Father Adam

4000 BC/3840 BC - 3070 BC/2816 BC  Submit Photo / Document

 Set As Default Person

• Name	, Adam
  Prefix	Father
  Birth	4000 BC/3840 BC
  Gender	Male
  _TAG	Reviewed on FS
  _TAG	Temple
  Death	3070 BC/2816 BC
  Headstones	Submit Headstone Photo
  Person ID	I18450	Joseph Smith Sr and Lucy Mack Smith
  Last Modified	19 Aug 2021

  
  

  Family	Eve ,   b. 4000 BC/3840 BC   d. DECEASED
  Children	3 sons and 1 daughter
  + 1. ADAM, Cain ben ,   b. Abt 3994/4148 BC, Adam-Ondi-Ahman, Eden Adam-Ondi-Ahman, Edend. Bef 3000/3184 BC   2. ADAM, Abel ben ,   b. 3927 BC/3840 BC, Olaha, Shinehah, Eden Olaha, Shinehah, Edend. 3905 BC/3840 BC, Olaha, Shinehah, Eden + 3. ADAM, Seth ben ,   b. 3870 BC/3840 BC   d. 2958 BC/2816 BC + 4. ADAM, Azura bat ,   b. 3870 BC/3840 BC, Eden Edend. 2958 BC/2816 BC, Eden
  Family ID	F7011	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	24 Jan 2022

  
  

• Notes

  References: Compiled and designed 2001 by Deon Creager Smith dcsmith@webpipe.net 1. The Holy Bible, King James Version 2. "Medieval Families File The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 3. "The Antiquities of the Jews" 33 A.D. Flavius Josephus First translated and published 1602 by Thomas Lodge Published 1877 by William P. Nimo, London, England 4. "Ancient History" 1904, by P. V. N. Myers 5. "Europe's History" 6. Encyclopedia Americana. 1952 7. "Through the Loins of Joseph" 1974, Albert F. Schmruhl 8. "One Royal Line" 1980, Albert F. Schmuhl New York Stake Genealogical Board 9. The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy 1988 John Cannon and Ralph Griffiths 10. "The Kingship of Families" 1935 by Archibald F. Bennett 11. Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sanberg (The dates on this chart is based upon the best information available. The remote lines could be by descent rather than by accurate parent relationship.) 12. Irish Pedigrees, or, The Origin and Stem of The Irish Nation." by John O'Hart, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. Baltimore, 1989, p. 44 13. Adam through Japhet from Holy Bible, Gen. 2:7 through Gen 10:2; and "Irish Pedigrees, or The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation." by John O'Hart 14. Biblical Genealogical Information entracted from Dr. James H. Stallines" A supplement to Stalling Family Records" 1981, edited and amended by Patsy Chappelear, Feb 1994, Betsy Chapplear, 9714 South Rice Ave., Houston, TX 77096 15. Genealogical History of the Milesian Families of Ireland with the Monument to Brian Boroimhe: The Chart of Armorial Bearings of the Same Families, compiled & edited by B. W. DeCourcy, published by W. F. Overdiek and M. L. Riegel, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1880, p. 11. 16. The Heffernan Family Tree from Adam to MacQuin of Thomond 17. Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible - A complete parallel column comparison of the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures and the King James Authorized Version. Introduction by F. Henry Edwards/Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri. -------------- "Which was the son of God" - Luke 3:38 Genealogy of the Chosen Line- My fathers to whom promises were made: Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Eber, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Israel, Joseph, Ephraim. "And he shall plant in the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers; if it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming." Malachi 4:6 ---------------- 18. THE ROYAL LINE - Chart prepared by the New York Stake Genealogical Board of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the Centennial Exhibition - March 1936. Compiled from - 19. "The Kinship of families" by Archibald F. Bennett 20. "Adam to New Chart" by Mrs. Eva Sells Jaeger 21. "Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sandberg 22. "Pedigree of Joseph Smith, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt" by Karl Weiss 23. "Present Time and Prophecies" by James H. Anderson 24. Bible, Pearl of Great Price 25. Secular History (The Liahona Willy Riet and Richard Thomas Wilson Lines were added in August 1954, plus the some of the Martineau/Johnson lines.) (Notice - These copies are presented to you with some misspelling and omission due to human errors. We offer it as a challenge to anyone to correct them.) -------------- 26. THE ROYAL WE - May 2002 Atlantic Monthly The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne by Steve Olson. A few years ago the Genealogical Office in Dublin moved from a back room of the Heraldic Museum up the street to the National Library. The old office wasn't big enough for all the people stopping by to track down their Irish ancestors, and even the new, much larger office is often crowded. Because of its history of oppression and Catholic fecundity, Ireland has been a remarkably productive exporter of people. The population of theHenry Edwards P P island has never exceeded 10 million, but more than 70 million people worldwide claim Irish ancestry. On warm summer days, as tourists throng nearby Trinity College and Dublin Castle, the line of visitors waiting to consult one of the office's professional genealogists can stretch out the door. I suspect that many people have had a fling with genealogy somewhat like mine. In my office I have a file containing the scattered lines of Olsons and Taylors, Richmans and Sigginses (my Irish ancestors), that I gathered several years ago in a paroxysm of family-mindedness. For the most part my ancestors were a steady stream of farmers, ministers, and malcontents. Yet a few of the Old World lines hint at something grander-they include a couple of knights, and even a baron. I've never taken the trouble to find out, but I bet with a little work I could achieve that nirvana of genealogical research, demonstrated descent from a royal family. Earlier this year I went to Dublin to learn more about the Irish side of my family and to talk about genealogy with Mark Humphrys, a young computer scientist at Dublin City University. Humphrys has dark hair, deep-blue eyes, heavily freckled arms, and a pasty complexion. He became interested in genealogy as a teenager, after hearing romantic stories about his ancestors' roles in rebellions against the English. But when he tried to trace his family further into the past, the trail ran cold. The Penal Laws imposed by England in the early eighteenth century forbade Irish Catholics from buying land or joining professions, which meant that very few permanent records of their existence were generated. "Irish people of Catholic descent are almost completely cut off from the past," Humphrys told me, as we sat in his office overlooking a busy construction site. (Dublin City University, which specializes in information technology and the life sciences, is growing as rapidly as the northern Dublin suburb in which it is located.) "The