Guidelines Responses to Common Questions- Leak

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"I was taught my whole life that Jackson County was where the Garden of Eden was located." - Well, there you have it. It's settled. Since HappyJack was taught that the Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri, it is so and it is what the Mormon Church believes but now treats it like, "whaaaaaaaaaaa???.....whatchyousayin'?"

Happy, there's no reason to lose trust in the church's leadership. It has never been taught as a matter of "what Mormons believe" nor what the LDS church should officially believe. You can go to Adam-ondi-Ahman right now and not see much because the LDs church has never treated it as much of anything. I to have heard from others as the place being fanstic to believe in but beyond that I've never learned much of anything *from the church* regarding it therefore I never considered it as much part of the Church, nor "what Mormons believe".

"This has been taught in conferences, in sunday lessons my whole life but I obviously can't rely on those teachings as being supported by the current church." - Wow. You had a pretty far out ward and what conferences are you referring to?

"Similarly, it has never been a question that Satan and Jesus are brothers in the same sense that we are all spirit children of God. But can we rely on the church to claim this teaching? No. They dance around it and get cute with their responses." - Um, didn't you just cite that this is exactly what the Church teaches? "All of us are children of God, and therefore all are brothers and sisters", was your cited "how to" respond for General Authorities. No dancing, no cuteness, this is exactly what you just asked to receive, from church leaders, is it not?

"This stuff makes me want to toss in the towel and give up on this nonsense." - Oh, I think you've thrown in the towel way before this thread and it's up to you to pick it up and keep going. Don't be disillusioned by anything you do not need to be disillusioned by. if you do then you'll be, well, disillusioned, and for no reason.

Hope you find your way.

I've already supplied numerous quotes showing how these things have been taught by leaders. There are many, many more. Claiming that my church experience is unique and strange is dismissive and is an attempt to gaslight.

RE; Adam ondi-Ahman: Saying the church has never treated it as much of anything shows your ignorance of the topic. You don't know what you're talking about. I've been there numerous times. While there isn't a formal visitors center, there are multiple locations with plaques describing past and future events. AoA is its own mission which reports directly to Elder Christensen who reports to the First Presidency. It has been this way for many years. (Don't ask for a CFR because there isn't documentation I'm aware but I know many people who have served there). AoA isn't ignored by the church but rather it is kept on the down low as a protection. Vast resources have gone into purchasing and maintaining hundreds of acres there for decades.

If the church has taught these things, which they have, they should own up to it regardless of whether or not it embarrasses them now or because they are afraid of some PR backlash. It's dishonest for them to claim they haven't taught about AoA or Eden being in Jackson county. These things are very well documented.

The church needs to be worthy of trust. When it is dishonest about its own history and teachings, it is not worthy of the trust of its members.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is this a response to my post?

 

Yes, you were taught that (Jackson County), but remember and consider exactly by whom¹. It’s not an absurd belief—it’s just not well-founded when tying it back to the scriptures. And certainly, not “core” when considering the purpose of the scriptures (see Title Page of Book or Mormon and D&C 1) or identifying any covenants pertaining to this teaching.

 

The leaked material is guidelines and talking points, not scripted answers. Note how you yourself qualify “Satan and Jesus are brothers…”² Your perception that the Church is embarrassed about the revealed aspects of exaltation might be better informed by taking the following at face value³: https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng&old=true

 

Remedies for your frustration: 1. Forgive. 2. Observe fairness. 3. Humbly study.

 

Not specifically.

Its well founded when referencing church leaders. I've provided a few sources that were simple to find from multiple leaders over many years. If we are going with the idea of "it's not in the scriptures so it's not well-founded" then we might as well get away from the concept of current prophetic leadership. Think of everything the church would need to jettison if canonized scripture is a requirement for it being well-founded. How do temple rituals hold up via the scriptural account? How does any discussion of LGBT issues hold up via the scriptural account?

Regarding it being a "core" doctrine, I guess that's up for debate. However, the location of Eden and AoA are closely related to teachings about Zion and the New Jerusalem which is one of the 13 articles of faith. Seems fairly core.

If not, we can toss all this stuff and just focus on Jesus. I'd be good with that.

