Our Earth was the last to be subjected to the Fall?

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

From my Fundamentalish tendencies:

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! 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. " (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:52)

And probably we should provide the extra context from this comment, right? President Young continued:

Quote

 

When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit their bodies became mortal from its effects; and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten Him in His own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. When he took a tabernacle it was begotten by His Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. From the fruits of the earth the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession.

I could say much more about this, but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing compared to it in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth so far as I have gone.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, viz.: Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael. These three formed a quorum as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing elements perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Jesus our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character as was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven. 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.

 

Just as interesting was President Woodruff's summary which he wrote that evening in his journal:

Quote

Who begat the Son of God? Infidels say that Jesus was a *******, but let me tell you the truth concerning that matter. Our Father begat all the spirits that were, before any tabernacles were made. When our Father came into the garden, He came with His celestial body and brought one of His wives with Him and ate of the fruit of the garden until He could beget a tabernacle, and Adam is Michael or God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They eat of this fruit and formed the first tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child, it was by the Father and in no other way, in no other way, only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don’t know that Jesus Christ our elder brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the damnation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father and not by the Holy Ghost.

What an interesting interpretation - that eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil would make even a celestial being (like God the Father) mortal. And while we could certainly opine on the subject - that the Adam being referenced here by President Young was God the Father, and the literal father (in the flesh) of Jesus Christ - the reality is that whatever President Young meant, it has been decided as a heterodox idea for the Church and one of the great heresies. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie described it:

Quote

 

Heresy six: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it. Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. “We will follow those who went before,” they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.

 

So let's not get this all mixed up with the current discussion ...

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And while we could certainly opine on the subject - that the Adam being referenced here by President Young was God the Father, and the literal father (in the flesh) of Jesus Christ - the reality is that whatever President Young meant, it has been decided as a heterodox idea for the Church and one of the great heresies

Has there ever been an official declaration stating such, or just Elder McConkie's opinion (whom we are told to take with a grain of salt) and Mark E. Peterson's talk?

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So let's not get this all mixed up with the current discussion

@Mark Beesleyasked for a quote concerning the type of body Adam had in the garden, I provided one. You are the one that decided to delve in deeper.

[Benjamin McGuire]

19 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Has there ever been an official declaration stating such, or just Elder McConkie's opinion (whom we are told to take with a grain of salt) and Mark E. Peterson's talk?

The first formal response was published by Elder Penrose in the Improvement Era in 1902:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.

In the October General Conference, President Kimball made this comment:

Quote

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

That was pretty much the end of it in terms of orthodoxy in the LDS Church. Whether you side with the various fundamentalists groups in your interpretation is up to you - but it is not something that is considered acceptable in the LDS Church today. It certainly isn't a new discussion, and I doubt that you are really that unaware of all of this. The problem, of course, is in your suggestion that this somehow represents mainstream LDS theology and doctrine in terms of Adam and the nature of his body. As Mark E. Peterson said (since you bring him up):

Quote

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel. God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time. Then how could it be said by anyone that he had "an only begotten" son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh? Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh. Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ. Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Has anyone actively taught Adam-God among the leaders of the Church in your lifetime? If not, it's not really much of a reference is it ... are they really the same Adam?

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The first formal response was published by Elder Penrose in the Improvement Era in 1902:

In the October General Conference, President Kimball made this comment:

That was pretty much the end of it in terms of orthodoxy in the LDS Church. Whether you side with the various fundamentalists groups in your interpretation is up to you - but it is not something that is considered acceptable in the LDS Church today. It certainly isn't a new discussion, and I doubt that you are really that unaware of all of this. The problem, of course, is in your suggestion that this somehow represents mainstream LDS theology and doctrine in terms of Adam and the nature of his body. As Mark E. Peterson said (since you bring him up):

Has anyone actively taught Adam-God among the leaders of the Church in your lifetime? If not, it's not really much of a reference is it ... are they really the same Adam?

Where did I ever suggest "that this somehow represents mainstream LDS theology and doctrine in terms of Adam and the nature of his body"???

I was very clear that it was "courtesy of my Fundamentalish tendencies".

I understand that I have the right to be nuanced in my private beliefs as long as don't promote or advocate for them- which I don't.

You are the one who chose to get into specifics. 

[Edit: To be clear, I am up in the air about the subject. It seems fairly evident that it was taught in some manner. I think it is one of those things "we don't know much about"- to paraphrase Pres. Hinckley.]

 

 

Edited April 11, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Where did I ever suggest "that this somehow represents mainstream LDS theology and doctrine in terms of Adam and the nature of his body"???

I was very clear that it was "courtesy of my Fundamentalish tendencies".

I understand that I have the right to be nuanced in my private beliefs as long as don't promote or advocate for them- which I don't.

You are the one who chose to get into specifics. 

