The Garden Of Eden In Jackson County, Missouri?

[pogi]

Many biblical scholars consider those names intrusive and late,^[1] and you will note that they are not to be found in the Book of Abraham.  

 

 

They are found in Moses however:

 

And, I, the Lord God caused a river to go out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. And I the Lord God, called the name of the first Pison, and it compasseth the whole land of Havilah.... . . And the name of the second river was called Gihon; the same that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river was Hiddekel; that which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river was the Euphrates. (Moses 3:10-14)

Edited August 18, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

David, you seem to be conflating the location of Zion with the location of the Garden of Eden.  While they may overlap, they are not necessarily one and the same.  While the concept of Zion and it's stakes has expanded, the place of Eden cannot expand, assuming it was a literal place which I believe. 

 

I believe that each temple uses local flora and fauna to help make the story resonate with us, as if we were each Adam and Eve.  While I believe that Adam and Eve were literal people in a real and geographically defined garden and location, their story and covenants are applicable to us all in our own respective locations.  I think that is what the temples are trying to portray. 

Edited August 18, 2013 by pogi

[volgadon]

 

While it is a bit harder to purchase site in the Biblical Holy Land now a days (although we did get a nice spot for the BYU Jerusalem Center!)

 

Just to boast, the BYU Jerusalem Center is on a 99 year lease, but the meeting house for my home branch, the Galilee Branch, is on purchased land with one of the best scenic views in the North.

[Sevenbak]

The garden of Eden in Missouri creates a huge problem for believers in a local flood. Noah's flood explains how the Old Testament story moves from America to the Middle East. A local flood wouldn't take the ark over the Atlantic.

But that theory also doesn't account for the later Peleg/earth dividing/D&C 133:24 reference.  Those of us who believe in a global flood don't necessarily believe that Noah crossed an ocean that separated continents.

[Calm]

If you were to check the understanding of the Peleg verse prior to the scientific idea of the continents fitting together, I bet you would find that most, if not all, interpretations of that verse were about political/national division.

 

Now I haven't been able to track down too many, so maybe I am wrong but the older ones I have read see it as political/national division, including Jewish legends as reported by Ginsburg.

[Sevenbak]

If you were to check the understanding of the Peleg verse prior to the scientific idea of the continents fitting together, I bet you would find that most, if not all, interpretations of that verse were about political/national division.

 

Now I haven't been able to track down too many, so maybe I am wrong but the older ones I have read see it as political/national division, including Jewish legends as reported by Ginsburg.

Right.  But the church links the footnotes in 133:24 as a physical separation of the continents, regardless of what the world says.   Orson Pratt, John Taylor and others taught this very directly numerous times.  It was taught from the CG pulpit in 1968, but more importantly, is taught today in the Seminary and Institute manual to our youth.  Oh the horror!  ;-)

 

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/manuals/institute-student/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel_eng.pdf

 

"(4-22) Genesis 10:25. Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?

“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was

in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:73–74.) "

[David T]

I can almost promise you this will not be in the next edition of the manuals. Its embarrassing that some are still teaching it.

[Sevenbak]

I can almost promise you this will not be in the next edition of the manuals. Its embarrassing that some are still teaching it.

Disagree.  If we worry or are embarrassed by what the church teaches that is not in harmony with the understanding of the world, we'd sure spend a lot of time embarrassed.

 

Edit to add:

 

BTW, it's also in the D&C institute manual:   http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-133-the-lords-appendix-to-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

 

 

D&C 133:23–24. Will the Continents Be Rejoined?

Genesis indicates that in the early history of the world the land masses were united. Moses recorded that one of the great-great-grandsons of Shem was named Peleg (a Hebrew word meaning division) because “in his days was the earth divided” (Genesis 10:25). Many scholars have passed this reference off as meaning some sort of cultural or political division, but modern prophets have taught that this statement should be taken literally.

