Back To The Garden: Eden In Mormonism

[blackstrap]

Are we not told that the story of the formation of Adam and Eve are figurative? The formation of their figures are figurative. Who would have figured ? ( Yes , I know, I am beyond help.)

[Thinking]

I am my own best reference.

[Stone holm]

I think it is better to ascertain why Adam was formed outside, and later on Eve inside, the Garden of Eden. I think that would provide some insight as to how they were formed.

Why do you assume Eve was formed on the inside? You aren't going with the rib thing are you?

[CV75]

Why do you assume Eve was formed on the inside? You aren't going with the rib thing are you?

I’m not focusing on the rib so much as the order and the place of Adam and Eve’s origination:

First, Adam was formed outside the Garden of Eden:

(Chapter 2)

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

…

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Then the animals were formed outside the Garden of Eden and brought to Adam:

(Chapter 2)

19 And out of the ground [the same ground as verse 7] the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam [who had been placed in the garden]

Then Eve was formed after Adam was already in the Garden:

(Chapter 2)

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept [in the garden]: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman [whether the Lord God made her in the garden or outside the garden, her origination was from within Adam who was within the garden], and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

On the other hand, the plants already existed in the Garden of Eden (whether they were brought from the same ground as Adam or from some other place):

(Chapter 2)

8 ¶ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In this way, Adam was formed outside the garden; ate fruit from inside the garden; Eve was formed either: a) in the garden proper through Adam who was nourished by fruit from the garden; or, b) outside the garden but from fruit having been assimilated into Adam while inside the garden. In either case, her origin is the garden, while Adam’s was outside the garden.

Not to detract from this particular point, but some of this discussion has to do with covenants. We enter a covenant as one man, and come out of it another, and keeping it, become another, eligible to enter another covenant. Adam did this: he was formed out of the ground as one man; entered the garden and became another by virtue of the environment and the food; fell asleep and woke up another; joined with Eve and became another “of one flesh”; fell and became another; made covenants in the fallen world and became another, and so on.

We can look at the Garden of Eden as a temple. It was elevated so as to provide the wellspring of all the rivers that flowed into the world. Adam went in as one man, got a wife, and became one flesh with her. Eve was formed, brought to Adam, and became the mother of all living. They stumbled and fell but continued on as one flesh, making more covenants along the way. Just like we do when we go to the temple.

If the question is whether or not Adam and Eve are the products of evolution, I think it is clear that covenants play the far greater role in what they were and became at each juncture so that the precise mechanics of how their physical bodies alone at each stage were formed and changed pale in comparison, as does the significance of these mechanics. The stages of development of the physical body from gamete to godhood, as with all natural processes, are fundamentally governed by covenant.

[Stone holm]

I’m not focusing on the rib so much as the order and the place of Adam and Eve’s origination:

First, Adam was formed outside the Garden of Eden:

(Chapter 2)

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

…

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Then the animals were formed outside the Garden of Eden and brought to Adam:

(Chapter 2)

19 And out of the ground [the same ground as verse 7] the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam [who had been placed in the garden]

Then Eve was formed after Adam was already in the Garden:

(Chapter 2)

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept [in the garden]: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman [whether the Lord God made her in the garden or outside the garden, her origination was from within Adam who was within the garden], and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

On the other hand, the plants already existed in the Garden of Eden (whether they were brought from the same ground as Adam or from some other place):

(Chapter 2)

8 ¶ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In this way, Adam was formed outside the garden; ate fruit from inside the garden; Eve was formed either: a) in the garden proper through Adam who was nourished by fruit from the garden; or, b) outside the garden but from fruit having been assimilated into Adam while inside the garden. In either case, her origin is the garden, while Adam’s was outside the garden.

Not to detract from this particular point, but some of this discussion has to do with covenants. We enter a covenant as one man, and come out of it another, and keeping it, become another, eligible to enter another covenant. Adam did this: he was formed out of the ground as one man; entered the garden and became another by virtue of the environment and the food; fell asleep and woke up another; joined with Eve and became another “of one flesh”; fell and became another; made covenants in the fallen world and became another, and so on.

We can look at the Garden of Eden as a temple. It was elevated so as to provide the wellspring of all the rivers that flowed into the world. Adam went in as one man, got a wife, and became one flesh with her. Eve was formed, brought to Adam, and became the mother of all living. They stumbled and fell but continued on as one flesh, making more covenants along the way. Just like we do when we go to the temple.

If the question is whether or not Adam and Eve are the products of evolution, I think it is clear that covenants play the far greater role in what they were and became at each juncture so that the precise mechanics of how their physical bodies alone at each stage were formed and changed pale in comparison, as does the significance of these mechanics. The stages of development of the physical body from gamete to godhood, as with all natural processes, are fundamentally governed by covenant.