[Edit: To be clear, I am up in the air about the subject. It seems fairly evident that it was taught in some manner. I think it is one of those things "we don't know much about"- to paraphrase Pres. Hinckley.]

You are missing my point.

You suggested you were doing this:

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

@Mark Beesleyasked for a quote concerning the type of body Adam had in the garden, I provided one. You are the one that decided to delve in deeper.

What you didn't do was to point out that the quote you provided had nothing to do with the current beliefs of the LDS Church (which presumably was the discussion going on). So your CFR wasn't in good faith - you are just playing little games here.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are missing my point.

You suggested you were doing this:

What you didn't do was to point out that the quote you provided had nothing to do with the current beliefs of the LDS Church (which presumably was the discussion going on). So your CFR wasn't in good faith - you are just playing little games here.

No... You are having a reading comprehension issue.

For the third time- I made it clear that the quote came from a tendency I have to give "Fundamentalist" ideas a fair hearing- I never claimed it was the current perspective of Church.

Edited April 11, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

For the third time- I made it clear that the quote came from a tendency I have to give "Fundamentalist" ideas a fair hearing- I never claimed it was the current perspective of Church.

Then it isn't really a response to the CFR, is it ... I didn't misread you. But, whatever.

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But, whatever

Agreed.

[RevTestament]

On 2/4/2025 at 9:39 AM, marineland said:

You believe Heavenly Father was the only spirit child of his heavenly parents and
had no brothers and sisters who also became Gods?

I didn't answer you.... so I am going to do so now. Heavenly Father's spirit parents were His Heavenly Father and His Christ whom He followed, and became the Christ of Yeshua's prior world, by which He inherited the priesthood office of our Father. The person who followed him was our present Christ. Both the Father and the Son are YHVH Elohim. YHVH meaning in individual letters: Behold the nail, Behold the hand. They both have this name. "And they will see me whom they have pierced, and will weep for me, and one would his only son." Brings a whole new light to our temple endowment. Christ was begotten on this prior world, and sent to this one as his Father's representative doing only that which He saw His Father do. See Hebrews. He was begotten by the oath of the Father to Him: "thou art my son, this day I hae begotten thee...." Not by spiritual hanky panky or whatever. Spirits are eternal, and have no beginning. See Abraham. Don't know if the Church is quite ready for this... I'm sure it will submit to dragging and protesting... but it is time for those who see with spiritual eyes to be given the chance.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

YHVH meaning in individual letters: Behold the nail, Behold the hand.

Is there any credible Hebrew scholar who supports this claim?  

[RevTestament]

On 4/29/2026 at 2:10 PM, Calm said:

Is there any credible Hebrew scholar who supports this claim?  

There doesn't need to be. Just look up their alphabet - each letter has a meaning - it's been that way since they invented their alphabet from the Egyptian heiroglyphics, which operate that way. heh = behold or look. yod = hand vav= nail ot prg. Alternatively, you can ask google.

[longview]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

On 4/29/2026 at 2:10 PM, Calm said:

Is there any credible Hebrew scholar who supports this claim?  

There doesn't need to be. Just look up their alphabet - each letter has a meaning - it's been that way since they invented their alphabet from the Egyptian heiroglyphics, which operate that way. heh = behold or look. yod = hand vav= nail ot prg. Alternatively, you can ask google.

I got chatGPT perspective:

Quote

please analyze mormondialogue.org post entry: On 4/29/2026 at 2:10 PM, Calm said: Is there any credible Hebrew scholar who supports this claim? There doesn't need to be. Just look up their alphabet - each letter has a meaning - it's been that way since they invented their alphabet from the Egyptian heiroglyphics, which operate that way. heh = behold or look. yod = hand vav= nail ot prg. Alternatively, you can ask google.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The post is making a common apologetic-style claim about the Hebrew alphabet that mixes a few real historical facts with several major inaccuracies.

Here’s the quote broken down:

“each letter has a meaning”
“they invented their alphabet from the Egyptian hieroglyphics”
“heh = behold or look. yod = hand vav = nail”

What is historically true

1. The Hebrew alphabet ultimately descends from Egyptian-derived scripts

This part is broadly correct.

The ancestor of the Hebrew alphabet came through the Proto-Sinaitic / Proto-Canaanite writing systems, which were influenced by Egyptian hieroglyphs. Early alphabetic symbols were originally pictographic. For example:

• Proto-symbol for yod likely originated from a hand image
• Proto-symbol for he may have represented a figure with raised arms
• Proto-symbol for waw/vav may have represented a hook or peg

So there is a distant historical connection between:

• pictorial origins
• object associations
• letter names

That’s mainstream historical linguistics.

---

What is misleading or incorrect

2. Hebrew letters do not inherently carry theological meanings in normal Hebrew linguistics

The poster says:

“each letter has a meaning”

This is where the claim drifts away from credible scholarship.