great irony about Ireland is that even though we have this long, rich history, almost no person of Irish-Catholic descent can directly connect to that history." While a graduate student at Cambridge University, Humphrys fell in love with and married an English woman, and investigating her genealogy proved more fruitful. Her family knew that they were descended from an illegitimate son of the tenth Earl of Pembroke. After just a couple of hours in the Cambridge library, Humphrys showed that the Earl of Pembroke was a direct descendant of Edward III, making Humphrys' wife the King's great-granddaughter twenty generations removed. Humphrys began to gather other genealogical tidbits related to English royalty. Many of the famous Irish rebels he'd learned about in school turned out to have ancestors who had married into prominent Protestant families, which meant they were descended from English royalty. The majority of American presidents were also of royal descent, as were many of the well-known families of Europe. Humphrys began to notice something odd. Whenever a reliable family tree was available, almost anyone of European ancestry turned out to be descended from English royalty-even such unlikely people as Hermann Göring and Daniel Boone. Humphrys began to think that such descent was the rule rather than the exception in the Western world, even if relatively few people had the documents to demonstrate it. Humphrys compiled his family genealogies first on paper and then using computers. He did much of his work on royal genealogies in the mid-1990s, when the World Wide Web was just coming into general use. He began to put his findings on Web pages, with hyperlinks connecting various lines of descent. Suddenly dense networks of ancestry jumped out at him. "I'd known these descents were interconnected, but I'd never known how much," he told me. "You can't see the connections reading the printed genealogies, because it's so hard to jump from tree to tree. The problem is that genealogies aren't two-dimensional, so any attempt to put them on paper is more or less doomed from the start. They aren't three-dimensional, either, or you could make a structure. They have hundreds of dimensions." Much of Humphrys's genealogical research now appears on his Web page "Royal Descents of Famous People." Sitting in his office, I asked him to show me how it works. He clicked on the name Walt Disney. Up popped a genealogy done by Brigitte Gastel Lloyd (Humphrys links to the work of others whenever possible) showing the twenty-two generations separating Disney from Edward I. Humphrys pointed at the screen. "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived. In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. His model is a mathematical proof that relies on such abstractions as Poisson distributions and Markov chains, but it can readily be applied to the real world. Under the conditions laid out in his paper, the most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past-only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today. Chang's model incorporates one crucial assumption: random mating in the part of the world under consideration. For example, every person in Europe would have to have an equal chance of marrying every other European of the opposite sex. As Chang acknowledges in his paper, random mating clearly does not occur in reality; an Englishman is much likelier to marry a woman from England than a woman from Italy, and a princess is much likelier to marry a prince than a pauper. These departures from randomness must push back somewhat the date of Europeans' most recent common ancestor. But Humphrys's Web page suggests that over many generations mating patterns may be much more random than expected. Social mobility accounts for part of the mixing-what Voltaire called the slippered feet going down the stairs as the hobnailed boots ascend them. At the same time, revolutions overturn established orders, countries invade and colonize other countries, and people sometimes choose mates from far away rather than from next door. Even the world's most isolated peoples-Pacific islanders, for example-continually exchange potential mates with neighboring groups. This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty-even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist. Chang's model has even more dramatic implications. Because people are always migrating from continent to continent, networks of descent quickly interconnect. This means that the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be counted among everyone's ancestors. Toward the end of our conversation Humphrys pointed out something I hadn't considered. The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass. Just as we are descended from most of the people alive on the planet a few thousand years ago, several thousand years hence each of us will be an ancestor of the entire human race-or of no one at all. The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century. Humphrys took issue with my disillusionment. It's true that everyone's roots go back to the same family tree, he said. But each path to our common past is different, and reconstructing that path, using whatever records are available, is its own reward. "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------------- 27. http://www.ancestry.myfamily.com/library/ YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM ROYALTY - Every time I think about finding kings and queens in the family tree, I create a mental image of the would-be social climbers of years ago who researched family trees in hopes of proving themselves to be "better" than the average person. How little they knew. It seems that the "average person" also has royal ancestry. In fact, there is nothing more common than having a few bluebloods in the family tree. Lisa Oberg and George Anderson both sent e-mails this week telling me about a fascinating article in the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. That issue contains an article by Steve Olson, called "The Royal We: The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne." In the article, Olsen describes his own search for his Irish ancestors. He goes on to detail what he learned from Mark Humphrys, a computer scientist at Dublin City University, as well as from some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. In short, everyone of European descent has royal ancestry. Chang's mathematical model makes the case for the number of ancestors that each of us has: "The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived." The article goes on at some length to explain the realities of migration patterns and intermarriage within small communities. Olsen writes, "The number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today." Another preconceived idea that needs to be shattered is that royalty only married royalty, and therefore, commoners