The Garden Of Eden In North America

[maupayman]

Hey all, This thread is based on my understanding that Joseph Smith claimed the Garden of Eden was located near Missouri. I got thinking about this subject after watching a movie called: Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, which can be seen here:

:http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=journey+of+man&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&q=spencer%20wells&src=2

From the work of Spencer Wells and my understanding of archaeology, which is admittedly limited, it seems that the first humans in North America date back roughly 15,000 years ago. I have read that humans left Africa as long as 50,000 years ago, not to mention other human like species being present in Africa prior to that period. The evidence I have seen seems to indicate that humans arrived in the Americas much later than other regions of the world. I see two problems here:

1. If human life began in the Americas, as per Joseph Smith's teachings, why are the earliest evidences of human life not found here? Is there earlier evidence of human life that I am not aware of yet?

2. This evidence has implications against the timeline illustrated in the Bible, ie. human life did not begin roughly 6000 years ago.

What do you guys think, both faithful and sceptical alike?

Thanks all.

[soren]

Hey all, This thread is based on my understanding that Joseph Smith claimed the Garden of Eden was located near Missouri. I got thinking about this subject after watching a movie called: Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, which can be seen here:

:http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=journey+of+man&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&q=spencer%20wells&src=2

From the work of Spencer Wells and my understanding of archaeology, which is admittedly limited, it seems that the first humans in North America date back roughly 15,000 years ago. I have read that humans left Africa as long as 50,000 years ago, not to mention other human like species being present in Africa prior to that period. The evidence I have seen seems to indicate that humans arrived in the Americas much later than other regions of the world. I see two problems here:

1. If human life began in the Americas, as per Joseph Smith's teachings, why are the earliest evidences of human life not found here? Is there earlier evidence of human life that I am not aware of yet?

2. This evidence has implications against the timeline illustrated in the Bible, ie. human life did not begin roughly 6000 years ago.

What do you guys think, both faithful and sceptical alike?

Thanks all.

I've heard it claimed by LDS, although I know of no official documentation of this, that the human race was taken from the New World to the Old in Noah's Ark. If that is correct, the flood would have had to happen over 50,000 ago.

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

All the LDS I know consider that as JS personal opinion. Where ever the GoE was located it is not here now.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Well, there's several different views:

1. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. There was a global flood. The Earth was divided in the days of Peleg.

1. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. There was a local flood. The Earth was divided in the days of Peleg, Adam's posterity had already walked to that land mass before it was divided.

2. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. The earth was already divided by the time of the flood. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.

3. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were not the first of any species of man. There was evolution and most of it took place in the old world, but Adam and Eve were placed near Jackson County. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.

4. The Garden was not in Jackson County, but was in a different "existence" (some say on planet near Kolob, others that it was spiritual, and so on). In some way it corresponds to Jackson County, as Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where Adam called his posterity, is located there. Adam and Eve were/were not the first of any species of man. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.

5. Take any of the above, change global flood that carried Noah and family into the sea, eventually leading them to the Old World.

This is just a sampling of the ideas I've heard. Some sound plausible (if you believe in God). Others less so. Nonetheless, there's plenty of options that allow at least a kernel of historicity wrapped in layers of myth.

[maupayman]

maupayman:

All the LDS I know consider that as JS personal opinion. Where ever the GoE was located it is not here now.

I thought this might be a response to this issue. All the LDS you know? How many people have you ever discussed this subject with? I was raised in the church, in Canada, and heard it taught numerous times throughout my life. Is this another instance where the church does not have an official position?

[Billy]

Well, there's several different views:

1. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. There was a global flood. The Earth was divided in the days of Peleg.

1. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. There was a local flood. The Earth was divided in the days of Peleg, Adam's posterity had already walked to that land mass before it was divided.

2. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. The earth was already divided by the time of the flood. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.

3. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were not the first of any species of man. There was evolution and most of it took place in the old world, but Adam and Eve were placed near Jackson County. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.

4. The Garden was not in Jackson County, but was in a different "existence" (some say on planet near Kolob, others that it was spiritual, and so on). In some way it corresponds to Jackson County, as Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where Adam called his posterity, is located there. Adam and Eve were/were not the first of any species of man. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.