Edited March 22, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry Darren, but you're overplaying the mockery on this one.  Church leaders and publications have taught that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri since the days of Joseph Smith.  While it might not be mentioned every single week in every single Ward, it has certainly been taught with enough regularity and authority throughout the decades that your statements come off as more of a disingenious attempt at deflection than any serious attempt to address the issue.

For example...

What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden? (Ensign, January 1994)

Here's a good collection of quotes put together by a BYU professor explaining why LDS might believe this:

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/327Folder/Garden of Eden Jackson Co.pdf

 

 

Yes, I have heard these statements in church and even your own link uses the disclaimer:

Quote

Questions of general interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy

That works for me but HappyJack clearly said he was taught this doctrine as if it was official church doctrine. That's whart I mocked.

I admit I have heard, on Sunday, in church, the doctrine of Eden being in Jackson County Missouri. But I also remember said disclaimers, and frequently, though not all the time. It's not too hard to look into what you hear on Sunday and what is official church doctrine. If it causes Happy to "thrown in the towel" then I stand confused. I do not see where he had reason to believe that he *must* believe that Eden is in Jackson County Missouri since that is what church leaders taught.

"but you're overplaying the mockery on this one"

That could be said on any of my mocking posts. I do it mostly out of frustration and it really isn't justified.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Darren, I'm not sure what you're arguing, because you keep giving much more straightforward and honest examples of how to respond to the questions but you seem to think that you're arguing that the evasive answers are just as good.

 

For example, the first statement in the "planets" question attributes it to anti-Mormon literature!

Sure, it's mentioned in "anti-Mormon writings", but the reason for this is because the Church itself has taught it.

If you were a reporter and asked that question out of sincere interest, and received that answer, and then went to the Church's website and found these quotes in a manual that was used in instruction to the college students and other adults of the Church, and another in a manual published by the Church called "Gospel Fundamentals," would you feel you had been dealt with honestly?

Seriously.  It's in a manual called "Gospel Fundamentals".

I do not think the GA training session was a be all end all as how to respond to questions but a general guidline as what to follow as per an official representative of the church. I do not see why a General Authority cannot respond the way I did as per their session instruction as per Mormon Leaks. In fact, Mormon Leaks may very well be a very poor means of understanding the inner workings of the LDS Church. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is a good illustration about why it is so easy to become disillusioned with the church teachings and lose trust in what current prophets say . . . This stuff makes me want to toss in the towel and give up on this nonsense.

It is definitely my experience that straight shooters who don't shy away from giving frank answers, and who don't try to spin or obfuscate, are much more effective at helping people who are in faith crisis. You may not ultimately help them pull out of the dive, but they will respect and trust you as a source. 

I hope they learned from the Swedish Rescue debacle. If you take the trouble to fly an emeritus 70 and Church historian out, then you take days if you have to --- not just write concerns on a chalkboard and close the meeting after a couple of hours. You make sure that people have "no further questions." They may not solve their issues, but they can't say that you gave them the brush-off, or that you gave spin.

I've never denied that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers to critics. I turn the tables by asking them where they think the devil came from, and then ask them why it is worse for God to have wayward children than if he created the devil and everything else out of nothing, foreseen and intended to be exactly what they were and to do exactly what they did. Remind me again why Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is supposed to be scandalous?

Mitt Romney refused to answer any questions (inevitable questions, really) about Garden of Eden, etc. He didn't end up winning, anyway (partially because he seemed inauthentic), and what a missed opportunity to boldly and unashamedly "own it." 

But, we are under no obligation to "own" nonsense that has been garbled beyond anything a Mormon would recognize, either. "Everybody getting their own planet" falls under that, in my view. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, etc. taught things that could lead one to believe (as I do) that exaltation/godhood do not mean that we will get to be "head Gods" (like Elohim). Under this view, you have to be a savior to do that (Pratt argued, based on D&C 76:24, that some spirit children are "begotten sons and daughters *unto* God," not "of." Under this understanding, exalted couples provide spirit children who are adopted by God). But even for those who believe that we all can become Elohim, we truly know next to nothing about this, and anything at all is speculation only. 

