cinepro Posted February 28, 2016 Author Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 1:21 PM, CV75 said: I think it is easy to know what LDS Church leaders say and teach, not so much what they see and how they view it. They speak and teach faith and repentance, and the rest of the Gospel and Doctrine of Christ using the scriptures and scripture (“whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”). As the final mortal authorities on all matters of the earthly kingdom, they administer and secure the covenants therein. The principle is not about what they see and how they view it, but about what we see and how we view what they say and teach in the way the Lord has commanded them to. They have no more authority over that than we do over what they see (and/or how). Is English your second language? Because everything I've heard the apostles and prophets say, and every official Church publication I've read, has been pretty clear about what the leaders see and how they view it. There may be many things about which LDS leaders haven't spoken and haven't been clear, but when they do want to get the word out, they're usually pretty good at speaking clearly and publicly. And they've been speaking clearly and publicly about Adam being an actual, specific man who lived in the area of Missouri, USA several thousand years ago. But I guess that gets to the point of this thread. Are you saying that even though Elder Renlund said that he believes Adam actually held a meeting in the area now called Missouri, USA three years before his death, that he may actually "see and view it" differently? That he doesn't actually believe that? But if there are really LDS who disagree with the Church leaders, and feel that even though Church leaders say one thing publicly that secretly, deep down inside the Church leaders agree with them but just can't admit it, then that is a fascinating coping mechanism that I think bears more investigation. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Cold Steel said: I don't know enough about evolution to refute it, but it seems to me that anthropologists find one skeletal remain, then link it irrefutably to man, and I've never understood that. Lucy was about four feet tall and was covered with hair. I've always wondered how she was determined to be man's forebear? This point was specifically addressed by the emeritus professor of physical anthropology that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Data simply do not speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted within an interpretive framework, which, a la theorems and postulates, of necessity rests upon assumptions. Put very simply, if one has already assumed that humans had non-human ancestors, then when fragmentary skeletal remains are found that are clearly non-human though hominid-like, they immediately become potential human ancestors. If, however, one doesn't assume humans had non-human ancestors, the exact same skeletal remains become one more extinct primate. The data themselves do not require one interpretive framework over the other. The choice is intrinsically an act of faith/preference. Quote No ... fur for protection from cold... Speak for yourself, mate. Edited February 28, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 2
CV75 Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 5 hours ago, cinepro said: Is English your second language? Because everything I've heard the apostles and prophets say, and every official Church publication I've read, has been pretty clear about what the leaders see and how they view it. There may be many things about which LDS leaders haven't spoken and haven't been clear, but when they do want to get the word out, they're usually pretty good at speaking clearly and publicly. And they've been speaking clearly and publicly about Adam being an actual, specific man who lived in the area of Missouri, USA several thousand years ago. But I guess that gets to the point of this thread. Are you saying that even though Elder Renlund said that he believes Adam actually held a meeting in the area now called Missouri, USA three years before his death, that he may actually "see and view it" differently? That he doesn't actually believe that? But if there are really LDS who disagree with the Church leaders, and feel that even though Church leaders say one thing publicly that secretly, deep down inside the Church leaders agree with them but just can't admit it, then that is a fascinating coping mechanism that I think bears more investigation. Like any of us, they say what they say, believe what they believe and have their views, and bear witness of that which the Spirit has borne to them. As with any of us, there is some overlap where their public teaching, personal belief and spiritual witness come together (the fundamental principles of our religion). This is typically what gets presented in their talks and publications. I see nothing wrong with Elder Renlund believing, and saying he believes, that “Adam actually held a meeting in the area now called Missouri, USA three years before his death.” I wasn’t at the meeting you are referencing, but if he wrote it down and published it I’d still see nothing wrong with him believing and teaching as he does. For the faithful “little children” who through their own processes may believe, interpret or understand these things differently, the Gospel still rolls forth in their lives as though “Adam actually held a meeting in the area now called Missouri, USA three years before his death.” The results of being on the right track with the essentials are ultimately the same and we will all become perfect in Christ… and as though we had always been perfect. Now anyone who thinks that Church leaders secretly share his alternate views has certainly taken mind-reading to a new level! We see evidence of this happening in some of these threads, for example where it is asserted that the Twelve are divided on an issue. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 On 2/26/2016 at 11:29 AM, cinepro said: The point of this thread is to try and understand why that principle is so hard for LDS Church leaders to see. These guys spend more time studying and thinking about the scriptures than just about anyone else, and we are taught they are the final authority on interpreting the scriptures. Yet they continue to take a super-literal view on the reality of many scriptural people and events (with no indication that they will ever adopt a less-literal view). Of course it does depend very heavily upon what you or they mean by "literal." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk . In any case, the final authority on the interpretation of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, since it must be interpreted the same way it was given (II Peter 1:20-21).