5. Take any of the above, change global flood that carried Noah and family into the sea, eventually leading them to the Old World.

This is just a sampling of the ideas I've heard. Some sound plausible (if you believe in God). Others less so. Nonetheless, there's plenty of options that allow at least a kernel of historicity wrapped in layers of myth.

What about the most obvious, that the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers?

Genesis 2

10Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.

11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.

14The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the (P)Euphrates.

15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

[maupayman]

Well, there's several different views:1. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. There was a global flood. The Earth was divided in the days of Peleg. 1. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. There was a local flood. The Earth was divided in the days of Peleg, Adam's posterity had already walked to that land mass before it was divided. 2. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were the first of any species of man. No evolution. The earth was already divided by the time of the flood. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.3. The Garden was in Jackson County. Adam and Eve were not the first of any species of man. There was evolution and most of it took place in the old world, but Adam and Eve were placed near Jackson County. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.4. The Garden was not in Jackson County, but was in a different "existence" (some say on planet near Kolob, others that it was spiritual, and so on). In some way it corresponds to Jackson County, as Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where Adam called his posterity, is located there. Adam and Eve were/were not the first of any species of man. There was a global flood. It carried Noah and family to the Old Word.5. Take any of the above, change global flood that carried Noah and family into the sea, eventually leading them to the Old World. This is just a sampling of the ideas I've heard. Some sound plausible (if you believe in God). Others less so. Nonetheless, there's plenty of options that allow at least a kernel of historicity wrapped in layers of myth.

Fair enough, what is your opinion on where life originated, or the location of the Garden of Eden, if indeed you believe the Garden was an actual location.

What about the most obvious, that the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers?Genesis 210Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. 11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. 14The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the (P)Euphrates. 15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

This is an interesting point, where did Joseph say that Eden was in North America? Does anyone know the specific references this comes from?

[BCSpace]

1. If human life began in the Americas, as per Joseph Smith's teachings, why are the earliest evidences of human life not found here? Is there earlier evidence of human life that I am not aware of yet?

If evolution can exist prior to Adam being placed in ths Garden (a non contradictory concept), then perhaps there are homo sapiens roaming around in times and places stated by science whose spirits are not the literal spirit children of God. Pre Adamites so to speak.

2. This evidence has implications against the timeline illustrated in the Bible, ie. human life did not begin roughly 6000 years ago.

Human evolution seems to solve this problem.

What do you guys think, both faithful and sceptical alike?

I personally am not so sure about this doctrine. It sems to be based on a couple of verses that don't actually place the Garden anywhere at all but they do place Adam in North America where he lived after the Fall and where he shall appear in the last days.......

Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of the Garden of Eden. It adds the important information that the garden was located on what is now the North American continent (D&C 116; 117: 8).

Guide to the Scriptures - Eden

So my question is there any doctrinal (published by the Church) evidence other than that based on these two verses?

[Billy]

Hey all, This thread is based on my understanding that Joseph Smith claimed the Garden of Eden was located near Missouri. I got thinking about this subject after watching a movie called: Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, which can be seen here:

Actually I started a thread on this same topic back in Feb 08 which got a lot of interesting responses.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208373012

[e=mc2]

I actually discussed this in a FARMS Review article a few years back. Ready for the shameless plug?

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=342

[BCSpace]

I actually discussed this in a FARMS Review article a few years back. Ready for the shameless plug?

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=342

........

Nibley explains Herrmann's position further:

The largest surviving pieces of this lost Book of Abraham are to be found in the Book of Jubilees, according to Herrmann, which, interestingly enough, is of all questioned Apocrypha the one most thoroughly vindicated by the finding of the Scrolls, which show Jubilees to be not a medieval but a genuinely ancient document. According to this source, the entire human race was living in the Land of Eden (not the Garden of Eden, but the land where it had been) when they were overwhelmed by water. This cannot have taken place in Mesopotamia or Egypt, Herrmann observes, since both those lands are described in the sources as being uninhabited in Noah's day, and Kraeling has noted that according to other sources the people in the ark did not have the vaguest idea where they were after the flood, but being in strange surroundings had to learn of their location by revelation. So Herrmann seeks the Land of Eden in Abyssinia, South Arabia, and the headwaters of the Nileâ??all dubious locales and all far from the conventional Babylonian sites. It is a quest that would have struck the dogmatic scholars of past years with amazement: they knew where the Garden of Eden was.6

Fodder for a local Flood argument?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Fair enough, what is your opinion on where life originated, or the location of the Garden of Eden, if indeed you believe the Garden was an actual location.