would not likely have royal blood in their veins. Humphrys says, "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." Steve Olson's article in The Atlantic is very interesting, and I would suggest that every genealogist read it in its entirety at: Professor Joseph Chang's paper is a bit more difficult for non-mathematicians to read. It is available at: www.stat.yale.edu The best quote of all came from Mark Humphrys: "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? Yes That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------- 28. Genealogy from Adam to the Twelve Tribes including their wives (fully documented by John P. Pratt) 1968, 2001 by John P. Pratt. All rights reserved. (ACT confirmed with John Pratt and he appreciated our desire to include his works herein.) Explanation - [Modifications of the original 1968 edition required for the internet edition are explained in brackets, as is this comment.] Explanation [Modifications of the original 1968 edition required for the internet edition are explained in brackets, as is this comment.] These seven [twelve] charts contain the genealogy of all mankind for his first 1700 years, and of the "chosen line" down to the sons of the twelve sons of Israel, about 500 years later. The genealogy of the wives of these twelve is also included, as well as that of the wives of many of the patriarchs such as Noah, Lamech, and Shem. The actual intermarriages of our first ancestors at times became complicated, but the relationships should be clear from these charts if a few simple rules concerning notation are understood. The first basic rule is that [if a vertical bar connects the right side of two individuals, it means they are the parents of the children to the right of them. If a vertical bar connects the left side, then it means are siblings.] All women have (f) for female following their names. Thus, Example 1 below means that Adam and Eve were the parents of Cain, Abel, and Seth. Sons are listed in the order of birth; daughters, when included, are generally added to the end of the list, not necessarily implying that they were all born after the sons. When a man had more than one wife the children are connected to the vertical bars between the husband and the corresponding wife. The second basic rule is that when a wife is not specified, a man's offspring are connected to him by a [vertical] line in the case of one son, or by a branched set in the case of more than one. In order to maintain this notation consistently throughout, especially that of the order of birth, it is often necessary to cross the vertical marriage bars. This is accomplished by either breaking the bars or the line crossing, depending on what relationship is being stressed. The fact that the lines do not connect with the vertical bars is important because the line continuing through the bars is not a son, but a continuation of the same person. For example, Example 3 shows that Lamech married Cainan's daughter Adah, and their child was Jabal. Jared, however, was the son of Mahalaleel, Adah's brother. The only exception to this rule of parents and children being actually connected to the vertical bars is Lot (page 5), whose line does not touch the bars to emphasize that the line to the right of the marriage still refers to Lot and not to a son. The only other needed explanation is that one straight line, regardless of length, always refers to just one person. If he was known by more than one name, the other is listed in parentheses, either below or to the right of his other name. Bible spelling of all names is used whenever possible. Also, all birth and death dates are counted in years after the beginning of Adam's mortal life. Dotted lines indicate that the person is a direct descendant, but that the exact relationship is uncertain. A complete list of references for all the information found in these charts is found [after the charts]. References [In the references on each page,] "Jas." refers to the Book of Jasher, "Josephus" refers to Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, by Flavius Josephus, "Abr." and "Moses" refer to the books of Abraham and Moses found in the Pearl of Great Price. [Note to internet edition: Much of the information in these charts comes from the Book of Jasher, which is not a scriptural source. Continued research over the last three decades, however, has vindicated the use of this book. It was taken from a very ancient source indeed, and is much more reliable than is Josephus. I was unaware of the Book of Jubilees, which also has much genealogical information, when I produced these charts. Since that time I've looked at the Book of Jubilees in detail and have found it to be unreliable in chronological and genealogical information. Thus, most of the information in these charts still looks correct to me, so I feel it is worth republishing on the internet. The entire Book of Jasher can be found on the internet, formatted by chapter to allow easy checking of all the references given.] END ------------------------------ 28. Genesis:7, 19, 22, 3:20 Son of God Luke 3:26 The Human Race: by John Paul Pratt, fully documented There are many lineages purporting to go back to Adam and I have found several for our family, but always there are those who dispute them. It is of course very likely that mistakes have been made when going back so far. ----------------------------- References: Compiled and designed 2001 by Deon Creager Smith dcsmith@webpipe.net 1. The Holy Bible, King James Version 2. "Medieval Families File The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 3. "The Antiquities of the Jews" 33 A.D. Flavius Josephus First translated and published 1602 by Thomas Lodge Published 1877 by William P. Nimo, London, England 4. "Ancient History" 1904, by P. V. N. Myers 5. "Europe's History" 6. Encyclopedia Americana. 1952 7. "Through the Loins of Joseph" 1974, Albert F. Schmruhl 8. "One Royal Line" 1980, Albert F. Schmuhl New York Stake Genealogical Board 9. The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy 1988 John Cannon and Ralph Griffiths 10. "The Kingship of Families" 1935 by Archibald F. Bennett 11. Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sanberg (The dates on this chart is based upon the best information available. The remote lines could be by descent rather than by accurate parent relationship.) 12. Irish Pedigrees, or, The Origin and Stem of The Irish Nation." by John O'Hart, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. Baltimore, 1989, p. 44 13. Adam through Japhet from Holy Bible, Gen. 2:7 through Gen 10:2; and "Irish Pedigrees, or The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation." by John O'Hart 14. Biblical Genealogical Information entracted from Dr. James H. Stallines" A supplement to Stalling Family Records" 1981, edited and amended by Patsy Chappelear, Feb 1994, Betsy Chapplear, 9714 South Rice Ave., Houston, TX 77096 15. Genealogical History of the Milesian Families of Ireland with the Monument to Brian Boroimhe: The Chart of Armorial Bearings of the Same Families, compiled & edited by B. W. DeCourcy, published by W. F. Overdiek and M. L. Riegel, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1880, p. 11. 