In a way, President Hinckley was correct when he said "I don't know that we teach that," etc. in answering questions about the Snow couplet. Under the circumstances, it was as good an answer as could be given (I've been on the radio and TV before, and those with no experience with this really have no idea how hard it is. You have time limits, moderation, etc. that are not under your control, and you have to be concise, persuasive, and crisp without being pulled out into the weeds). Yet, I wished he had simply said, "Yes, we believe that we can become like our Father in Heaven, and we believe that he experienced mortal life as we did." Whether or not he did so as a savior or a "regular Joe" is an open question, and would make a difference, but we have nothing definitive doctrinally on that. 

[Darren10]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've already supplied numerous quotes showing how these things have been taught by leaders. There are many, many more. Claiming that my church experience is unique and strange is dismissive and is an attempt to gaslight.

RE; Adam ondi-Ahman: Saying the church has never treated it as much of anything shows your ignorance of the topic. You don't know what you're talking about. I've been there numerous times. While there isn't a formal visitors center, there are multiple locations with plaques describing past and future events. AoA is its own mission which reports directly to Elder Christensen who reports to the First Presidency. It has been this way for many years. (Don't ask for a CFR because there isn't documentation I'm aware but I know many people who have served there). AoA isn't ignored by the church but rather it is kept on the down low as a protection. Vast resources have gone into purchasing and maintaining hundreds of acres there for decades.

If the church has taught these things, which they have, they should own up to it regardless of whether or not it embarrasses them now or because they are afraid of some PR backlash. It's dishonest for them to claim they haven't taught about AoA or Eden being in Jackson county. These things are very well documented.

The church needs to be worthy of trust. When it is dishonest about its own history and teachings, it is not worthy of the trust of its members.

"Claiming that my church experience is unique and strange is dismissive and is an attempt to gaslight." - You made it seem as if teaching Adam-ondi-Ahman is an absolute belief in the church. to support this you cite personal experience in hearing about it, shall we say, "all the time" on Sundays. I've no doubt you were taught, perhaps even by your parents, that this doctrine is absolutely true and officially "what Mormons believe". I've no doubt you instructors in church teach you the sam, I did as well. But these were the exception in my experience. I remember dis qualifiers as seen in cinepro's link to guidelines that said doctrine is not to be taken as absolute but as a personal understanding by an individual. I'd venture to say that the mainstream situation of the church is the same, not some scenario where one thing is taught and since it's embracing it is denied. I doubt the church is at fault for your negative opinion of church leaders. While there have indeed been passionate declarations by church leaders on Adam-ondi-ahman, it was never taught to be believed by the church in any official capacity. Not so far as I know. If so, is it the church's fault you now doubt their sincerity? 

"While there isn't a formal visitors center, there are multiple locations with plaques describing past and future events. AoA is its own mission which reports directly to Elder Christensen who reports to the First Presidency. It has been this way for many years. (Don't ask for a CFR because there isn't documentation I'm aware but I know many people who have served there)".

Oh, I do not demand CFRs like you and others do. Nor do preach the rules of the blog to others regarding this. But, you yourself told me directly that CFRs are here to maintain integrity of dialogue. That it's no big deal to retract a statement given as fact if no documentation can be provided to support that factual statement. Even in a situation where I could not find a book i own to source what I said regarding the mountain Meadow Massacre, you demanded a CFR or retract. It is the rules of this forum and while I will demand no CFR from you I would appreciate it if you lived by the same standards you demanded upon me. you can at least reveal who you know and have known that are part of that mission and even how to contact them. That said, it is very strange, bizarre even, that an Adam-ondi-Ahman mission is set up by the LDS Church and yet there is no official record of it. And yes, there is land owned by the Church and yes great things are believed to happen there at a future date but it really is of no consequence to us. At all really. honestly, if no Adam-ondi-ahman existed then how would your life be lesser off as per your membership in the Church?

"If the church has taught these things..." - When did *the Church* "teach" these things? leaders have and I do not recall the church disavowing their teachings, but "the Church" has not taught Adam-ondi-Ahman so far as I know. 