In actual Hebrew linguistics:

• Hebrew letters represent sounds (phonemes)
• The names of letters historically came from words
• But the letters themselves are not interpreted as standalone semantic symbols in ordinary textual analysis

For example:

• yod historically relates to “hand”
• vav/waw historically relates to “hook/peg”
• he may relate to a window or exclamation depending on reconstruction

But Hebrew scholars do not generally read words by decomposing them into symbolic theological meanings of each letter.

That method is associated more with:

• mysticism
• folk etymology
• Kabbalistic interpretation
• modern apologetics

—not mainstream Semitic philology.

---

3. “vav = nail” is especially problematic

This specific claim is very common in Christian apologetics trying to produce hidden Christological messages from Hebrew words or names.

Historically:

• waw/vav probably referred to a hook, peg, or connector
• translating it specifically as “nail” is often tendentious
• and projecting crucifixion symbolism backward into ancient Hebrew is not accepted historical methodology

A scholar would distinguish:

• “possible ancient pictographic origin”
  from
• “theological semantic meaning in biblical interpretation”

Those are not the same thing.

---

4. “There doesn’t need to be [a scholar]” is a red flag

The original question was:

“Is there any credible Hebrew scholar who supports this claim?”

The response effectively says:

scholarship is unnecessary because Google and pictographs are enough

That’s not a strong evidentiary position.

In academic Hebrew studies:

• claims about ancient meaning require evidence from:
  • epigraphy
  • comparative Semitic linguistics
  • paleography
  • textual history

Not just symbolic associations.

---

Likely underlying argument

This type of reasoning is commonly used to claim hidden meanings in divine names like:

• YHWH
• Yehoshua
• Torah terms

For example:

• “Behold the hand, behold the nail”
  is a famous apologetic construction imposed onto the tetragrammaton using alleged pictographic meanings.

Virtually no mainstream Hebrew scholars accept this as the intended meaning of the Hebrew text.

Why?
Because:

1. the letter forms evolved over centuries
2. biblical Hebrew readers did not read letters as pictographs
3. the reconstruction selectively mixes eras and meanings
4. it ignores actual Hebrew grammar and morphology

---

Bottom-line assessment

The post contains:

• a kernel of historical truth about alphabet origins
• mixed with exaggerated and non-scholarly symbolic interpretation

A careful academic summary would be:

Ancient Semitic letter names may preserve traces of earlier pictographic origins connected to Egyptian-derived scripts. However, mainstream Hebrew scholarship does not treat Hebrew words as theological messages encoded through symbolic meanings of individual letters. Claims such as “heh = behold,” “vav = nail,” and hidden Christological readings are generally regarded as speculative or apologetic rather than linguistically credible.

 

[RevTestament]

On 5/13/2026 at 10:55 AM, longview said:

Claims such as “heh = behold,” “vav = nail,” and hidden Christological readings are generally regarded as speculative or apologetic rather than linguistically credible.

I think chatGPT needs to look up quite traditional Hebrew alphabet teachings. They show a word or "meaning" associated with each letter. I realize that Jews do not break down their words based upon the meanings of the characters, but originally these characters had a "meaning" and they have retained that meaning down through the ages. For instance the aleph came from the Egyptian hieroglyph of a bull head. That character has become our "A." We still retain these words in our "alphabet." The first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet are aleph and beit or alephbeit. In the Greek that became alpha bet. That is now over 3000 years of retaining these same words and meanings. To claim these meanings are speculative ignores the long available history of the Hebrew alphabet. I am merely giving the best evidence available, and chatGPT is calling it speculative. Does vav actually mean "nail?" No. There were no nails when this character was adopted, but did it refer to tent peg? Probably something like that. Do I believe that Hebrews adopted the tetragrammaton letters on purpose? No. I believe God was behind the invention of the alphabet, and is also behind this unseen "message" in His very name... After all isn't He the one that gave the people His name? Is He capable of designing things in a way to hide His meaning?

This may be "non-scholarly" interpretation, but I am generally right on cue with this type of thing. Very few scholars are going to agree with me that Hebrew was invented by Israel while in Egypt, but there is supporting evidence. Is it "speculative?" To the extent that all history is somewhat speculative, yes. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

think chatGPT needs to look up quite traditional Hebrew alphabet teachings. They show a word or "meaning" associated with each letter.

CFR please

[Calm]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

. For instance the aleph came from the Egyptian hieroglyph of a bull head. That character has become our "A." We still retain these words in our "alphabet."…

That is now over 3000 years of retaining these same words and meanings. 

If the first is accurate, it doesn’t demonstrate the second premise since no one would naturally associate our A with bulls when looking at English.  We have not retained that meaning.