16. The Heffernan Family Tree from Adam to MacQuin of Thomond 17. Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible - A complete parallel column comparison of the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures and the King James Authorized Version. Introduction by F. Henry Edwards/Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri. -------------- "Which was the son of God" - Luke 3:38 Genealogy of the Chosen Line- My fathers to whom promises were made: Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Eber, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Israel, Joseph, Ephraim. "And he shall plant in the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers; if it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming." Malachi 4:6 ---------------- 18. THE ROYAL LINE - Chart prepared by the New York Stake Genealogical Board of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the Centennial Exhibition - March 1936. Compiled from - 19. "The Kinship of families" by Archibald F. Bennett 20. "Adam to New Chart" by Mrs. Eva Sells Jaeger 21. "Europe's Royal Family Tree" by E. L. Sandberg 22. "Pedigree of Joseph Smith, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt" by Karl Weiss 23. "Present Time and Prophecies" by James H. Anderson 24. Bible, Pearl of Great Price 25. Secular History (The Liahona Willy Riet and Richard Thomas Wilson Lines were added in August 1954, plus the some of the Martineau/Johnson lines.) (Notice - These copies are presented to you with some misspelling and omission due to human errors. We offer it as a challenge to anyone to correct them.) -------------- 26. THE ROYAL WE - May 2002 Atlantic Monthly The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne by Steve Olson. A few years ago the Genealogical Office in Dublin moved from a back room of the Heraldic Museum up the street to the National Library. The old office wasn't big enough for all the people stopping by to track down their Irish ancestors, and even the new, much larger office is often crowded. Because of its history of oppression and Catholic fecundity, Ireland has been a remarkably productive exporter of people. The population of the island has never exceeded 10 million, but more than 70 million people worldwide claim Irish ancestry. On warm summer days, as tourists throng nearby Trinity College and Dublin Castle, the line of visitors waiting to consult one of the office's professional genealogists can stretch out the door. I suspect that many people have had a fling with genealogy somewhat like mine. In my office I have a file containing the scattered lines of Olsons and Taylors, Richmans and Sigginses (my Irish ancestors), that I gathered several years ago in a paroxysm of family-mindedness. For the most part my ancestors were a steady stream of farmers, ministers, and malcontents. Yet a few of the Old World lines hint at something grander-they include a couple of knights, and even a baron. I've never taken the trouble to find out, but I bet with a little work I could achieve that nirvana of genealogical research, demonstrated descent from a royal family. Earlier this year I went to Dublin to learn more about the Irish side of my family and to talk about genealogy with Mark Humphrys, a young computer scientist at Dublin City University. Humphrys has dark hair, deep-blue eyes, heavily freckled arms, and a pasty complexion. He became interested in genealogy as a teenager, after hearing romantic stories about his ancestors' roles in rebellions against the English. But when he tried to trace his family further into the past, the trail ran cold. The Penal Laws imposed by England in the early eighteenth century forbade Irish Catholics from buying land or joining professions, which meant that very few permanent records of their existence were generated. "Irish people of Catholic descent are almost completely cut off from the past," Humphrys told me, as we sat in his office overlooking a busy construction site. (Dublin City University, which specializes in information technology and the life sciences, is growing as rapidly as the northern Dublin suburb in which it is located.) "The great irony about Ireland is that even though we have this long, rich history, almost no person of Irish-Catholic descent can directly connect to that history." While a graduate student at Cambridge University, Humphrys fell in love with and married an English woman, and investigating her genealogy proved more fruitful. Her family knew that they were descended from an illegitimate son of the tenth Earl of Pembroke. After just a couple of hours in the Cambridge library, Humphrys showed that the Earl of Pembroke was a direct descendant of Edward III, making Humphrys' wife the King's great-granddaughter twenty generations removed. Humphrys began to gather other genealogical tidbits related to English royalty. Many of the famous Irish rebels he'd learned about in school turned out to have ancestors who had married into prominent Protestant families, which meant they were descended from English royalty. The majority of American presidents were also of royal descent, as were many of the well-known families of Europe. Humphrys began to notice something odd. Whenever a reliable family tree was available, almost anyone of European ancestry turned out to be descended from English royalty-even such unlikely people as Hermann Göring and Daniel Boone. Humphrys began to think that such descent was the rule rather than the exception in the Western world, even if relatively few people had the documents to demonstrate it. Humphrys compiled his family genealogies first on paper and then using computers. He did much of his work on royal genealogies in the mid-1990s, when the World Wide Web was just coming into general use. He began to put his findings on Web pages, with hyperlinks connecting various lines of descent. Suddenly dense networks of ancestry jumped out at him. "I'd known these descents were interconnected, but I'd never known how much," he told me. "You can't see the connections reading the printed genealogies, because it's so hard to jump from tree to tree. The problem is that genealogies aren't two-dimensional, so any attempt to put them on paper is more or less doomed from the start. They aren't three-dimensional, either, or you could make a structure. They have hundreds of dimensions." Much of Humphrys's genealogical research now appears on his Web page "Royal Descents of Famous People." Sitting in his office, I asked him to show me how it works. He clicked on the name Walt Disney. Up popped a genealogy done by Brigitte Gastel Lloyd (Humphrys