"When it is dishonest about its own history and teachings, it is not worthy of the trust of its members." - Well, when I asked you for a little trust you answered by asking me why should you. That trust is earned. There's merit to that but I do not think it's as rigged as you seem to think. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Sorry Darren, but you're overplaying the mockery on this one.  Church leaders and publications have taught that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri since the days of Joseph Smith.  While it might not be mentioned every single week in every single Ward, it has certainly been taught with enough regularity and authority throughout the decades that your statements come off as more of a disingenious attempt at deflection than any serious attempt to address the issue.

For example...

What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden? (Ensign, January 1994)

Here's a good collection of quotes put together by a BYU professor explaining why LDS might believe this:

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/327Folder/Garden of Eden Jackson Co.pdf

 

 

As per your second link, yes, the LDS Church openly admits that Mormons believe Adam-ondi-Ahman is where Eden is. that fact has been cited already in this thread. "Mormon Doctrine", "Saturday Night Thoughts", "Evidences and Reconciliation"; Encyclopedia of Mormonism"; "Pearl of Great Price Commentary"; "Journal of Discourses" are NOT official LDS canon of doctrine. While it is perfectly appropriate to use them to corroborate what the LDS church officially teaches, they are not to be used to declare "what the Church teaches". If that's what HappyJack encountered then that would have been an erroneous approach to teach him. 

Now, as part of a Conference Report, namely, "October 1968" be Alvin R. Dyer is getting somewhere but even Conference talks are not canon. Lots of opinion go into them. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not specifically.

Its well founded when referencing church leaders. I've provided a few sources that were simple to find from multiple leaders over many years. If we are going with the idea of "it's not in the scriptures so it's not well-founded" then we might as well get away from the concept of current prophetic leadership. Think of everything the church would need to jettison if canonized scripture is a requirement for it being well-founded. How do temple rituals hold up via the scriptural account? How does any discussion of LGBT issues hold up via the scriptural account?

Regarding it being a "core" doctrine, I guess that's up for debate. However, the location of Eden and AoA are closely related to teachings about Zion and the New Jerusalem which is one of the 13 articles of faith. Seems fairly core.

If not, we can toss all this stuff and just focus on Jesus. I'd be good with that.

If the initial complaint was that the guidelines provided official, verbatim answers, hopefully we’ve put that to rest.

Church teachings and responses to questions about temple rituals and LGBT issues are well-founded in and held up by the canon. Eden-in-Missouri is not in the canon. Current Church leadership, which accords with the canon in this instance, provided guidance for an answer you take exception to.

Articles of Faith 10 doesn’t refer to Eden. Evidently a lot of people have taken what Joseph Smith is reported to have said and mingled it with canon, but the most detailed quote I can find attributed to Joseph is, “This is the valley of God in which Adam blessed his children… and upon this very altar Adam himself offered up sacrifices to Jehovah....we will lay out a city which shall be called Adam-ondi-Ahman. Here Adam, the Ancient of Days, shall come to visit his people...” And it’s not a direct quote. Never is he quoted as saying that Eden was in Jackson County, Mo. Everything else he is said to have said is a summary and paraphrased interpretation of what the early Church leaders understood him to say. It would be irresponsible for a GA to find the two concepts (Adam’s Edenic and post-Edenic dwelling places) so closely conceptually related as to ignore the guidance offered.

I am certain the GAs are tasked by the nature of their callings to bring the conversation to focus on Jesus.

I am also certain that if you cannot remember who taught you, or how you learned incorrect information, or why you believed an erroneous teaching, it isn't that important.

Edited March 22, 2017 by CV75

[VideoGameJunkie]

Happy is not alone. I learned that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri from Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith. Do people not believe Joseph? I learned from past prophets and apostles that we if exalted would get,l world's without end and a continuation of the seeds forever. Kingdoms thrones principalities and powers dominions. This is taught for centuries. Embrace it 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Happy is not alone. I learned that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri from Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith. Do people not believe Joseph? I learned from past prophets and apostles that we if exalted would get,l world's without end and a continuation of the seeds forever. Kingdoms thrones principalities and powers dominions. This is taught for centuries. Embrace it 

I think the phrase "worlds without end" carries a much different connotation than just saying that that mormons believe they'll get their own planet.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Happy is not alone. I learned that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri from Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith. Do people not believe Joseph? I learned from past prophets and apostles that we if exalted would get,l world's without end and a continuation of the seeds forever. Kingdoms thrones principalities and powers dominions. This is taught for centuries. Embrace it 

Of course you are not alone But that is not what D&C says, Many believe Joseph (and not), but he is never directly quoted as saying "the Garden of Eden is in Missouri." He is however quoted as saying what agrees with the D&C. I don't interpret what you are saying about the afterlife that you were taught from scripture or Church correlated materials that you will get your own planet.

