Eden In Missouri?

[Cobalt-70]

from Dictionary .com

Truth:  noun, plural truths

1.the true or actual state of a matter

That's basically what I said in #1: Truth is by definition that which is true.... If something is a true or actual state of a matter, then it is truth. And what is that "something"? A sentence, according to #2.

[canard78]

What are your thoughts? The story is, that Joseph Smith and others went exploring the area shortly after arriving in Missouri and came upon an altar (pile of rocks) that Joseph said was the one Adam and Eve used and he renamed an area nearby, called Spring Hill, Adam-ondi-Ahman. And this is where Adam & Eve, as mortals, started their family.

My feeling is that Joseph may have made it up to excite and keep the people interested in this new religion or he felt that he was inspired to say this.

I read the apologist side on Fairmormon.com and they don't deny that Joseph did this. It just seems incomprehensible to me that it could be true. Of course some believing LDS don't even believe in the Garden of Eden and believe it to be an allegory. So this to them is probably a non issue.

I have to say I empathise with you on this one. The notion that a pile of rocks in a field somewhere is the very altar that Adam sacrificed on when leaving the garden seems implausible and slightly comical. Are we supposed to believe that a pile of rocks survived the flood, was never displaced by passing tribes or farmers etc? In a favourable light it could be considered in the same speculative realms as a lot of the King Follett discourse... or in a less favourable one is a way of gaining attention. It reminds me of the Zelph incident.

It seems odd that he could pinpoint the location for the first sacrifice but never conclusively gave a location for the setting for the Book of Mormon.

Given he sometimes spoke 'undoctrinally' and the 'pile of rocks' statement has never been canonised, I'm more comfortable putting it in the faith promoting speculation category. The alternatives are uncomfortable.

[mfbukowski]

That's basically what I said in #1: Truth is by definition that which is true.... If something is a true or actual state of a matter, then it is truth. And what is that "something"? A sentence, according to #2.

And how is a sentence then "an actual state of a matter"? I think you have a little problem there. Sentences are not "states of a matter", actual or otherwise.

[Rob Osborn]

I have to say I empathise with you on this one. The notion that a pile of rocks in a field somewhere is the very altar that Adam sacrificed on when leaving the garden seems implausible and slightly comical. Are we supposed to believe that a pile of rocks survived the flood, was never displaced by passing tribes or farmers etc? In a favourable light it could be considered in the same speculative realms as a lot of the King Follett discourse... or in a less favourable one is a way of gaining attention. It reminds me of the Zelph incident.

It seems odd that he could pinpoint the location for the first sacrifice but never conclusively gave a location for the setting for the Book of Mormon.

Given he sometimes spoke 'undoctrinally' and the 'pile of rocks' statement has never been canonised, I'm more comfortable putting it in the faith promoting speculation category. The alternatives are uncomfortable.

The scriptures state that the world that then was (pre-flood) was destroyed as a result of the flood. How could an entire valley, alter, etc be thus preserved? It was also reported that JS stated that Quakers lived on the moon.

[canard78]

The scriptures state that the world that then was (pre-flood) was destroyed as a result of the flood. How could an entire valley, alter, etc be thus preserved? It was also reported that JS stated that Quakers lived on the moon.

Exactly Rob - it's an odd quote, but the location of Eden and Adam's altar seems accepted given it has been re-quoted by GA's and official publications.

Don't get me started on the flood... the fact that we're expected to take that as a factual account makes me uncomfortable. I've just spent a week in Borneo. There are enough animal species on that island alone to fill the ark several times over. And are we supposed to believe Noah did a quick detour past Australia to drop off their oddities on the way to the middle east.

Given the teachings we find in the temple are symbolic (or a parable), I tend to read most of Genesis as a parable too. That doesn't diminish the lessons found in the stories - in fact it gives them greater personal significance. I know a lot of leaders in the church teaches them as fact - that's fine with me too.