links to the work of others whenever possible) showing the twenty-two generations separating Disney from Edward I. Humphrys pointed at the screen. "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived. In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. His model is a mathematical proof that relies on such abstractions as Poisson distributions and Markov chains, but it can readily be applied to the real world. Under the conditions laid out in his paper, the most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past-only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today. Chang's model incorporates one crucial assumption: random mating in the part of the world under consideration. For example, every person in Europe would have to have an equal chance of marrying every other European of the opposite sex. As Chang acknowledges in his paper, random mating clearly does not occur in reality; an Englishman is much likelier to marry a woman from England than a woman from Italy, and a princess is much likelier to marry a prince than a pauper. These departures from randomness must push back somewhat the date of Europeans' most recent common ancestor. But Humphrys's Web page suggests that over many generations mating patterns may be much more random than expected. Social mobility accounts for part of the mixing-what Voltaire called the slippered feet going down the stairs as the hobnailed boots ascend them. At the same time, revolutions overturn established orders, countries invade and colonize other countries, and people sometimes choose mates from far away rather than from next door. Even the world's most isolated peoples-Pacific islanders, for example-continually exchange potential mates with neighboring groups. This constant churning of people makes it possible to apply Chang's analysis to the world as a whole. For example, almost everyone in the New World must be descended from English royalty-even people of predominantly African or Native American ancestry, because of the long history of intermarriage in the Americas. Similarly, everyone of European ancestry must descend from Muhammad. The line of descent for which records exist is through the daughter of the Emir of Seville, who is reported to have converted from Islam to Catholicism in about 1200. But many other, unrecorded descents must also exist. Chang's model has even more dramatic implications. Because people are always migrating from continent to continent, networks of descent quickly interconnect. This means that the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be counted among everyone's ancestors. Toward the end of our conversation Humphrys pointed out something I hadn't considered. The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass. Just as we are descended from most of the people alive on the planet a few thousand years ago, several thousand years hence each of us will be an ancestor of the entire human race-or of no one at all. The dense interconnectedness of the human family might seem to take some of the thrill out of genealogical research. Sure, I was able to show in the Genealogical Office that my Siggins ancestors are descended from the fourteenth-century Syggens of County Wexford; but I'm also descended from most of the other people who lived in Ireland in the fourteenth century. Humphrys took issue with my disillusionment. It's true that everyone's roots go back to the same family tree, he said. But each path to our common past is different, and reconstructing that path, using whatever records are available, is its own reward. "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------------- 27. http://www.ancestry.myfamily.com/library/ YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM ROYALTY - Every time I think about finding kings and queens in the family tree, I create a mental image of the would-be social climbers of years ago who researched family trees in hopes of proving themselves to be "better" than the average person. How little they knew. It seems that the "average person" also has royal ancestry. In fact, there is nothing more common than having a few bluebloods in the family tree. Lisa Oberg and George Anderson both sent e-mails this week telling me about a fascinating article in the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. That issue contains an article by Steve Olson, called "The Royal We: The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne." In the article, Olsen describes his own search for his Irish ancestors. He goes on to detail what he learned from Mark Humphrys, a computer scientist at Dublin City University, as well as from some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. In short, everyone of European descent has royal ancestry. Chang's mathematical model makes the case for the number of ancestors that each of us has: "The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations-two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents-but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors-a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived." The article goes on at some length to explain the realities of migration patterns and intermarriage within small communities. Olsen writes, "The number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today." Another preconceived idea that needs to be shattered is that royalty only married royalty, and therefore, commoners would not likely have royal blood in their veins. Humphrys says, "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant." Steve Olson's article in The Atlantic is very interesting, and I would suggest that every genealogist read it in its entirety at: Professor Joseph Chang's paper is a bit more difficult for non-mathematicians to read. It is available at: www.stat.yale.edu The best quote of all came from Mark Humphrys: "You can ask whether everyone in the Western world is descended from Charlemagne, and the answer is yes, we're all descended from Charlemagne. But can you prove it? Yes That's the game of genealogy." -------------------------- 28. Genealogy from Adam to the Twelve Tribes including their wives (fully documented by John P. Pratt) 1968, 2001 by John P. Pratt. All rights reserved. (ACT confirmed with John Pratt and he appreciated our desire to include his works herein.) Explanation - [Modifications of the original 1968 edition required for the internet edition are explained in brackets, as is this comment.] Explanation [Modifications of the original 1968 edition required for the internet edition are explained in brackets, as is this comment.] These seven [twelve] charts contain the genealogy of all mankind for his first 1700 years, and of the "chosen line" down to the sons of the twelve sons of Israel, about 500 years later. The genealogy of the wives of these twelve is also included, as well as that of the wives of many of the patriarchs such as Noah, Lamech, and Shem. The actual