Well the actual question was whether the Garden of Eden was a discrete place or the whole planet. Some have suggested that the Adamic language name of the Earth was Eden. I find that a little difficult because of the Eastward in Eden, which suggests that Eden was a place that was somewhere to the East which suggests that someplace else was to the West, or perhaps Eden was a continent, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes--there was the planet, a place called Eden (elevated so as to provide water for the rest of the planet), and a garden eastward in Eden from which Adam and Eve were expelled. Adam was brought into the garden, but Eve was formed in the garden.

Not supportable from the Scriptures.

See Genesis 2, particularly verse 7-8: ⁷ Then the Lord God formed a man^[d] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. ⁸ Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Edited June 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Well the actual question was whether the Garden of Eden was a discrete place or the whole planet. Some have suggested that the Adamic language name of the Earth was Eden. I find that a little difficult because of the Eastward in Eden, which suggests that Eden was a place that was somewhere to the East which suggests that someplace else was to the West, or perhaps Eden was a continent, etc.

That is a mighty big garden for one man and one woman to take care of. I tend to believe the garden wasn't very big at all.

[Stone holm]

That is a mighty big garden for one man and one woman to take care of. I tend to believe the garden wasn't very big at all.

Well someone argued that the garden was a place within Eden. Course the real question is what was outside the Garden because if the outside of the Garden was also in the unmortal stasis state like the Garden, the issue becomes somewhat beside the point as it does not in that event help reconcile the Garden Story and science.

[Nofear]

For my own part I have reconciled the Garden of Eden as a place of transition -- a transition from other worlds to this world. Why?

I consider two observations: A) Our species, and numerous other species, exist on other worlds. But B) our mortal physical bodies (and those of pretty much all life forms) are intimately and uniquely tied to this earth and its conditions. Without the various fauna that inhabits my mortal body in abundance, my body would not thrive. Other bodies from other worlds would not be suitable for inhabiting and reproducing on this earth -- not without suitable adaption.

So what is the Garden of Eden? A transistory "bubble" -- it allowed physical bodies from otherworlds a place to adapt, transform, and prepare to integrate into to this earth's unique conditions and biosphere. The Fall, among other things, was a culmination of that process.

[Questing Beast]

Since this has become an important issue in another thread about pre-Adamites, I thought it deserving of its own thread. I admit to being motivated by a desire to have my cake (love of Genesis stories as fact) and eat it too (understanding that evolutionary theory is supported by the evidence.) However, despite that I think that most members who have not read carefully all of the specific teachings on the subject, when asked whether the Garden of Eden was a separate and special place on the planet, as opposed to encompassing the entire planet, would say "Well of course it was, God drove Adam and Eve out of it." So I have the brashness of saying, that it is consistent with our teachings to say that the Garden of Eden, was quite literally that, a special place on the planet that was set apart from the rest of the planet. My feeling is that why there may be no specific teaching to that effect, it is the best explanation of why the evidence in the Earth screams a contradiction to Genesis. I would love to hear from the linquist Geeks as to what "Garden" meant in the original manuscript languages.

The Caveat here is perspective. God's and ours. Star Trek the OS probably has a valid suggestion to make vis-a-vis "Eden". It wasn't/isn't somewhere on Earth, it isn't even the entire planet "Earth", it is "eastward" somewhere else, "in Eden" could very well be metaphor for a quadrant of the galaxy or even the universe. Look for a whole planet, or quadrant, if you are space-faring people. Bronze Age people probably didn't think that way, but we increasingly do. "Eden" is a state of mind, resulting in an application to physical surroundings. "Eden" will rise again as soon as we are devoted to "being there"....

[CV75]

Well the actual question was whether the Garden of Eden was a discrete place or the whole planet. Some have suggested that the Adamic language name of the Earth was Eden. I find that a little difficult because of the Eastward in Eden, which suggests that Eden was a place that was somewhere to the East which suggests that someplace else was to the West, or perhaps Eden was a continent, etc.

For working purposes, I would agree -- according to Genesis 2, Eden was a place in God’s “work (verses 2, 3),” identified as the “heavens and the earth” (verse 1) and more specifically the “earth” as we know it (verse 5); and the garden was planted within that. And because the river originating in Eden parted and watered other areas seemingly being identified with locations on the earth, it would seem that Eden was a place on earth. But this could also work on larger scales as well as figuratively and symbolically, and there is good reasoning to think so. For example, the “rivers” could be a kind of, or symbolic of, the “Kae-e-vanrash” Key which brings power and action into various realms.

