the actual person of Adam, and I believe them to be both honest and prophets of God, I can say with a high degree of confidence that they ARE historical people.  Only seeing the same for myself would give the 100% certainty.
But I am as certain of their testimony that Adam is real as I am of their testimony that Jesus is real.

It's quite possible that they saw some kind of vision. But that doesn't make Adam a historical person. Even in context of the scriptures the story reads as very obvious metaphor, not even as an amplified kind of history. 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd disagree. How can you possibly make that claim? You can say an Adam and Eve who were the sole originators of all the human race 7000 years ago is false. I'm not sure you can say there was no Adam and Eve and indefinite number of years ago who may have lived at the time with pre-Adamites.

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of the first human woman and first human man. But that doesn't work biologically. So that's out. If you're saying it's a story about a man and a woman who lived among other human beings thousands of years ago, there were many such people, but that's not the story of Adam and Eve. 

The story itself screams metaphor. It shakes you by the ears and demands that we not take it literally. But the siren call of fundamentalism is hard to resist.  

 

Quote

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” - John Dominic Crossan, 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So between eyewitness of Adam to prophecies about Adam, that's good enough for me.  Certainly much skepticism doesn't seem warranted from the faithful based on scientific doubts.  We'd have to start dismissing prophecy., scripture, revelation, and vision all over the place and the gospel would eventually implode.

 

Taking history (and therefore, scripture) seriously doesn't mean you have to dismiss anything, but you do have to reevaluate some assumptions and interpretations. 

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of the first human woman and first human man. But that doesn't work biologically. So that's out. If you're saying it's a story about a man and a woman who lived among other human beings thousands of years ago, there were many such people, but that's not the story of Adam and Eve. 

The story itself screams metaphor. It shakes you by the ears and demands that we not take it literally. But the siren call of fundamentalism is hard to resist.  

Historical figures can and often are in metaphors or allegories. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is false but there really was a Washington. Likewise the story of Jesus is wrapped up with quite a view types, allegories and myths from other regions. But there is still a historical Jesus.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Historical figures can and often are in metaphors or allegories. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is false but there really was a Washington. Likewise the story of Jesus is wrapped up with quite a view types, allegories and myths from other regions. But there is still a historical Jesus.

Yes, but a historical Jesus or a historical Washington do not make Adam and Eve historical. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of the first human woman and first human man. But that doesn't work biologically. So that's out. If you're saying it's a story about a man and a woman who lived among other human beings thousands of years ago, there were many such people, but that's not the story of Adam and Eve. 

The story itself screams metaphor. It shakes you by the ears and demands that we not take it literally. But the siren call of fundamentalism is hard to resist.  

Well if we take what Brigham Young and Joseph supposedly said about the origin of Adam and Eve it might fit in.

Brigham Young:
"Here let me state to all philosopahers of every class upon the earth. when you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth. You tell me what I deem an idle tale when you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner. You are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities. Where the gods dwell mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet and power was given them to propagate their species and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth." (Journal of Discourses 7:285-286)

Joseph Smith:
"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 this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)

So perhaps there were already other human type beings somewhere on the earth when Adam and Eve showed up. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of the first human woman and first human man. But that doesn't work biologically. So that's out. If you're saying it's a story about a man and a woman who lived among other human beings thousands of years ago, there were many such people, but that's not the story of Adam and Eve. 

The story itself screams metaphor. It shakes you by the ears and demands that we not take it literally. But the siren call of fundamentalism is hard to resist.

But it does work as Priesthood. IE; The first people to hold the Priesthood.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Well if we take what Brigham Young and Joseph supposedly said about the origin of Adam and Eve it might fit in.

Brigham Young:
"Here let me state to all philosopahers of every class upon the earth. when you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth. You tell me what I deem an idle tale when you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner. You are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities. Where the gods dwell mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet and power was given them to propagate their species and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth." (Journal of Discourses 7:285-286)

Joseph Smith:
"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 this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)

So perhaps there were already other human type beings somewhere on the earth when Adam and Eve showed up. 

That idea is even wilder than the Biblical story, and no more plausible. Taking it this literally rather misses the point. Adam and Eve represent humanity. 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

But it does work as Priesthood. IE; The first people to hold the Priesthood.

That's not the story of Adam and Eve, and that would be quite anachronistic if you're taking that literally. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of the first human woman and first human man. But that doesn't work biologically. So that's out. If you're saying it's a story about a man and a woman who lived among other human beings thousands of years ago, there were many such people, but that's not the story of Adam and Eve.

Actually, I prefer Brigham's explanation for Adam and Eve.
It addresses both scripture and biology and doesn't reduce Father Adam and Mother Eve to myth.

Edited April 11, 2017 by JLHPROF