intermarriages of our first ancestors at times became complicated, but the relationships should be clear from these charts if a few simple rules concerning notation are understood. The first basic rule is that [if a vertical bar connects the right side of two individuals, it means they are the parents of the children to the right of them. If a vertical bar connects the left side, then it means are siblings.] All women have (f) for female following their names. Thus, Example 1 below means that Adam and Eve were the parents of Cain, Abel, and Seth. Sons are listed in the order of birth; daughters, when included, are generally added to the end of the list, not necessarily implying that they were all born after the sons. When a man had more than one wife the children are connected to the vertical bars between the husband and the corresponding wife. The second basic rule is that when a wife is not specified, a man's offspring are connected to him by a [vertical] line in the case of one son, or by a branched set in the case of more than one. In order to maintain this notation consistently throughout, especially that of the order of birth, it is often necessary to cross the vertical marriage bars. This is accomplished by either breaking the bars or the line crossing, depending on what relationship is being stressed. The fact that the lines do not connect with the vertical bars is important because the line continuing through the bars is not a son, but a continuation of the same person. For example, Example 3 shows that Lamech married Cainan's daughter Adah, and their child was Jabal. Jared, however, was the son of Mahalaleel, Adah's brother. The only exception to this rule of parents and children being actually connected to the vertical bars is Lot (page 5), whose line does not touch the bars to emphasize that the line to the right of the marriage still refers to Lot and not to a son. The only other needed explanation is that one straight line, regardless of length, always refers to just one person. If he was known by more than one name, the other is listed in parentheses, either below or to the right of his other name. Bible spelling of all names is used whenever possible. Also, all birth and death dates are counted in years after the beginning of Adam's mortal life. Dotted lines indicate that the person is a direct descendant, but that the exact relationship is uncertain. A complete list of references for all the information found in these charts is found [after the charts]. References [In the references on each page,] "Jas." refers to the Book of Jasher, "Josephus" refers to Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, by Flavius Josephus, "Abr." and "Moses" refer to the books of Abraham and Moses found in the Pearl of Great Price. [Note to internet edition: Much of the information in these charts comes from the Book of Jasher, which is not a scriptural source. Continued research over the last three decades, however, has vindicated the use of this book. It was taken from a very ancient source indeed, and is much more reliable than is Josephus. I was unaware of the Book of Jubilees, which also has much genealogical information, when I produced these charts. Since that time I've looked at the Book of Jubilees in detail and have found it to be unreliable in chronological and genealogical information. Thus, most of the information in these charts still looks correct to me, so I feel it is worth republishing on the internet. The entire Book of Jasher can be found on the internet, formatted by chapter to allow easy checking of all the references given.] END ------------------------------ 28. Genesis:7, 19, 22, 3:20 Son of God Luke 3:26 The Human Race: by John Paul Pratt, fully documented There are many lineages purporting to go back to Adam and I have found several for our family, but always there are those who dispute them. It is of course very likely that mistakes have been made when going back so far. ----------------------------- Sources: 29. National Library of Indonesia "Tapel Adam" Bat Cedotschap Jar. Udos. B.G.v.K.e.W. 393 Kanjeng Nabi (Prophet) Nabi Adam to Kindoms of Indonesia in Arabic 4000 BC-1300 AD. 30. Silsilah Keluarga besar R.H. Wargadiwijaya Galuh Panjaln 1980 oleh R. Kd Wargadibrata. (Adam to Sidik Danubrata 1980) 31. A Family Tree: From Adam to Jesus by C. Hemmelman, Jerusalem Distributor: The Three Arches Co Ltd. P. O. Box 214, Bethlehem, Israel. Sources: Old Testament, Books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, The New Testament. In addition, partial genealogies of Josephus Flavius (Joseph ben Matthias) and of Herord the Great have been added for their inherent interest. 32. Riwayat Nabi Muhammad(PBUY) S.A.W. PT. ALMA'ARIF - Bandung, Cetakan ke XXIII, 1988. Kisah 25 Nabi dan Rasul. Pustaka AMANI JAKARTA, 17 Aug 1983. (Adam to Muhammad) Indonesia. 33. Bible: Genesis 7, 19, 22, 3:20 Son of God Luke 3:36. "...first man of all men"(Moses 1:34), known as Michael (D&C 107:54) and the "Ancient of Days" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 157). "The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency ...receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 157, 169.) Genesis 5:3-5;Moses 3:7; 6:10-12, 67; Abraham 1:3; D&C 84:16; I Chronicles 1:1; Luke 3:38. 34. Ensign March 1973-Early Families of the Earth by Edward J. Brandt. 35. A Guide to Irish Roots including Celts, Vikings, Normans, Kings, Queens and Commoners. by William Mary Durning. 1989 published by The Irish Family Names Society PO Bos 2095 La Mesa, CA. 92044-0600. 36. SOURCES:THE KINSHIP OF FAMILIES chart by the late Archibald Bennett for the Genealogical Society of Utah. 37. A GUIDE TO IRISH ROOTS including Celts, Vikings, Normans, Kings, Queens and Commoners from Adam by William and Mary Durning. 1989 published by The Irish Family Names Society PO Box 2095 La Mesa, California 92044-0600 38. Nicolas Durand et Societe Genevoise de Genealogie, www.gen-gen.ch 39. Virginia Marin, Genealogy Resources: Steps in Time. www.geocities.com/Heartland/meadows/4399/index.html 40. Richard Steel, Genealogy to Adam and the British Royal Family, http://www.geocities.com/7life/gen 41. Linda Sue's Ancestors, http://freepages,family.rootsweb.com/~rhartsir/sue/index1.htm 42. Adam & Eve Lineage Chart 150 Generations from Almighty God to Adam & Eve To Present http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~heddins/Adam-Eve-Desc.htm This rough chart displays some of the many lines of descent from Adam and Eve to present through kings, queens, royal & commoners throughout Eruope, the Middle East, and America. Some of the lineages are questionable and some may be mission a generation or more (e.g. far fewer generations between Ishmael and Muhammad than other lines). The Royal lines are well documented, but as we go back in time serious questions arise. Many more lines of descent exist but only these few which include notable