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think the phrase "worlds without end" carries a much different connotation than just saying that that mormons believe they'll get their own planet.

Then what does worlds without end mean in scripture terms to you?

[bluebell]

I think the church is more focused on not teaching opinions as doctrine and that these official answers reflect that.  I don't think anything more nefarious than that is going on.

I've heard things taught over the pulpit that we definitely do NOT believe, and i've heard prophets and apostles say things that aren't LDS doctrine either.  These things are sometimes taught in official channels but when the rubber meets the road--when we are talking about someone giving an official response of LDS doctrine to a specific question--sticking with what we currently teach and can verify through scripture and official revelations is better than quoting past personal beliefs and opinions.  It causes way less problems down the road when new understandings (when new lines are added upon the previous lines) and we realize that our understanding was off a bit.

I don't think these answers mean to speak to what might be literally true.  Maybe we do each get our own world as previous generations have extrapolated from our doctrine!  But I think they speak to what is known (as far as we can know it).  

In the words of Paul, right now we see only a part.  I think it's good for these kinds of official answers to reflect that limitation.  It's a different way of coming at the gospel than how they used to come at it in previous years, but i don't see that as deception.  Just growth. 

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

No, the answer is not Yes. Those who become joint-heirs with Christ don't get "their own" planets because everything they will get won't be "their own" but instead what they share in common with  Christ.  So to say Yes to that question would be to give a false answer, and future joint-heirs with Christ try to avoid giving false answers to questions.

[VideoGameJunkie]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the church is more focused on not teaching opinions as doctrine and that these official answers reflect that.  I don't think anything more nefarious than that is going on.

I've heard things taught over the pulpit that we definitely do NOT believe, and i've heard prophets and apostles say things that aren't LDS doctrine either.  These things are sometimes taught in official channels but when the rubber meets the road--when we are talking about someone giving an official response of LDS doctrine to a specific question--sticking with what we currently teach and can verify through scripture and official revelations is better than quoting past personal beliefs and opinions.  It causes way less problems down the road when new understandings (when new lines are added upon the previous lines) and we realize that our understanding was off a bit.

I don't think these answers mean to speak to what might be literally true.  Maybe we do each get our own world as previous generations have extrapolated from our doctrine!  But I think they speak to what is known (as far as we can know it).  

In the words of Paul, right now we see only a part.  I think it's good for these kinds of official answers to reflect that limitation.  It's a different way of coming at the gospel than how they used to come at it in previous years, but i don't see that as deception.  Just growth. 

It says worlds without end and a continuation of the seeds forever in scripture. What does worlds without end mean to you and I'll ask anyone to answer this.

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Then what does worlds without end mean in scripture terms to you?

 And if children, then heirs; ^aheirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we ^bsuffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:17

 

And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s ^akingdom; therefore ^ball that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

D&C 84:38

 

I don't think there's anything in the scriptures that would imply that any one person would be given any particular planet. 

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, we may not like the question but a simple "yes" would do and then some additional context could be provided. But this seems to dance around the question without actually answering.

There was nothing wrong with that answer, and a Yes doesn't have to be a simple "Yes".  The answer is yes with some additional details. You don't seem to correctly understand what the words "All of us are children of God, and therefore all are brothers and sisters." mean.

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

1- "While there isn't a formal visitors center, there are multiple locations with plaques describing past and future events. AoA is its own mission which reports directly to Elder Christensen who reports to the First Presidency. It has been this way for many years. (Don't ask for a CFR because there isn't documentation I'm aware but I know many people who have served there)".