An article published early in the history of the Church under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” (“The Last Days,” Evening and Morning Star,Feb. 1833, p. 1.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “If … the earth is to be restored as it was in the beginning, then all the land surface will again be in one place as it was before the days of Peleg, when this great division was accomplished. Europe, Africa, and the islands of the sea including Australia, New Zealand, and other places in the Pacific must be brought back and joined together as they were in the beginning.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:74.)

In an introduction to a book on continental drift, a scientist writes:

“Formerly, most scientists regarded the earth as rigid and the continents as fixed, but now the surface of the earth is seen as slowly deformable and the continents as ‘rafts’ floating on a ‘sea’ of denser rock. The continents have repeatedly collided and joined, repeatedly broken and separated in different patterns, and, very likely, they have grown larger in the process.

“This scientific revolution, as others before it, was long in the making, but it was not until the late 1960s that it began to succeed. At a meeting of the world’s geophysicists in August of 1971, it was made clear that the notion of continental drift, which had been heresy only a few years before, had become the orthodoxy of the great majority.” (Continents Adrift, preface.)

Though the time of this division of the land is placed much earlier by scientists than by the biblical chronology, the idea of one land mass is widely accepted. This revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 133 declares that sometime in the future that geographical unity will be restored.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Sevenbak

[David T]

The scientific understanding of plate techtonics and a pangea supercontinent has nothing at all to do with the ethnographic stories in Genesis. Making the Peleg note a reference to the cataclysmic pulling apart of continents completely keeps it completely incompatible with the science of continental drift. And the biblical narrative. W.W. Phelps and Joseph Fielding Smith are wrong on this historical point. Understandable a few generations ago, but not in the 21st Century.

 

The earth itself stands as its own witness that these hyper-literal interpretations do not reflect historical reality.

Edited August 19, 2013 by David T

[Sevenbak]

And yet the manuals are full of the teaching.  Here's another.  I don't see the Church changing them to appease or appeal to the wisdom the world.

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-12-johns-witness-of-the-church-triumphant/chapter-55-the-kingdoms-of-this-world-are-become-the-kingdoms-of-our-lord?lang=eng

 

"

(55-32) Revelation 16:20. “And Every Island Fled Away”

“When that day comes great changes shall take place upon the earth. We believe this is a day of restoration, and that the earth is to be renewed. (Tenth Article of Faith; Lesson 40.) In this renewal we are informed that the Lord ‘shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north country, and the islands shall become one land; and the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.’ (Gen. 10:25.) The notion prevails quite generally that the dividing of the earth in the days of Peleg was a division politically among the people, but from this word of the Lord we gain the idea that the earth itself was divided and that when Christ comes it will again be brought back to the same conditions physically as prevailed before this division took place. The sea is to be driven back into the north. The land is to be brought back as it was originally and the lands of Zion ‘America’ and Jerusalem (Palestine and all the land pertaining unto it) will be restored to their own place as they were in the beginning. The Savior will stand in the midst of his people, and shall reign over all flesh. We have discovered in our study that the wicked, or all things that are corruptible (Section 101:23–35), will be consumed and therefore will not be permitted to be on the earth when this time comes.” (Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:264.)"

[David T]

D&C 133 is in the genre of Apocalyptic Literature. I see it very simple to understand as a (Book of Revelation style) evocative illustration of a tumultuous time of unification, ending in the idealistic complete destruction of political, ethnic, linguistic, and social divisions (key causes of war and strife), reversing the political, ethnic, linguistic, and social divisions presented in the illustrative Genesis story of the aftermath of the rebellion at Babel. The popular 19th Century interpretive concept of adding continental restoration is a further amplifier (and cultural update) of this concept.

 

Here's an example of this idea from a popular 1825 Bible with Commentary, years before any revelation from JS utilizing the traditional imagery.