historical characters have been included in this chart. Other notable indiduals who also descend from British & European Royalty include American presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George H. W. Bush, Geoge W. Bush, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, and Calvin Coolidge. Also Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rutherford B. Hayes, John Q. Adams, James Monroe, Franklin Pierce, William H. Taft, William Henry Harrison, Grover Cleveland, and Benjamin Harrison, and well-known people such as Nelson Rockefeller, Walt Disney, Daniel Boone, Nancy Reagan, and of course Queen Elizabeth II, making us distant cousins of each of the above. [We are related to all of these ACT and DLT] 43. A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Century I Published by the Church Deseret News Press, Salt Lake City, Utah 1930 THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS is also the history of the opening and progress of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times; and as that dispensation bears an important relation to all dispensations which have preceded it, let us here ascertain in what that relationship consists. By doing so we shall have a better appreciation of the full import of those events which make up the history of the church. "I often hear men talk of being overworked. Others are overworked and say nothing of it. This is sometimes true of the men we least suspect. This comes forcibly to my mind every time I receive an issue of the 'Americans,' and read the history of this people written by Brother Roberts. I never read any one of the chapters unless I stop and think of the weeks, and months, of diligent investigation and work required in collecting all the facts and truths presented in such splendid form. The time and effort he has given in writing the history will never be known by anyone but himself. The history when complete will live as a monument to his industry and to his intelligence." --Elder Reed Smoot, C.R. Oct. 1913, p. 93 A DISPENSATION AND SUCCESSIVE DISPENSATIONS A dispensation, without reference to any specific application or limitation of the term, is the act of dealing out or distributing; such as the dispensation of justice by courts, the dispensation of blessings by the hand of Providence. Theologically a dispensation is defined as one of the several systems or bodies of law in which at different periods God has revealed his mind and will to man, such as the Patriarchal dispensation, the Mosaic dispensation, or the Christian dispensation. The word is also sometimes applied to the periods of time during which the said laws obtain. That is, the period from Adam to Noah is usually called the Patriarchal dispensation. From Noah to the calling of Abraham, the Noachian; and from Abraham to the calling of Moses, the Abrahamic dispensation. But the word as connected with the gospel of Jesus Christ means the opening of the heavens to men; the giving out or dispensing to them the word of God; the revealing to men in whole or in part the principles and ordinances of the gospel; the conferring of divine authority upon certain chosen ones, by which they are empowered to act in the name, that is, in the authority of God, and for him. That is a dispensation as relating to the gospel; and the "Dispensation of the Fulness of Times" is that which includes all others and gathers to itself all things which bear any relation whatsoever to the work of God in our world. Also it is the last dispensation, the one in which will be gathered together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. fn It is the dispensation which will see fulfilled all the decrees of God respecting the salvation of men and the redemption of the earth itself; and bears such relation to all other dispensations of the gospel as the ocean does to all earth's streams. It receives and unites them all in itself. That there have been many dispensations of the gospel, many times that divine authority has been conferred upon men, is apparent from the scripture narrative of such events. And yet, strange as it may seem, in the face of such scripture narratives, there are those among professing Christians who hold that the gospel had no earlier origin than the time of Messiah's ministry in the flesh. As a matter of fact, however, the gospel of Jesus Christ has existed from the very earliest ages of the world. There are, indeed, certain passages of scripture which lead us to believe that even before the earth was made or ever man was placed upon it the gospel had been formulated and was understood by the spirits which inhabited the kingdom of the Father; and who, in course of time, would be blessed with a probation on the earth-an earth-life. If this be not true, of what significance is the scripture which speaks of Jesus as the Lamb ordained before the foundation of the world, but revealed in his day for the salvation of men? fn What of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?" fn And further: "They that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world." fn "Where wast thou," asked the Lord of Job, "when I laid the foundations of the earth? * * * When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" There is evidence in these expressions found in scripture that before the foundations of the earth were laid the sacrifice necessary to the redemption of men was understood, and the "Lamb" for the sacrifice was chosen, Jesus, the Messiah. There is evidence in these expressions from scripture of the pre-existence of the spirits of men, and the names of some of them at least were written in the "Book of Life" from the foundation of the world, and it is not unlikely that the shouting of all the sons of God for joy, at the creation of the earth was in consequence of the prospects which opened before these spirits because of the earth-life and the salvation that would come to them through the gospel-even in the prospects of that "eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." ANTIQUITY OF THE GOSPEL: REVEALED TO ADAM The gospel, then, is of great antiquity. Older than the hills, older than the earth; for in the heavenly kingdom was it formulated before the foundations of the earth were laid. Nor were men left in ignorance of the plan of their redemption until the coming of the Messiah in the flesh. From the first that plan was known. The scripture annals accepted by the Hebrew and Christian world-the Old Testament and the New Testament, are imperfect on that head, doubtless, but enough exists even in these scriptures to indicate the existence of a knowledge of the fact of the atonement and of the redemption of man through means of it. Abel, the son of Adam, is the first we read of in the Jewish scriptures as offering "the firstlings of his flock" as a sacrifice unto God. How came he to offer sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock? Doubtless behind