I'm somewhere wavering between two viewpoints. One is that the garden was metaphysical in nature, ie, somewhere else/somehow else. In the meantime, the earth was evolving and preparing. The second one, to which I am more partial, is that as the earth evolved, so did primordial man. When man was prepared for greater knowledge, some (Adam and Eve) were placed into the garden. Both of these involve evolution, both take care of previous civs. Regarding how they got to the old world, I think the flood was localized. I see little problem, considering the vast amounts of time Noah was on the water, that being on the Mississippi there was a large flood that carried him and his family out to sea and eventually over to the groups of men out in the ANE. While some may scoff at this, I certainly find it more plausible than a global flood covering even the highest mountaintop, followed by a massive sudden dividing of the continents a few generations later that somehow failed to destroy the earth and everything on it in one violent motion. Someone being caught up in a local flood and swept out to sea... it happens even today.

The third option that I take sometimes is that it's all symbolic. God and sometimes man gave us these to teach us valuable lessons regarding salvation (think allegories).

Regarding it being where the Bible says: Please tell me where Pishon and Gihon are. Please also explain how the Tigris and Euphrates "flow from" one area along with the other two rivers. The head waters are in different areas. Also, the names are certainly not ancient. Ponder that if there was a global flood, those same rivers would not exist afterwords. Additionally, if you pick any of those areas, you have to throw out the large amount of archaeological sites showing that civilizations already had towns throughout the area. Was the garden a tiny cordoned off area?

I think either location faces challenges, hence I sometimes assume that it is, to at least a small degree, allegorical or metaphysical.

[Billy]

I actually discussed this in a FARMS Review article a few years back. Ready for the shameless plug?

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=342

Farms article

"Since the historically well known names of Euphrates, Assyria, and Ethiopia do not fit into the use of them in the Garden of Eden story, it is more than probable that they are ancient names variously applied in later times. Clearly, these rivers and countries belong to early ages of the world's history, and do not apply to present-day terminology." End of Farms article quote

So you feel that all the common names existed together as unit namely, Cush, Tigris, Assyria. and Euphrates, not in it's current location in the Middle East but as a unit in Missouri? And that all of these names were lost from the land of Missouri and the names were assembled together in the Middle East as we have them today? Doesn't seem like a stretch to you?

I am going to quote part of my post from Feb 2008 and Bill Hamblin's response from the same thread because I feel that it is relavant here.

Billy writes,

Genesis 2:10-14 gives us the following names

1. Tigris

2. Euphrates

3. Assyria

4. Ethiopia

Moses was the one who was the inspired author of the Torah

When in history did the names listed 1-4 first become known. Assyria was known prior to Moses, but what about the other 3 listed names? My real question is did these names all exist prior to Moses' time, during, or after?

If you believe that Moses in a prophet of God and that he is inspired, why would God have Moses list these names and have them placed in Genesis if as an all knowing God he knew down the road it would confuse it's readers? Why list any names at all, or just write in something like a land far away?"

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208374224

Bill Hamblin responds,

"I believe all of those place names antedate Moses."

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208374228

[Obiwan]

Hey all, This thread is based on my understanding that Joseph Smith claimed the Garden of Eden was located near Missouri. I got thinking about this subject after watching a movie called: Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, which can be seen here:

:http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=journey+of+man&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&q=spencer%20wells&src=2

From the work of Spencer Wells and my understanding of archaeology, which is admittedly limited, it seems that the first humans in North America date back roughly 15,000 years ago. I have read that humans left Africa as long as 50,000 years ago, not to mention other human like species being present in Africa prior to that period. The evidence I have seen seems to indicate that humans arrived in the Americas much later than other regions of the world. I see two problems here:

You need to think "further"..... Did you ever consider that humans my have migrated to Africa before they left Africa?