 

 Peleg... to divide because in his days which is supposed to about one hundred years after the flood earth was divided among the sons of Noah. Though some are of opinion that a division and not a political one is what is intended here viz a separation of and islands from the main land the parts having been united in one great previous to the days of Peleg. This appears to me the most likely for what is said ver. 5 spoken by way of anticipation 

 

There should be no problem with 19th and early 20th Century members running with this modified traditional understanding. It gets far less defensible in the mid-20th century as evidence became clearer and more understood, and is an unfortunate interpretational artifact in the 21st Century that needs to be left in the pre-scientific past along with ideas of an earth-centric model of the universe, and a solid firmament dome in the heavens. That does not negate the scripture itself, nor does it disparage those from earlier generations who had no substantial reason to understand the imagery found there otherwise.

 

But significant new light and knowledge has come into the world allowing us to better understand the testimony of the earth itself, and the nature of revelation, and we have the responsibility to adapt accordingly.

Edited August 19, 2013 by David T

[Sevenbak]

Agree to disagree.  It's modern revelation and scripture, not merely apocalyptic literature.  I believe that phrasing belittles its significance.  I think we are blessed to have living prophets that know what is coming and share such things with us.

[David T]

Agree to disagree.  It's modern revelation and scripture, not merely apocalyptic literature.  I believe that phrasing belittles its significance.  I think we are blessed to have living prophets that know what is coming and share such things with us.

 

Scripture is presented in many different genres. Apocalyptic Literature is a genre in which scipture has been presented. IE, Ezekiel, Daniel, parts of Isaiah, Lehi and Nephi's visions, The Book of Revelation, etc, etc.

 

To view all scripture as being either documentary history or documentary future-history substantially misses the mark, and the beauty, variety, power, applicability, and versatility of scripture.

 

Also - to suggest that scripture writers (along with God) do not utilize and adapt the imagery, stories, and understanding of their day as props to get the transcendent message across misses a major aspect of the nature of scripture, and ability to teach across generations.  As in D&C 1:24, "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding." - language isn't limited to English, Hebrew, Spanish, etc. It involves culture, symbols, and stories.

 

I can do something about a divine request for us to unite to a vision calling us to be unified, and to break societal divisions. Only thing I can do with a statement that the continents broke apart a few thousand years ago taken at face value is to ignore the testimony of the earth, and the further light and knowledge brought forth about it, to simply accept it for no practical reason.

 

The traditional imagery of the later to teach 19th century saints the former is a perfect example of the prophetic tradition at work. It's an example of the restoration of the true Prophetic ministry.

 

We can either learn from it, be hindered by it, or, well, to have both going on at the same time.

Edited August 19, 2013 by David T

[Sevenbak]

Still disagree.  This is not mere imagery and stories.  These are revelations.  In fact, section 133 was written as an appendix to the entire D&C.  It, along with Section , go hand in hand into explaining the entire purpose of the D&C.  These two sections of so chalk full of "apocalyptic literature", that it is much much more than a simple genre.  It is a warning and a witness.  Bad times are coming, stand ye in holy places.

 

 

I think Joseph summed it up best when he said this about his own mission.  "Noah came before the flood.  I have come before the fire." 

[David T]

Still disagree.  This is not mere imagery and stories.  These are revelations.  In fact, section 133 was written as an appendix to the entire D&C.  It, along with Section , go hand in hand into explaining the entire purpose of the D&C.  These two sections of so chalk full of "apocalyptic literature", that it is much much more than a simple genre.  It is a warning and a witness.  Bad times are coming, stand ye in holy places.

 

 

I think Joseph summed it up best when he said this about his own mission.  "Noah came before the flood.  I have come before the fire." 

 

Sevenbak, it is a key aspect of the genre of Apocalyptic to give warning and a witness, and the key message is almost always "Bad times are coming, stand ye in holy places." You seem to misunderstand that one way revelation is expressed is by utilizing imagery and stories that would be viscerally understood. This is a hallmark of Apocalyptic. The actual name of the Book of Revelation is "The Apocalypse". Apocalypse/Apocalyptic means "Revealing/Uncovering".

 

It can be a powerful message of warning without trying to tell us something about a literal historical supposed continental movement 5000 or so years ago. Compared to images of Beasts and Dragons and HorseScorpions, the notion of a supernatural shifting of the continents is light stuff! But if individuals regularly associated it with the notion of the historical departure from the Ideal it when it was given, all the more powerful image to use get the message across of ultimate Restoration and Unification.