[CV75]

Not supportable from the Scriptures.

See Genesis 2, particularly verse 7-8: ⁷ Then the Lord God formed a man^[d] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. ⁸ Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

I'm sorry--I don't understand your point, unless you've misunderstood me to say that Eden was a planet, which I'm not saying. I read the verse you posted to say that the ground is the surface of the planet Earth that God made; Eden is a location on planet Earth, and the garden is in Eden.

[CV75]

Well the actual question was whether the Garden of Eden was a discrete place or the whole planet. Some have suggested that the Adamic language name of the Earth was Eden. I find that a little difficult because of the Eastward in Eden, which suggests that Eden was a place that was somewhere to the East which suggests that someplace else was to the West, or perhaps Eden was a continent, etc.

I can see how "Eden" could be the name of the Earth as well as the name of a distinct region on the Earth. Many people call themselves distinctively "The Human Beings" even though they are obviously a part of all humanity. Some call themselves "Christian" and define other Christians as not really so. Others see other humans as less than human, and call them other things. Similarly, the only "real" Earth was the one Adam was given stewardship over and he could manage. This stewardhip started small and grew and expanded.

So for working purposes, Eden can be the name of a geographic region located on the planet called Eden (Earth) just as the City of Jerusalem is located in Jerusalem (the region), and the temple (which is sometimes called Jersusalem) is located in the city Jerusalem.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm sorry--I don't understand your point, unless you've misunderstood me to say that Eden was a planet, which I'm not saying. I read the verse you posted to say that the ground is the surface of the planet Earth that God made; Eden is a location on planet Earth, and the garden is in Eden.

My mistake. Apologies.

[Ahab]

Well someone argued that the garden was a place within Eden. Course the real question is what was outside the Garden because if the outside of the Garden was also in the unmortal stasis state like the Garden, the issue becomes somewhat beside the point as it does not in that event help reconcile the Garden Story and science.

It helps me to form a mental picture, and maybe it would help you a little bit too. Imagine this planet with one continent, like Africa and Europe and Russia and China and Australia and the Americas (North/Central/and South) all joined together. Now call all of that one big land mass, Eden. Now imagine that eastward on that continent there is a garden, and let's call that the garden of Eden. I imagine it being on the east coast of that continent overlooking the ocean which is all around Eden.

Now imagine that our Father comes down here with his wife (or one of his wives) and they both eat some of the fruit growing from the ground in the garden of Eden. At some time later she gives birth to a boy and they call him Adam. The process is pretty much the same as we do it now with the woman giving birth to a physical body for a baby and the spirit coming from some other place, in heaven, and merging with the physical body. Thus the spirit gives life and breath to the physical body of the baby.

Now imagine that they introduce Adam into the garden of Eden and let him search for a soul mate, and upon finding nobody there who is suitable for him the Mother gives birth to a girl in the same way she had earlier given birth to Adam's body, with her spirit also coming from heaven to merge with it. Her purpose in coming here was to be at the side of Adam as his soul mater and companion in the garden of Eden, and forever after that too with God joining them both together as one.

[CV75]

they both eat some of the fruit growing from the ground in the garden of Eden.

Except that the fruit would have to be from the ground outside the garden instead of in it, since Adam was formed out of the ground that was not in the garden proper—Genesis 2:6-8.

5 …the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 ¶ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden [this is the first tie Eden is mentioned]; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

If the man was not in Eden and had to be placed there, the ground he came from had to be from another place on the earth than Eden, whether this ground had been incorporated into fruit that was in turn incorporated into God (or into other immortal or translated beings) and their physical offspring Adam, or Adam was literally formed out the ground.

The same with Eve, whether Eden’s ground had been incorporated into fruit that was in turn incorporated into Adam so as to result in her being taken out of him, formed and retuned to Eden, or she was literally formed out of Adam in Eden.

[ERayR]

If the man was not in Eden and had to be placed there, the ground he came from had to be from another place on the earth than Eden, whether this ground had been incorporated into fruit that was in turn incorporated into God (or into other immortal or translated beings) and their physical offspring Adam, or Adam was literally formed out the ground.

Not necessarily the earth but from an earth.

[Ahab]

Except that the fruit would have to be from the ground outside the garden instead of in it, since Adam was formed out of the ground that was not in the garden proper—Genesis 2:6-8.

5 …the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 ¶ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden [this is the first tie Eden is mentioned]; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

I'm imagining Eden as the whole continent he was on when he came down to Earth, and I think he could have been in the same place on Eden where he later created a garden, and Adam.