[Tacenda]

Any more of this talk and I might turn athiest. Not really but it is like I need to change a whole lifetime of my pattern of thought when I hear that it isn't really possible for a flood or even a GoE. And I taught the Noah's Ark story along with the rainbow story with the thought that it was true to primary children. I guess I have to grow up now. There's no Santa Clause too.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

That's called 'Eternal Progression'! Not being stuck in a stagnant rut is the best thing about Mormonism; we believe God will yet reveal many great things, which implies that we don't know much at the present moment and therefore we'll have to keep adjusting our paradigm to deeper and deeper understanding.

After all:

These commandments are of [God], and were given unto [God's] servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little ...

You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, to be Kings and Priests to God, the same as all Gods have done: by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation. We do the things we saw our Father [and Mother] do when worlds came rolling into existence. We saw our Father work out His Kingdom with fear and trembling, and we must do the same. Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; thus you learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.

When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world, though all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement. God saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself, that they might have one glory upon another and all knowledge. Knowledge saves a man, and in the world of spirits a man cannot be exalted except by knowledge.

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. [We] should hasten to translate [the] scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen.

It is not wisdom that we should have all knowledge at once presented before us; but that we should have a little at a time; then we can comprehend it. Even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them. Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails.

The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.

[Joseph Smith said he] always had the satisfaction of seeing the truth triumph over error, and darkness give way before light. Knowledge is revelation. Hear, all ye brethren, this grand key: knowledge is the power of God unto salvation. A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge.

The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity.

Edited October 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[canard78]

Any more of this talk and I might turn athiest. Not really but it is like I need to change a whole lifetime of my pattern of thought when I hear that it isn't really possible for a flood or even a GoE. And I taught the Noah's Ark story along with the rainbow story with the thought that it was true to primary children. I guess I have to grow up now. There's no Santa Clause too.

I've no real doctrinal source for any official statement that the flood and GoE are non-factual and instead allegorical. I just can't accept them as fact.

However, and I realise this makes me sound like a contradiction, I'm comfortable with them being taught as fact, because they give a greater sense of identity and give the accounts greater weight within the many symbols and messages of the gospel.

[thesometimesaint]

For me it is not the facts that are the problem. It is the assumptions we put on those facts.

[Tacenda]

And do we make any assumptions about the BoM stories too? Or does the bible only get that scrutiny. One thought that just occurred, some EV's believe the bible to be true no matter what's in there because to them it's been told to them through reading it that it is the word of God. Now LDS feel the same way about the BoM being all true also and yet it has stories that seem to be unlikely as well. Shouldn't we give the bible full benefit of doubt like the BoM?

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

That goes without saying.

The Book of Mormon Title Page has this disclaimer.

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

Honestly I don't know why some members of the Church believe the BoM is 100% correct in every story in it. JS never claimed it. The BoM itself never claims it. I know of no Church doctrine that claims it.

[canard78]

And do we make any assumptions about the BoM stories too? Or does the bible only get that scrutiny. One thought that just occurred, some EV's believe the bible to be true no matter what's in there because to them it's been told to them through reading it that it is the word of God. Now LDS feel the same way about the BoM being all true also and yet it has stories that seem to be unlikely as well. Shouldn't we give the bible full benefit of doubt like the BoM?

The BoM also references the GoE and actually in more detail, so no, I don't make it only about the bible. It's about the foundational stories of the early stages of world history as taught by Christians/Jews/Muslims. In all sources.

[volgadon]

And do we make any assumptions about the BoM stories too? Or does the bible only get that scrutiny. One thought that just occurred, some EV's believe the bible to be true no matter what's in there because to them it's been told to them through reading it that it is the word of God. Now LDS feel the same way about the BoM being all true also and yet it has stories that seem to be unlikely as well. Shouldn't we give the bible full benefit of doubt like the BoM?

Really? You know perfectly well that there are LDS who scrutinise the BoM, or did you, for instance, forget the recent thread on race? Mike Ash also had a short article on the flood in the book of Ether.

[Tacenda]

Really? You know perfectly well that there are LDS who scrutinise the BoM, or did you, for instance, forget the recent thread on race? Mike Ash also had a short article on the flood in the book of Ether.

I'm thinking in a GD class or the majority of saints that don't read boards like this or apologetics. Since it is the most correct book. Or is that only philosophically speaking? You might not agree but there are many that say when they read the fairlds site their testimony crumbled as much as any anti site might have done. Because it verfied certain statements but defended or gave reasons for them or brought up many subjects they had never even heard about. Yes I was blissfully naive!