Edited August 19, 2013 by David T

[David T]

One doesn't have to deny the witness of the earth through scientific discovery to accept revelation. Neither does one need to deny revelation to accept the earth's evidence.

 

One's paradigm, however, rather than the continents, may be what is needed to be allowed to shift.

 

"Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?" - President Uchtdorf.

 

Edited August 19, 2013 by David T

[volgadon]

Agree to disagree.  It's modern revelation and scripture, not merely apocalyptic literature.  I believe that phrasing belittles its significance.  I think we are blessed to have living prophets that know what is coming and share such things with us.

 

We've also got Brigham Young's statement. "Now about the rib. As for the Lord taking a rib out of Adam's side to make a woman of, he took one out of my side just as much. "But," brother Brigham, "would you make it appear that Moses did not tell the truth?" No, not a particle more than I would that your mother did not tell the truth, when she told you that little Billy came from a hollow toad stool. I would not accuse your mother of lying, any more than I would Moses; the people in the days of Moses wanted to know things that were not for them, the same as your children do, when they want to know where their little brother came from, and he answered them according to their folly, the same as you did your children."

[thesometimesaint]

Add in that it is literally impossible to stand on a high mountain and literally see all the earth.

[Sevenbak]

One doesn't have to deny the witness of the earth through scientific discovery to accept revelation. Neither does one need to deny revelation to accept the earth's evidence.

One's paradigm, however, rather than the continents, may be what is needed to be allowed to shift.

The problem Im having, and having a hard time defending, is your statement that such statements in the correlated curriculum are embarrassing and should be excluded from future manuals. I don't believe that is our place to dictate, no matter how much we want to reconcile "accepted" science and doctrine.

The correlation committee exists so that no errant doctrines are taught. These are not outdated 19th century teachings. This is taught throughout the curriculum. Should I err, I'll err on what is correlated, not my own theories. That said, I also accept truth from whatever source I find it, I just tend to find correlated truth safer.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Sevenbak

[David T]

The problem Im having, and having a hard time defending, is your statement that such statements in the correlated curriculum are embarrassing and should be excluded from future manuals. I don't believe that is our place to dictate, no matter how much we want to reconcile "accepted" science and doctrine.

The correlation committee exists so that no errant doctrines are taught. These are not outdated 19th century teachings. This is taught throughout the curriculum. Should I err, I'll err on what is correlated, not my own theories. That said, I also accept truth from whatever source I find it, I just tend to find correlated truth safer.

Most of the manuals are being redone right now. I wasn't' dictating, but expressing an expectation. We shall likely see soon.

[Calm]

I thought the D&C manual was already redone?

 

add-on:  I see that the one linked to is the 2002 edition....never mind.

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Sevenbak]

Most of the manuals are being redone right now. I wasn't' dictating, but expressing an expectation. We shall likely see soon.

I heard an expression of embarrassment about what is current correlated teaching.  I happen to disagree and want to state for lurkers that there are indeed members who believe these things.  These same manuals also teach a total and literal immersion of the earth during the flood, also going against modern scientific understanding.  We don't have to agree, but let it be known that there are different viewpoints out there.

 

Some of the manuals are being redone.  The SS ones are great, and allow more teaching by the spirit.  I think that's a good thing.  Will these institute manuals be equally minimized?  I don't know, but I doubt they will be as much as the weekly ones are.  

 

Correlation is there for a protection from false teachings and isolated statements that the antis often throw in our faces.  I don't mind embracing such teachings, as I agree with them and think we sometimes give modern understanding too much credit as the arm of flesh.

 

JMHO

[Anijen]

The correlation committee exists so that no errant doctrines are taught.

 

The Correlation Committee clarifies Doctrines as they know it at the time. Prophets and Apostles have had talks at the General Conference level that at worse contradicted some doctrines and at other times defined them as they interpreted them to be, but later they are again tweeked. This does not mean I am going against our leaders in saying this. I support them with all my heart and sustain them. I do not speak ill will of them at any time.