Another possibility, did you ever think that humans may have existed "prior" to Adam and Eve?

In conclusion, where there is missing evidence it's best not to make a judgement at all, but to understand and know existing reasonable possibility's such as I just mentioned.

[e=mc2]

........

Fodder for a local Flood argument?

Oooooooooo! Interesting thought bcspace........

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

My unfinished personal notes on the American Eden

World History of Eden

The Book of Genesisâ?? creation story describes the existence of a garden where the first man and woman lived after they were created, the Garden of Eden. The traditional geographical location of Eden is figured from Genesisâ?? by the mention of the four major rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, Euphrates), as well as a number of named regions (Havilah, Cush, Asshur or Assyria) (Genesis 2:10-14). This seems to suggest a setting in the ancient near east, specifically somewhere in or near Mesopotamia, as that is near the [modernly] known â??Tigrisâ? and â??Euphratesâ? Rivers, which these rivers were said to have watered the garden. However, applying these modern so-called four great rivers today fails to locate Eden, and has caused so much controversy that now the consensus is that the knowledge of the location of Eden has been lost. Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was". Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin."

There are no other indications of its location beyond the record found in Genesis and other early Judaeo-Christian literature, such as the Book of Jubilees. Hugh Nibley, explaining A. Herrmann's position (one of those scholars looking for Eden);

â??Jubilees, according to Herrmann, which, interestingly enough, is of all questioned Apocrypha the one most thoroughly vindicated by the finding of the Scrolls, which show Jubilees to be not a medieval but a genuinely ancient document. According to this source, the entire human race was living in the Land of Eden (not the Garden of Eden, but the land where it had been) when they were overwhelmed by water. This cannot have taken place in Mesopotamia or Egypt, Herrmann observes, since both those lands are described in the sources as being uninhabited in Noah's day, and Kraeling has noted that according to other sources the people in the ark did not have the vaguest idea where they were after the flood, but being in strange surroundings had to learn of their location by revelation. So Herrmann seeks the Land of Eden in Abyssinia, South Arabia, and the headwaters of the Nile, all dubious locales and all far from the conventional Babylonian sites. It is a quest that would have struck the dogmatic scholars of past years with amazement: they knew where the Garden of Eden was.â?

If those texts are to be ignored for one reason or another, there are actually a great number of claims as to the actual geographic location of the Garden of Eden, though none of these have much connection to the text of Genesis. Most put the Garden somewhere in the Middle East. Aside from other attempts to tie this with the mystical sunken land of Atlantis, others point out that the world of Eden's time was destroyed during Noah's Flood and it is therefore impossible to place the Garden anywhere in post-flood geography. In this case the current Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not the ones referred to in the narrative, but later rivers named after two of the earlier rivers, just as in more modern times, colonists would name features of their new land after similar features in their homeland. This idea also resolves the apparent problem that the Bible describes the rivers as having a common source, which the current rivers do not.

History of Eden in Missouri

If you have noticed in the media, the â??noteworthyâ? details about Mormonism, one of their more frequent gyres is the prominent early Mormon belief about the location of the Garden of Eden. They use it as an example of how Mormons and (other) â??Christiansâ? (particularly Evangelicals) have dissimilar beliefs. â??The Garden of Eden was in Missouriâ? is the buzz. Of course, they know there is going to be active objections to that, as most Judeo-Christian theology places the Garden (obviously) by the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (which flows Turkey, Syria, and Iraq). (Many opponents of the idea seem to be the same people who find it ludicrous to believe literally in Adam, Eve, and the Garden in the first place, let alone where they were located.)

Remember ye fellow Christians out there, you need to know that Latter-day Saints know and understand classic biblical ideas, and are well aware that the Latter-day Saints have seemingly nontraditional positions on many of the same topics. However, the traditional location cannot be considered any more, or less, biblical than any other. Our critics seem to be able to strangle themselves with the same rope they intend to use on the Latter-day Saints. As far as trying to use odd notions to beat Mormons away from Christianity, surely there are more important elements to the Eden story which we would mostly agree with, other than its location (Adam and Eve, the serpent, the cherubim with the flaming sword, the fall of Adam and need for a Messiah, etc.), and Latter-day Saints share these basics beliefs with other Christians. While being â??untraditionalâ?, weâ??re not being unbiblical. The book of Genesis is not being rejected by this view, mainly because it does not give any explanation of where Eden would be on today's map.