2- Oh, I do not demand CFRs like you and others do. Nor do preach the rules of the blog to others regarding this. But, you yourself told me directly that CFRs are here to maintain integrity of dialogue. That it's no big deal to retract a statement given as fact if no documentation can be provided to support that factual statement. Even in a situation where I could not find a book i own to source what I said regarding the mountain Meadow Massacre, you demanded a CFR or retract. It is the rules of this forum and while I will demand no CFR from you I would appreciate it if you lived by the same standards you demanded upon me. you can at least reveal who you know and have known that are part of that mission and even how to contact them.

3- That said, it is very strange, bizarre even, that an Adam-ondi-Ahman mission is set up by the LDS Church and yet there is no official record of it. And yes, there is land owned by the Church and yes great things are believed to happen there at a future date but it really is of no consequence to us. At all really. honestly,

4- if no Adam-ondi-ahman existed then how would your life be lesser off as per your membership in the Church?

5- "If the church has taught these things..." - When did *the Church* "teach" these things? leaders have and I do not recall the church disavowing their teachings, but "the Church" has not taught Adam-ondi-Ahman so far as I know. 

"When it is dishonest about its own history and teachings, it is not worthy of the trust of its members." - Well, when I asked you for a little trust you answered by asking me why should you. That trust is earned. There's merit to that but I do not think it's as rigged as you seem to think. 

1- As I state in the quote, there is no documentation that I'm aware of. My knowledge comes from personal experience and conversation and claim nothing else. I can't prove it. I've already admitted that.

2- If you haven't issued a CFR there isn't a need for me to provide a reference or withdrawal. Again, I don't think you understand how this works. However, I will change my statement to say "I believe through personal experience AoA is its own mission..." That wasn't hard at all. The difference that you don't grasp is in your example you stated absolute fact that you could prove, but then didn't prove. In my case I stated upfront that there wasn't any evidence so people could choose to believe me or not, without any documentation provided.

3- It's not a proselyting mission. Documentation about internal church workings are only available if the church makes them available (or they're leaked). I agree that it may be strange, however there are a multitude of full time senior missionaries called to serve at AoA and it is not part of the Missouri, Independence Mission (despite being within mission boundaries). If you doubt that you can call the mission office (816) 252-6050

4- If no Adam ondi-Ahman existed it would mean Joseph was full of crap. It would mean Adam didn't really bless his children in the valley. It would mean that there is no prophesy about the second coming that concerns a meeting at AoA where key holders will return their keys to Adam, who will then turn all keys to Jesus prior to his Millenial reign. That stuff is pretty important...isn't it?

5- Why do you keep asking this same question? I've provided a number of references already. If those don't suffice for you google it. Very simple. What is the difference between the "Church" teaching these things versus "Leaders" teaching these things. When church leaders teach from the pulpit about AoA and the Garden of Eden, then it is a church teaching. If it was a one off comment, we could dismiss it, however, as I've demonstrated, there are multiple leaders who spoke on multiple occasions about these things.

 

[MormonVideoGame]

To me heaven would be to have my own planet and many celestial wives. Seriously. 

[Ahab]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This answer seems downright dishonest. Can someone help me understand why church leaders, General Authorities, would claim not to know where the Garden of Eden was when it is stated in scripture?

What statement in scripture are you talking about??? Genesis describes it a little but doesn't say where that was. Adam-ondi-Ahman is where they lived after they were expelled from the garden of Eden.  That's not where the garden was, and I don't know of any that tells us where it was.

[cinepro]

54 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

As per your second link, yes, the LDS Church openly admits that Mormons believe Adam-ondi-Ahman is where Eden is. that fact has been cited already in this thread. "Mormon Doctrine", "Saturday Night Thoughts", "Evidences and Reconciliation"; Encyclopedia of Mormonism"; "Pearl of Great Price Commentary"; "Journal of Discourses" are NOT official LDS canon of doctrine. While it is perfectly appropriate to use them to corroborate what the LDS church officially teaches, they are not to be used to declare "what the Church teaches". If that's what HappyJack encountered then that would have been an erroneous approach to teach him. 

Now, as part of a Conference Report, namely, "October 1968" be Alvin R. Dyer is getting somewhere but even Conference talks are not canon. Lots of opinion go into them. 

I guess the best clue is how the Church recommends the question be answered.  Anytime someone says "strictly speaking", you can ignore what follows because they're going to be overly semantic in an effort to avoid saying the obvious and "general" truth.  