 

Examples of this are many, one being; the priesthood ban, before the ban there were many talks that to our presentist ears would be classified racist. (see pre-ban conference reports by Elder Peterson and Elder Stapley, or even Brigham Young). The doctrine changed. Now that was a biggie. There are some smaller ones such as President Benson's talk on pride, to me it seemed after that talk any resemblance of pride of a child's accomplishment would get me some glaring looks by die hard letter of the law members. Now I consider my self an active toe the line, letter of the law member, but I like to think of myself as one who tries to be also the spiritual first type person, so when President Uchtdorf clarified the pride thing it was in some ways validation for me thinking it is okay to have some pride in your children's accomplishments and from a psychological stand point a little pride which is most of the time synonymous with self confidence is a lot more healthier than depression and feelings of no worth.

 

I have already gone on too long. To summarize, the correlation committee has many responsibilities, sometimes one of those responsibilities are to correct past correlation committees input. I wouldn't be surprised if a few years from now another committee might correct the current one. 

Edited August 20, 2013 by Anijen

[David T]

I heard an expression of embarrassment about what is current correlated teaching.  I happen to disagree and want to state for lurkers that there are indeed members who believe these things.  These same manuals also teach a total and literal immersion of the earth during the flood, also going against modern scientific understanding.  We don't have to agree, but let it be known that there are different viewpoints out there.

 

Some of the manuals are being redone.  The SS ones are great, and allow more teaching by the spirit.  I think that's a good thing.  Will these institute manuals be equally minimized?  I don't know, but I doubt they will be as much as the weekly ones are.  

 

Correlation is there for a protection from false teachings and isolated statements that the antis often throw in our faces.  I don't mind embracing such teachings, as I agree with them and think we sometimes give modern understanding too much credit as the arm of flesh.

 

JMHO

 

 

Note that while Elder McConkie wrote in the introduction to the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites and Nephites were the principle ancestors of american indians, and that the Book of Mormon prophets spoke to the inhabitants of the americas, the latest 2013 revision corrects it for accuracy noting that they were "among the ancestors", and addressed a ministry to "inhabitants".

 

There is no evidence that a new revelation clarified this, unless you consider a close reading of the text that was prompted by accepting the archaeological history of the Americas. While one can use the text to prove that only Jaredites and Lehites populated the area, and you can find many quotes from General Authorities authoritatively expressing the same idea (in conference, their books, and otherwise) - what truly prompted the re-evaluation was the incontrovertible evidence showing the history of origins of inhabitants of the americas that does not allow for the simple model assumed to have been taught by the Book of Mormon. A further look at the text showed that the assumptions and the assertions might not be necessary.

 

And now, the brand new seminary manual (launched this year) invites teachers to explain to students that the Nephites and Lamanites likely were not alone.

 

Likewise with the new explanation to Official Declaration 2, rather than asserting that the restriction originally came from God, and that God required a revelation to remove the man, it is stated in terms relative to what was done, and referenced the membership's and leaders' beliefs and understanding, "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." ... "Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice".

 

A can see that further manuals might do the same with some of the things mentioned above, with something like the:  "During the nineteenth century, many students of the Bible began to understand the statement that the earth was divided to have reference to the continental divisions that could be seen on a map. The revelation uses this powerful image to express..." etc, etc. An explanation of context without a firm position as to its representation of an historical reality.

 

Just like the new header to OD2 technically allows for a divine beginning to the priesthood restriction, it also allows for it to have been a manmade construct. It does, however, reinforce that the revelation that came confirming the propriety of ending the ban was true and of God. This is a very, very strong model to follow on such controversial subjects on which there are many opinions, and little ultimate revelatory clarity.

Edited August 20, 2013 by David T

[David T]

I think this is wisdom - especially for what may be seen as a period of transition. Use wording that allows for both thoughts, but does not impose either. Descriptive rather than prescriptive.