Genesis 2:10-14 describes the rivers and lands by Eden, and despite the apparently specific descriptions given, the clues have not led to the location of the Garden of Eden. Scholars have not been able to identify any of the four rivers with certainty. None of the rivers mentioned fits into the lands now known. Since the historically well-known names of Euphrates, Assyria, and Ethiopia do not fit into the use of them in the Garden of Eden story, it is more than probable that they are ancient names variously applied in later times. Clearly, these rivers and countries belong to early ages of the world's history, and do not apply to present-day terminology.

I will only say, any who seek the Land of Eden in the conventional areas will discover, as have all other biblical scholars who feel reasonably sure, that the Garden of Eden is not by the modern Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

As always, the context of this whole issue is critical understanding it, the media and Anti-Mormons donâ??t really provide context to anybody.

What Joseph Smith first taught was that of Adam-ondhi-Ahman; prior to his death, Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a â??Valleyâ? that was designated as â??Adam-ondhi-Ahman.â? Quoting Joseph:

â??Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessingâ?¦ And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever. And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.â? (D&C 107:53)

Later, Joseph Smith said that the event spoken of by Prophet Daniel would occur in Missouri in an area that was that was, also, dubbed â??Adam-ondi-Ahmanâ? also.

Danielâ??s words first:

â??I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.â? (Daniel 7:9-10)

Joseph Smith says that when Daniel mentions the Ancient of Days coming to sit, that he is referring to the oldest man, Adam, when he returns just before the pre-millennial reign of Christ. He said that he would specifically be at â??Spring Hillâ?, which was at that moment renamed by the Lord â??Adam-ondi-Ahmanâ?.

â??Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.â? (D&C, 116:1)

Subsequent leaders have explained that at Spring Hill, he will call his modern posterity together (a scene like D&C 107:53) and preside over a council to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. All that have priesthood keys must stand before him in this grand council. The Son of Man will stand before him as Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

But the previous reference of Adam's mortal presence at a place that was also called Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same, and so they assume that Garden of Eden must likewise be somewhere near by.

However, it must be noted that the claim to the location of the Garden of Eden is not an official doctrine of the church, such a claim has not been canonized, therefore members not bound to believe it. Most of the early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in Latter-day Saint lore was said or thought to have come via Brigham Young, who often made reference to Joseph Smith having said it, and it was a common belief among 19th century members. It seems likely Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' perceived this to be what Joseph had told them). We have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Though it is consistent with Latter-day Saint lore, and those commenting on it being so were Joseph's associates.

Many today consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all. Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the supposed location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about, sayâ?¦ the divinity Jesus Christ, His atoning sacrifice and what we need to do to be saved. The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. Itâ??s a mistake to take a rather obscure teaching, and try to place it at the very center of our teachings, as our critics have done.

Being far from being the official doctrine of the church. It has however been generally presumed my members of the church that "Spring Hill," Missouri is the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107) and the pre-millennial visit (D&C 116). All which is certainly possible, as I explained, there is minimal scriptural or scientific support for any one theory.

Even among Latter-day Saint, there is in fact a variety of lore for this issue. These solutions a divided depend on the various ways one has dealt with other seemingly conflicting scientific issues such as the Age of the Earth, Death before the Fall, Evolution, Pre-Adamites, the nature of Noah's Flood, the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, etc. All subjects that Iâ??m not going to address on this paper, I respect other peopleâ??s views, no matter how extraordinary they seem.

Pangaea

Some 19th-century LDS have conceptualized the earth as having only one landmass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) in terms of plate tectonics and geographic migrations.

A more modern but similar theory is proposed by evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from which some have postulated travel.

The Noachian Flood

Some say when the great deep was broken up, and it rained forty days Noah had traveled for a year, a considerable distance from anywhere near the lands by Eden, unless you think Noah spent a year floating in a single spot. So, some believe Noah traveled from the somewhere in the Americas and then arrived at Ararat, which he re-named the rivers and country similar to the names of rivers he was familiar with, which is why the Eden can not be found by following the modern Tigris and Euphrates rivers, of which were the rivers that supposedly watered Eden.

