Talk:Adam and Eve in Mormonism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adam and Eve in Mormonism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Latter Day Saint movement High‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A move request[edit]

The title of the article sounds/looks/smells so heavy. Isn't Adam and Eve in Mormonism a more clear and encyclopaedic title? -- Szvest 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Actually, the parenthesized title is probably more consistent with other disambiguation style pages on Wikipedia. It's pretty common that when you have two pages with the same general title, the subtitle is in parentheses. So my vote would be for not changing the title. Dugwiki 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed questionable passage[edit]

I removed the Brigham Young believed that Adam and Eve had been placed on earth from another sphere. in the intro, as i do not read that in the ref provided: John A. Widtsoe, Discourses of Brigham Young, 1977, p. 104-105. (available on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=mjeBej1isGsC&dq=%22discourses+of+brigham+young%22+widtsoe&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=8uSgDsg2Sd&sig=-Kq2z2n9B0df8rZZgXz44nvet3g&hl=en#PPA104,M1) Moreover, that "sphere" is ambiguous. My apologies if i am wrong.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

This article seems largely composed of original research. There are few citations to sources outside of scriptures, so obviously whoever wrote it is interpreting scriptures in the way they see fit. Unless, of course, this all just comes from Articles of Faith, which is listed as a reference, in which case I question whether this is an accurate representation of LDS Church doctrine, since Articles of Faith is not canonized and has no claim to an expression of church doctrine. Snocrates 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely rewritten the article to try to avoid relying on WP:OR. Snocrates 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Adam as God broken References[edit]

There are some broken references for the Adam as God section. I don't know how to edit references without breaking the whole page (I've tried in the past). A new skill for me to learn, then. Anyhow, can someone else clean them up? Also, from all of the many things that I read about Brigham Young naming Adam as God, were certainly confusing from a doctrinal standpoint, especially for someone not familiar with Mormon theology concerning man's potential for godhood, but none of what I've read (and none of the linked notations) show him making that actual link. So as a heads-up, I'm editing the title of that section to be lower-case god, to match the contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalestel (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, through further research I found one quote in the Journal of Discourses that has been construed as being Adam-God theory--it's Journal 4:1--so we could change a reference to that, but it's by Heber C. Kimball, not Brigham Young, and is actually one source of some confusion on the matter. I suppose you could have an entire article on the Adam-God theory critics have put forth, but it's not really germane to this article.

Picture?[edit]

Should this article include a picture of Adam and Eve? The LDS church website has some good ones that are mormon specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbuttons (talk • contribs)

Not unless we have access to such a picture that is not under copyright. Most of the images on the LDS Church website are copyrighted and therefore cannot be used on WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-correlated material[edit]

I added some information about Adam and Eve that I don't think would normally be in a church manual, but that apostles said. This includes the part where God married Adam and Eve and where the fruit literally changed their bodies. I thought it was interesting, so I added it, but maybe it would be more appropriate under an "early church beliefs" section instead? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam and Eve (LDS Church). 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/20070311014502/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu:80/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9599 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9599

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=failed}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a different link for the same source and changed it in the reference. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 04:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Eve (Mormonism) → Adam and Eve in Mormonism – I propose using natural disambiguation here. Either form can work, but the current title could be interpreted as meaning that there is a separate Adam and Eve in Mormonism. There is not. This article is just about Mormonism's views on the people other religions also recognize and call Adam and Eve. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have an article about Mormonism, so as far as that goes I presume consensus is that is the common name - but is it Mormonism in general or the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular? It appears from the article content to be the latter - obviously that is a mouthful for disambiguation, but perhaps "In the LDS" or something like that, would be better than "in Mormonism"? Obviously "Adam and Eve in the Church of etc etc..." would be a bit long, and Adam and Eve (LDS) is red, I am not a member of that Church or indeed any religion, my aim is only to balance accuracy against ease of search, and perhaps "in Mormonism" is too wide when specifically this is about the views of the LDS? 84.236.27.182 (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
- It's a good point. Almost all of the current LDS doctrine about Adam and Eve predates the 1844 succession crisis, so "in Mormonism" would be appropriate. (Prior to 1844 the movement was largely united.) The article should probably be generalised a bit more than it is. The only exception to pre-1844 doctrine seems to be the Adam–God doctrine, which isn't at all accepted by LDS today. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure if by LDS you meant TCOJCOLDS, but there are several fundamentalists groups that do still accept the Adam-God doctrine. Epachamo (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, by LDS I did mean TCOJCOLDS—focusing on whether this article is TCOJCOLDS-exclusive. I agree that it's still accepted by and relevant to some groups. So many of these terms are fuzzy in meaning! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support And also recognizes that this is more of an interpretation than a separate topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Epachamo (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and other comments. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.