[Walden]

We used to live in Missouri about an hour and 45 minutes away or so from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Though we loved where we were, we wouldn't call it paradise. Adam-ondi-Ahman, however, is beautiful.

I think that it is all relative.

I have been to Nauvoo, and I can tell you this.....after leaving that isolated, depressing, muggy, swamp-like town, anything that comes next might appear like paradise.

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Most correct in principles doesn't mean 100% correct in all aspects. It is kinda like grading on the curve.If everyone but 1 gets 80% correct and that 1 gets 85% correct. on a test. That person is still the most correct, but not 100% correct.

[volgadon]

I'm thinking in a GD class or the majority of saints that don't read boards like this or apologetics. Since it is the most correct book. Or is that only philosophically speaking? You might not agree but there are many that say when they read the fairlds site their testimony crumbled as much as any anti site might have done. Because it verfied certain statements but defended or gave reasons for them or brought up many subjects they had never even heard about. Yes I was blissfully naive!

If it is a GD class setting we are discussing, I think you'll find that the majority of members don't scrutinise the Bible like that anyway. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[mfbukowski]

For me it is not the facts that are the problem. It is the assumptions we put on those facts.

For me, it is not the language that is the problem, the confusion arises from the conflicting interpretations we have of the language.

There.

Fixed it for you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Any more of this talk and I might turn athiest.

I don't know how serious you are with this, but I would advise you to be not so easily swayed by the ruminations of a few self-appointed pundits.

[cinepro]

Given he sometimes spoke 'undoctrinally' and the 'pile of rocks' statement has never been canonised, I'm more comfortable putting it in the faith promoting speculation category. The alternatives are uncomfortable.

Just to be clear, Adam-Ondi-Ahman isn't Joseph Smith speculating about a "pile of rocks", it's in the scriptures:

1 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.

D&C 116

53 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 blessing.

54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

55 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.

56 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.

57 These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.

D&C 107

In section 117, the Lord tells Newel Whitney to leave Kirtland and go to Adam-ondi-ahman:

2 Let them awake, and arise, and come forth, and not tarry, for I, the Lord, command it.

4 Let them repent of all their sins, and of all their covetous desires, before me, saith the Lord; for what is property unto me? saith the Lord.

6 For have I not the fowls of heaven, and also the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the mountains? Have I not made the earth? Do I not hold the destinies of all the armies of the nations of the earth?

8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?

9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion.

Edited October 5, 2012 by cinepro

[Cobalt-70]

And how is a sentence then "an actual state of a matter"? I think you have a little problem there. Sentences are not "states of a matter", actual or otherwise.

No, but if "something" is a "true or actual state of a matter," then that "something" is a sentence. In other words, if you can identify a "<something>" and legitimately say, "That <something> is a true or actual state of a matter," then that "something" you are referring to is a sentence.

[Cobalt-70]

Just to be clear, Adam-Ondi-Ahman isn't Joseph Smith speculating about a "pile of rocks", it's in the scriptures:

Maybe this is hyper-technical, but the scripture does not specifically say that this Adam-Ondi-Ahman was the place where Adam dwelt in the past after he left the garden of Eden. It only says that this is where he will come in the future. We have to look to uncanonized statements by Smith to tie this region to the garden of Eden.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe this is hyper-technical, but the scripture does not specifically say that this Adam-Ondi-Ahman was the place where Adam dwelt in the past after he left the garden of Eden. It only says that this is where he will come in the future. We have to look to uncanonized statements by Smith to tie this region to the garden of Eden.

Are you arguing for taking scripture out of its historical context then?

[Tacenda]

I don't know how serious you are with this, but I would advise you to be not so easily swayed by the ruminations of a few self-appointed pundits.

No chance of that happening.

[mfbukowski]

No, but if "something" is a "true or actual state of a matter," then that "something" is a sentence. In other words, if you can identify a "<something>" and legitimately say, "That <something> is a true or actual state of a matter," then that "something" you are referring to is a sentence.

Tautology.