Those who are more scientific accept a "limited flood" theory, but also see a similar process occurring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from seacoasts with the flood's arrival, and out into the ocean.

The Promised Land Mentality

Some have seen the concept of an Eden as a symbol, and the concept of an American Eden was to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, not a reference to actual geographic realities. Also, that the early members simply accepted this concept more literal than intended.

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions that viewed the Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as being at the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an axis mundi or umbilicum mundiâ??the "navel" of the world). The Bible seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

â??And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.â? (Gen. 2:10-14)

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

Jean Delumeauâ??s History of Paradise stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it. And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

"[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'"

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. Also in Ez. 28:13 says â??You were in Eden, the garden of God,â? and then parallels that in the next verse with â??you were on the holy mountain of God,â? generally understood as the temple mount.

There is important point about symbolism here. If the Jewish tradition could just â??assignâ? the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters â?? Jerusalem - it wouldnâ??t be surprising for there to be a Mormon tradition that had assigned the location of the Garden where according to prophecy will be the church headquarters some time in the future (Jackson County, Missouri).

As Eden has started to become thought of in a metaphorical sense. Joseph wouldnâ??t be the first to have called America metaphorically an Eden, a paradisiacal promised land. To many early Americans in their new religious liberation saw their country as a metaphorically or metaphysically a Promised Land provided to them by God, Paradise like an Eden.

A â??Kolobianâ? Eden

Some see Eden as a place that was always "separate" from the earth, and so they regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical. For an example; Enochâ??s City of Zion is a place not on Earth presently, there is no â??locationâ?.

The book of Abraham makes a unique statement on the Fall in reference to time in the following verse: â??But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lordâ??s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoningâ? (Abr. 5:13).

Abraham said that Adam was subject to the â??Lordâ??s timeâ? after â??Kolobâ??s timeâ? (Kolob being a star said to be â??nearest to the throne of Godâ?) before Adam â??fellâ? or was removed from the presence of God. Take that all very literally and many seem to conclude that Adam while in Eden was not on Earth, but literally the presence and physical location of God, supposedly near Kolob, a star near â??the throne of Godâ?.

Now, apart from deriving such a concept from just the Book of Abraham, this view rather aligns well with many Christian theologians that believe that the Garden never had a terrestrial existence, but was instead an adjunct to heaven as it became identified with â??Paradiseâ?.

Two Adam-ondi-Ahmans

Some say there are two Adam-ondi-Ahmans, that the American Adam-ondi-Ahman is so named because of a future event, simply because it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people. That it was named because itâ??s analogous to the site of a "Jerusalem" (rather â??Zionâ? the â??New Jerusalemâ?, not literally Jerusalem) that is to be built on the American continent. And so, thatâ??s not to say Adam didnâ??t live in the Middle East, only that the Adam-ondi-Ahman name is being given to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory.

This reading might explain why D&C 116 bothers to give an explanation as to why the Lord is giving that name to the site. If the site were simply the place that was already once called Adam-ondi-Ahman, perhaps there would be little need for the Lord to seem like heâ??s re-naming the place. This does not mean the "Adam-ondi-Ahman" site is the same as Adamâ??s Adam-ondi-Ahman, or that the old Adam-ondi-Ahman has ceased to exist, and should still be considered to be somewhere in the Middle East after all.

[Thinking]

...the human race was taken from the New World to the Old...

Wouldn't that make the New World really the Old, and the Old World really the New?

[maupayman]

If evolution can exist prior to Adam being placed in ths Garden (a non contradictory concept), then perhaps there are homo sapiens roaming around in times and places stated by science whose spirits are not the literal spirit children of God. Pre Adamites so to speak.

Human evolution seems to solve this problem.

I personally am not so sure about this doctrine. It sems to be based on a couple of verses that don't actually place the Garden anywhere at all but they do place Adam in North America where he lived after the Fall and where he shall appear in the last days.......

So my question is there any doctrinal (published by the Church) evidence other than that based on these two verses?

