The Garden Of Eden And Missouri

[mapman]

I think that Adam and Eve were real historical individuals and that they lived in the Americas. I don't think that Genesis is a very good account of the Garden of Eden (it takes place in the area that the Jews were familiar with and it portrays the fall doctrinally incorrect). The Book of Moses is a lot better. There are large sections that are added in and I'd guess that they are probably fairly historically accurate, but the sections which are just revisions of Genesis chapters are not necessarily historically accurate but doctrinally accurate. I don't think that the Garden of Eden was ever entirely part of the world, and I have a hunch that it went wherever the city of Enoch went. This is my current view anyways, but it is liable to change at any time.

[Nofear]

I think that Adam and Eve were real historical individuals and that they lived in the Americas. I don't think that Genesis is a very good account of the Garden of Eden (it takes place in the area that the Jews were familiar with and it portrays the fall doctrinally incorrect). The Book of Moses is a lot better. There are large sections that are added in and I'd guess that they are probably fairly historically accurate, but the sections which are just revisions of Genesis chapters are not necessarily historically accurate but doctrinally accurate. I don't think that the Garden of Eden was ever entirely part of the world, and I have a hunch that it went wherever the city of Enoch went. This is my current view anyways, but it is liable to change at any time.

I tend to agree about the Garden of Eden being, at least partly, other worldly (not sure about the City of Enoch though). One of the doctrines that heavily influences how I interpret the Genesis account is the doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds. While these inhabited worlds share in common beings with a human shape there are animal forms that are not shared among them all (see D&C 77) but also animal forms that are probably partially common. I'm inclined to believe that God embraces this plurality of life among the various planets but that God also has no intention of re-inventing the wheel, as it were, for each planet. Given the intense integration of biology for each life form with its specific planet's ecology and biosphere the question is how can the desired life-forms (cat for example as well as humans) from a different planet be efficiently integrated with a newly created and evolved world? Well, one way to do this would to put the new lifeforms in a "safezone" that is essentially otherworldly -- compatible with the ecology of their former worlds but perhaps carefully intermingled with the new world. With time the forms adjust until such time as the forms/bodies are ready* to make the total biological transformation readying them for the new planet.

Anyway, for what little it's worth, that is the highly speculative narrative that informs some of my interpretation of the scriptural accounts of the Garden of Eden and the Fall.

* In addition to the physiological transformation Adam and Eve would also needed instruction about the new world (in addition to whatever spiritual instruction they got). Things such as what foods were good to eat, what plants to sow, etc. etc. It is my interpretation that the Adversary sought to really mess things up by prematurely introducing our First Parents to the Fall before they were fully instructed and ready to face the harsh realities of an untamed and new world.

PS: For the record, I'm perfectly fine with the Garden of Eden having been in Missouri.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think that Adam and Eve were real historical individuals and that they lived in the Americas. I don't think that Genesis is a very good account of the Garden of Eden (it takes place in the area that the Jews were familiar with and it portrays the fall doctrinally incorrect). The Book of Moses is a lot better. There are large sections that are added in and I'd guess that they are probably fairly historically accurate, but the sections which are just revisions of Genesis chapters are not necessarily historically accurate but doctrinally accurate. I don't think that the Garden of Eden was ever entirely part of the world, and I have a hunch that it went wherever the city of Enoch went. This is my current view anyways, but it is liable to change at any time.

You may enjoy a book called "Return of the Ancients" by F. Edward Butterworth...

[WalkerW]

Walker, isn't this what we are supposed to do... to believe in things we cannot see?

How is believing in this garden any different?

Worried Wishes,

TAO

One can believe in a historical garden. I just see an enormous amount of evidence against the common view. I cannot figure out how to reconcile a historical garden on the American continent from which the human race sprang with modern findings. A more accurate description of my position when it comes to a literal Garden of Eden is fairly agnostic. There is much we don't know about the past. But I also find it to be pretty irrelevant to understanding the text itself. The creation story itself is a temple text, thus I read it as such. The possible kernels of historical validity found throughout it are really beside the point.

[David T]

Walker, isn't this what we are supposed to do... to believe in things we cannot see?

How is believing in this garden any different?

Worried Wishes,

TAO

No, we are to strive to believe in things we cannot see which are true. Believing in all things we cannot see blindly is an absurdity, hence the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

We are to use reason, pondering, and seeking of spiritual confirmation to develop and determine objects of our faith.

[Franktalk]

I have faith in supernatural events so the world then becomes clay for the potter. So in the beginning there was a garden located somewhere. Then as the potter moved the continents and flooded the world that world was gone and another was made by the potter. I don't know where the original dirt of Eden is located. To be honest I don't care.

The world is only being held in stasis now waiting for the end by fire. But being held in stasis it looks like natural processes are slow and if we project them backward we have problems with scripture. But let us not jump to those conclusions. It is Peter who warned us not to do so.

2 Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

He tells us the world before the flood perished. I don't know exactly what that is but I suspect everything was mixed up. And things continued to change. Read the Book of Job to see just how much. Then by the time of Peter the world was being held in store. This is what geologist call uniformitarianism. Peter is a prophet of God and we should listen to him. Do you wish to follow the path of supernatural events or do you cast off supernatural events and instead follow nature. Just under 2000 years ago Peter could already see how people were making their choices.

Now many will not follow Peter's advice and warning. If you truly need to see for yourself like Thomas then I can lead you through the erosion of the Mississippi river drainage system and show that America is young. But many who love the ideas of man will still keep a foot in the science theory camp. That is fine. How one thinks about geology is not important. It is only important how one thinks about Christ.

[TAO]

One can believe in a historical garden. I just see an enormous amount of evidence against the common view. I cannot figure out how to reconcile a historical garden on the American continent from which the human race sprang with modern findings. A more accurate description of my position when it comes to a literal Garden of Eden is fairly agnostic. There is much we don't know about the past. But I also find it to be pretty irrelevant to understanding the text itself. The creation story itself is a temple text, thus I read it as such. The possible kernels of historical validity found throughout it are really beside the point.

My friend, if God wanted to create a world that looked as if it was billions of years old, could he do it? Yes, I don't doubt it.

I don't know to what degree the Garden of Eden happened, but I certainly believe it isn't totally metaphorical; I believe it was here upon the Earth, at some time. We focus too much on the little technicalities, I think, when it is the big picture, that matters.

In other words, so what if it disagrees with the scientific view of things; so does moving mountains, as the Brother of Jared did. But it happened. Do we have faith to believe the Garden of Eden happened - even in an obscure way? That is what I am asking - I am not trying to attack your view, but I am asking, why you draw the line at the Garden of Eden.

I agree though, the history doesn't really matter all that much.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

No, we are to strive to believe in things we cannot see which are true. Believing in all things we cannot see blindly is an absurdity, hence the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

We are to use reason, pondering, and seeking of spiritual confirmation to develop and determine objects of our faith.

True.

But I am asking him why he is putting faith in history and science, which continue to change over the years. You know... like the dates of Horses and Elephants in the Americas... Zakuska's specialty.

I trust science less and less, because I am finding that what seems to be is often not, after many years. Science is a useful tool, but it is trusted too much, imo.

No offense intended, please =P.

Thanks.

TAO