If the man was not in Eden and had to be placed there, the ground he came from had to be from another place on the earth than Eden, whether this ground had been incorporated into fruit that was in turn incorporated into God (or into other immortal or translated beings) and their physical offspring Adam, or Adam was literally formed out the ground.

The text says Adam was formed and living before he was put into the garden of Eden, but he was still in Eden before that garden was created eastward in Eden. I think you are in error by saying he was not in Eden just because he wasn't in the garden, yet.

The same with Eve, whether Eden’s ground had been incorporated into fruit that was in turn incorporated into Adam so as to result in her being taken out of him, formed and retuned to Eden, or she was literally formed out of Adam in Eden.

I think the main point about Eve is that she was brought into the garden as, shall we say, the side kick of Adam, his eternal companion. She was made for him to be by him and literally became a part of him as the two lived side by side.

[CV75]

The text says Adam was formed and living before he was put into the garden of Eden, but he was still in Eden before that garden was created eastward in Eden. I think you are in error by saying he was not in Eden just because he wasn't in the garden, yet.

That is fine, but I’ve shown how “the ground” (which could have even been under water! as in womb) where / from which Adam was formed was a separate place from either Eden or the garden; also how “Eden” could be applied to the name of continent or to the name of a particular geographic section of the continent.

[Stone holm]

I'm imagining Eden as the whole continent he was on when he came down to Earth, and I think he could have been in the same place on Eden where he later created a garden, and Adam.

The text says Adam was formed and living before he was put into the garden of Eden, but he was still in Eden before that garden was created eastward in Eden. I think you are in error by saying he was not in Eden just because he wasn't in the garden, yet.

I think the main point about Eve is that she was brought into the garden as, shall we say, the side kick of Adam, his eternal companion. She was made for him to be by him and literally became a part of him as the two lived side by side.

Where did you get that he was in Eden before the garden was created? The Kabbalistic Jews have a legend that Adam and Eve were conjoined twins when first created and connected side by side which made the procreation thing, well you know -- and that they were later separated, hence the rib thing I guess.

[Stone holm]

That is fine, but I’ve shown how “the ground” (which could have even been under water! as in womb) where / from which Adam was formed was a separate place from either Eden or the garden; also how “Eden” could be applied to the name of continent or to the name of a particular geographic section of the continent.

Under water as in Atlantean? Have never heard that one before.

[Ahab]

That is fine, but I’ve shown how “the ground” (which could have even been under water! as in womb) where / from which Adam was formed was a separate place from either Eden or the garden; also how “Eden” could be applied to the name of continent or to the name of a particular geographic section of the continent.

No, you haven't shown that the place where Adam was formed was a separate place from Eden. The text does support the idea that place may not have been in the garden, but the text can NOT be construed to mean that place was NOT in Eden.

[Ahab]

Where did you get that he was in Eden before the garden was created? The Kabbalistic Jews have a legend that Adam and Eve were conjoined twins when first created and connected side by side which made the procreation thing, well you know -- and that they were later separated, hence the rib thing I guess.

You don't need to know where the idea came from. Just acknowledge that it's a possibilty according to the actual text.

There was a place called Eden, and there was a general direction referred to as eastward in Eden, and there was a garden in Eden referred to as the garden of Eden.

[Stone holm]

You don't need to know where the idea came from. Just acknowledge that it's a possibilty according to the actual text.

There was a place called Eden, and there was a general direction referred to as eastward in Eden, and there was a garden in Eden referred to as the garden of Eden.

Okay, I agree there was a place called Eden and that there was a general direction referred to as eastward in Eden, and that the garden was eastward in Eden....and that leads me to believe Adam was in Eden before he was in the garden how?

[CV75]

One more thought on the differences between the origins of the bodies of Adam and Eve as far as location of the "ground" outside and within Eden goes:

Adam entered the garden much like a zygote enters a womb, or a sperm enters an egg, or a premature baby enters a neonatal regulator. The zygote exits the fallopian tube as an individual; the baby exits the womb as an individual as does the preemie exiting the incubator; and as the gametes form one zygotic flesh, and as the child for a season is one flesh with his mother until he is born, Adam was “incubated” until he was made one with Eve through marriage.

Eve was likewise one with Adam in that she came out of him, was formed or incubated separately (as an individual, and from different “ground” as was Adam, hers originating in Eden and Adam’s not), and returned and reunited to be one with him by covenant.

We follow suit, in that couples grow up separately from each other (the men from one “ground”, the women from another), are incubated in their separate baptismal, confirmation, priesthood (for the men; a subset of the sacred powers of procreation which both men and women already possess) and endowment covenants until they enter the sealing covenants, and come out of the temple as one flesh.