Thanks BC, I suppose many things are possible. It seems, from a quick google, that there are contemporary accounts indicating that Joseph elaborated on the location of the location of Eden. I don't see anyone getting a different take on the matter from Joseph.

[maupayman]

You need to think "further"..... Did you ever consider that humans my have migrated to Africa before they left Africa?

Another possibility, did you ever think that humans may have existed "prior" to Adam and Eve?

So, are you suggesting that the first humans, located in North America, left the Americas and migrated to Africa and then other eventually made their way back again? If so, why did the first group leave no remains from the entire period of time before they left?

Of course I have thought that there were people before Adam and Eve, my point is that Smith's placement of Adam and Eve in America before the flood means that their would have been significant populations in that region before there were groups in Africa and other regions. The current evidence seems to show the exact opposite. The Americas seem to be the last place populated by humans.

In conclusion, where there is missing evidence it's best not to make a judgement at all, but to understand and know existing reasonable possibility's such as I just mentioned

Would you agree that based on current evidence, Smith's location for the first humans (with spirits from our God i guess) seems highly unlikely?

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

I of course can only speak to my experience. But I've been in Branches and Wards from Utah to California to New Mexico, it does seem to be a recurring idea.

[kamenraider]

It's pretty clear to me that Joseph Smith taught that the Garden of Eden was in Independence, Missouri, that Noah built the ark in South Carolina after being mobbed and driven four times, and that the City of Enoch was located where the Gulf of Mexico now is. What's wrong with that? Why do so many people have a problem with that? Isn't it kind of a no-brainer that there must've been pre-adamites anyway?

The dilemma that this poses though is that either Adam was not the first man, or older humans around the globe were considered to be something less than men. I believe though, that however that may be, Adam "hath made of one blood all nations of men".

[Whiskeypete]

What about the most obvious, that the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers?

Genesis 2

10Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.

11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.

14The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the (P)Euphrates.

15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

Interesting Bolding. Of course you could have done it like this:

Genesis 2

10Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.

11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.

14The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the (P)Euphrates.

15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

Using your logic above, I can also state that since there is not a single head of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Middle East that splits into four river; there isn't a river Pishon in the Middle East, nor a river Gihon. Its "most obvious" that Moses was trying to tell us that the garden wasn't in the Middle East.

[Billy]

Using your logic above, I can also state that since there is not a single head of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Middle East that splits into four river; there isn't a river Pishon in the Middle East, nor a river Gihon. Its "most obvious" that Moses was trying to tell us that the garden wasn't in the Middle East.

Using your logic you would have to say that the

1. Tigris

2. Euphrates

3. Assyria

4. Ethiopia

All existed in Missouri at some point in the distant past and then all names were lost without a trace, then all renamed in the area of the current location. Is there any non LDS in the world who subscribes to this idea?

[Whiskeypete]

Using your logic you would have to say that the

1. Tigris

2. Euphrates

3. Assyria

4. Ethiopia

All existed in Missouri at some point in the distant past and then all names were lost without a trace, then all renamed in the area of the current location. Is there any non LDS in the world who subscribes to this idea?

What I am pointing out is that your leap, that because two of the rivers listed were named the same as two current rivers in the middle east, the Garden of Eden "obviously" MUST have been there as well, is logically unsound.

It might be true, it might not. My illustration was to show that the landscape and geographic identities have changed since the time of the Garden of Eden.

If Joseph Smith stated that the Garden of Eden was located in what is now Missouri, and if Noah took a very long boat ride over a thousand years later, there isn't any reason for a believing Latter-day Saint not to accept what the prophet said at face value.

[Billy]

What I am pointing out is that your leap, that because two of the rivers listed were named the same as two current rivers in the middle east, the Garden of Eden "obviously" MUST have been there as well, is logically unsound.

It might be true, it might not. My illustration was to show that the landscape and geographic identities have changed since the time of the Garden of Eden.

If Joseph Smith stated that the Garden of Eden was located in what is now Missouri, and if Noah took a very long boat ride over a thousand years later, there isn't any reason for a believing Latter-day Saint not to accept what the prophet said at face value.

What is more "logically unsound", that these locations existed all together as a group in one location, then all disappeared completely off of the face of the earth without a trace, and then all appeared together again as one group in a completely different location?