Abel's sacrifice, as behind similar offerings in subsequent ages, stood the fact of the Christ's atonement. In it was figured forth the means of man's redemption-through a sacrifice, and that the sacrifice of the first-born. But where learned Abel to offer sacrifice if not from his father Adam? It is reasonably certain that Adam as well as Abel offered sacrifices, in like manner and for the same intent; and to Adam, though the Jewish scriptures are silent respecting it, God must have revealed both the necessity of offering sacrifice and the great thing of which it was but the symbol. And here, to some advantage, may be quoted a passage from the writings of Moses, as revealed to Joseph Smith, in December, 1830. From what was then made known to the great latter-day Prophet of the writings of Moses, it appears that our book of Genesis does not contain all that was revealed to Moses respecting the revelations of God to Adam, and to his children of the first generation. According to this more complete account of the revelation to Moses, after Adam was driven from Eden, God gave commandments both to him and his wife, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks for an offering unto the Lord, and Adam was obedient unto the commandment: "And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why doest thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me. And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son for evermore." After some time elapsed and men multiplied in the earth and wickedness increased; after Abel, the righteous, was slain, and Cain was a vagabond in the earth for the murder; after Lamech had also become a murderer and satan had great power among the disobedient-then, it is written: "And God cursed the earth with a sore curse, and was angry with the wicked, with all the sons of men whom he had made; for they would not hearken unto his voice, nor believe on his [to be] Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world. And thus the gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost. And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof." ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH As the gospel was thus preached there were those among the children of Adam who obeyed it, and a record of those men was kept, and they constituted the ancient church of God. Enoch was of the number of righteous ones, and a preacher of righteousness. In these revealed writings of Moses he is represented in the course of his ministry as referring to the manner in which the gospel was taught to Adam: "And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are, and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe. Behold satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God. But God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent. And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh. [i. e. begot them spirits]. And he also said unto him [Adam]: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine [to be] Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you." Adam was obedient to these commandments of the Lord, and taught them to his children, many of whom believed them, obeyed and became the sons of God. Enoch, we are told, "walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." fn Paul, in speaking of him says: "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him." But the writings of Moses, as revealed to Joseph Smith, give information that not only was Enoch translated, but the saints inhabiting his city, into which he had gathered his people; and this city was called Zion: "and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, 'Zion is fled'." THE GOSPEL AND THE LAW Thus the gospel was taught to the ancients. Noah was a preacher of it as well as Enoch. So, too, was Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, King of Salem, who met Abraham in his day and blessed him. fn Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, bears unmistakable testimony to the fact, as we shall see, that the gospel was preached unto Abraham; and also that it was offered to Israel under Moses before "the law of carnal commandments" was given. "I would not that ye should be ignorant," he says, "how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." Referring again to the fact of the presentation of the gospel to ancient Israel, Paul says that the gospel was preached unto ancient Israel, as well as unto Israel in his day; but the preaching of the gospel to ancient Israel was not profitable to them, because they received it not in faith, and as a result displeased God by their unbelief, and the rebellious perished in the wilderness. Paul's great controversy with the Christian Jews was in relation to the superiority of the gospel to the law of Moses. Many of the Christian Jews while accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah still held to the law with something like superstitious reverence, and could not be persuaded that the gospel superseded the law, and was, in fact, a fulfillment of all its types and symbols. This controversy culminated in Paul's now celebrated letter to the Galatians, wherein he says: "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. * * * Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He sayeth not and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect. * * * Wherefore then serveth the law [i. e. the law of Moses]? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. * * * Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." fn FROM MOSES TO JOHN THE BAPTIST AND MESSIAH In greater clearness, however, than in these sayings of Paul gathered up from his writings like scattered rays of light from a prism's reflection, the antiquity of the gospel, as far as it concerns ancient Israel, is stated in a revelation of God to the Prophet of the New Dispensation, Joseph Smith. And not only the antiquity of the gospel, but in greater clearness also are stated the reasons why, after the gospel was first preached to ancient Israel, the law of carnal commandments was "added," or given in its place, to act as a schoolmaster to bring Israel unto Christ. And by the knowledge imparted in that revelation the time between the Mosaic dispensation and the coming of John the Baptist, to prepare the way for the coming of Christ, is spanned by a statement so rational, that the truth of it cannot be reasonably questioned. Speaking of the Melchizedek priesthood and its powers in administering the ordinances of the gospel, and how it came to disappear as an organization in Israel, the passage in question says: "This greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God; therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest; and without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh, for without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live. Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; but they harde