Quote

Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri? Strictly speaking, we do not know where the Garden of Eden was. Joseph Smith established a settlement called Adam-ondi-Ahman in Daviess County, Missouri. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Latter-day Saints believe that Adam and Eve dwelt in that area after being expelled from the Garden of Eden.

If a reporter or "opinion leader" asked the question and a Church representative gave that answer, it would be great if the reporter followed up by saying "So, generally speaking, yes?"

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, the answer is not Yes. Those who become joint-heirs with Christ don't get "their own" planets because everything they will get won't be "their own" but instead what they share in common with  Christ.  So to say Yes to that question would be to give a false answer, and future joint-heirs with Christ try to avoid giving false answers to questions.

Just curious. Is God a joint heir with another God? Or is he our supreme God?

If we are to become like him, would we be supreme Gods in our sphere or subservient gods to Him?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I guess the best clue is how the Church recommends the question be answered.  Anytime someone says "strictly speaking", you can ignore what follows because they're going to be overly semantic in an effort to avoid saying the obvious and "general" truth.  

If a reporter or "opinion leader" asked the question and a Church representative gave that answer, it would be great if the reporter followed up by saying "So, generally speaking, yes?"

We only know that they lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman after they were expelled from the garden of Eden. They may have walked a very long way before settling there. And that was before the one giant continent on Earth was broken up and divided, so the garden could have been anywhere on the Earth where there was some land back then.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just curious. Is God a joint heir with another God? Or is he our supreme God?

If we are to become like him, would we be supreme Gods in our sphere or subservient gods to Him?

There is only one true God with God defined as a particular kind of being, and all of us are that kind of being. 

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to become as perfect as our Father in heaven is.

[cinepro]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What statement in scripture are you talking about??? Genesis describes it a little but doesn't say where that was. Adam-ondi-Ahman is where they lived after they were expelled from the garden of Eden.  That's not where the garden was, and I don't know of any that tells us where it was.

So, strictly speaking, the scriptures teach us that Adam lived in what is now Missouri after he left the Garden, so the location of the actual Garden of Eden would be any location within a distance that Adam might have reasonably traveled between being expelled from the Garden and settling in Adam-Ondi-Ahman.

And assuming we ignore the reports of Abraham O. Smoot about Joseph claiming that that's where the Garden of Eden was and an "altar" they found was the altar used by Adam after getting kicked out of the garden...

Quote

Abraham O. Smoot, a member of the survey team for Adam-ondi-Ahman, is quoted as having said that Joseph Smith was not present when "Adam's Altar" was discovered: President Smoot said that he and Alanson Ripley, while surveying at the town [i.e., Adam-ondi-Ahman], which was about 22 miles from Jackson County, Missouri, came across a stone wall in the midst of a dense forest of underbrush. The wall was 30 feet long, 3 feet thick, and 4 feet high. It was laid in mortar or cement. When Joseph visited the place and examined the wall he said it was the remains of an altar built by Father Adam and upon which he offered sacrifices after he was driven from the Garden of Eden. He said that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri. The whole town of Adam-ondi-Ahman was in the midst of a thick and heavy forest of timber and the place was named in honor of Adam's altar. The Prophet explained that it was upon this altar where Adam blessed his sons and his posterity, prior to his death. (BYU Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4, p.565)
 

 

Obviously, some LDS are hesitant to own this idea because it smacks of being a tad silly to non-LDS (and apparently some LDS as well).

But can someone else explain to me why the idea of Adam and Eve and posterity living in ancient-Missouri after they left the Garden of Eden is any less silly than the idea that the Garden of Eden was nearby in the first place?

"Oh no, don't be silly.  Of course we don't believe the Garden of Eden was in ancient-Missouri.  While Joseph apparently might have made that claim, it never made it into our scriptures so we can pretend he didn't say it.  We do believe, of course, that the Garden was an actual, physical place that was somewhere, but we don't know exactly where.  

But we do know for sure that Adam and Eve were real people, and that after getting kicked out of the Garden they eventually lived in ancient-Missouri.  This is affirmed in our scriptures and cannot be doubted."

Yes, that's much less silly...we really dodged a bullet with that one.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by cinepro