Robert F. Smith Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 19 hours ago, Cold Steel said: Adam's existence and mission are as essential to other Christians as it is latter-day saints. If the theory of evolution is true and Adam and Eve are are just part of the Judao-Christian mythos, then there's no need for Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith or any of the other prophets. I keep seeing even our own brethren trying to rationalize evolution and religion as facts. Since I can't rationalize it, I have to choose religion. It's clear that Jesus believed in Adam and equally clear the prophets did as well. The same is true for the global flood. If it wasn't global, why did Noah have to take all those animals on board? And how did the ark end up in the highlands of Turkey, way up in the mountains? And how did the altar of Adam end up in Missouri? You sound confused, Cold Steel. There is no reason at all (scientific or otherwise) why biological evolution cannot be the method used by God for eons, until some frabjous day when He decides that the time is ripe for a ceremony in Missouri, in which already extant persons are given special , archetypal names (adam and eve) are put through a ritual recognition of a new phase of life, from innocence to responsibility, to a formal covenant relationship which only sentient beings can enter into. This is where Salvation History begins in earnest, and from which there is a formal chronological countdown. A ritual sequence actually takes place, just as it does in many another sacred site ever after. On that basis, anyone saying that there was an actual adam "man" is quite correct, even that is not his actual name. Having taken your own endowments, you know his real name in Hebrew, which means "Who-is-like-God" (Mika'El). The other founding events of Primeval History are likewise ritualized. The Bible is not a history or science text. It is a liturgical guide. As for the flood, I don't buy the local flood theory. Just about every country and people on Earth have verbal or written traditions about a global flood, including the Western Hemisphere. That would have to be one impressive flood! I don't know enough about evolution to refute it, but it seems to me that anthropologists find one skeletal remain, then link it irrefutably to man, and I've never understood that. Lucy was about four feet tall and was covered with hair. I've always wondered how she was determined to be man's forebear? Man is pathetically designed. We have zero weapons outside tools. No teeth, claws, fur for protection from cold, high mortality rate. After ten years we're still children. Those tools we do develop are often either taken from us or forbidden by our societal leaders. We can't outrun anything but turtles, nor do we have the ability to run down prey. How and why evolution did that is beyond me. We didn't get a single physical break! The revelations say: Which is where I'm leaving it.... I don't happen to favor the theory of biological evolution as the method. I think that God brought everything here from elsewhere in the universe, the way Brother Brigham envisioned -- by Transmission (a version of panspermia).
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 20 hours ago, Cold Steel said: Adam's existence and mission are as essential to other Christians as it is latter-day saints. If the theory of evolution is true and Adam and Eve are are just part of the Judao-Christian mythos, then there's no need for Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith or any of the other prophets. I keep seeing even our own brethren trying to rationalize evolution and religion as facts. Since I can't rationalize it, I have to choose religion. It's clear that Jesus believed in Adam and equally clear the prophets did as well. The same is true for the global flood. If it wasn't global, why did Noah have to take all those animals on board? And how did the ark end up in the highlands of Turkey, way up in the mountains? And how did the altar of Adam end up in Missouri? As for the flood, I don't buy the local flood theory. Just about every country and people on Earth have verbal or written traditions about a global flood, including the Western Hemisphere. That would have to be one impressive flood! I don't know enough about evolution to refute it, but it seems to me that anthropologists find one skeletal remain, then link it irrefutably to man, and I've never understood that. Lucy was about four feet tall and was covered with hair. I've always wondered how she was determined to be man's forebear? Man is pathetically designed. We have zero weapons outside tools. No teeth, claws, fur for protection from cold, high mortality rate. After ten years we're still children. Those tools we do develop are often either taken from us or forbidden by our societal leaders. We can't outrun anything but turtles, nor do we have the ability to run down prey. How and why evolution did that is beyond me. We didn't get a single physical break! The revelations say: Which is where I'm leaving it.... The issue here is certainty of belief- not "reality" People are certain that science describes reality because of its methodology. But all that shows is that they believe in the methodology. Ultimately it comes out to be BELIEF in a way of seeing the world. You see it as "true" because you BELIEVE in the method. But what verifies the method? There is no way to get back to "reality" independent of the method- in the end it is all belief- faith- in a method. So if the Bible is assumed to be true scientifically - THAT is what you believe. No evolution, 6,000 year age of the earth etc. If you instead assume that the Bible is NOT right because you assume science and its method IS right, you believe in evolution and an old earth, big bang, etc. So what is important as far as I am concerned is the BELIEF in Adam- a freely chosen belief that I determine I want to believe in because that belief makes me understand life better. I recognize there are ways of harmonizing that with science if I want to believe both, or not, as we want to believe. We can justify anything intellectually. The bottom line is that based on our lives, we choose beliefs that work for us. There is no way of knowing if a person "Adam" existed until you choose a BELIEF system on which to base your "knowledge" What becomes important in your life is the Belief- unprovable either way- that he DID exist, not the unknowable unprovable "fact" that he did. Yes the BELIEF that he existed is essential to the BELIEF in Christianity, as a belief system. The BELIEF that his existence is unknown is essential to science as a belief system But the bottom line is that the "reality" is unknowable- it is the belief that makes the difference in your life. 1
Cold Steel Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You sound confused, Cold Steel. There is no reason at all (scientific or otherwise) why biological evolution cannot be the method used by God for eons, until some frabjous day when He decides that the time is ripe for a ceremony in Missouri, in which already extant persons are given special, archetypal names (adam and eve) are put through a ritual recognition of a new phase of life, from innocence to responsibility, to a formal covenant relationship which only sentient beings can enter into. This is where Salvation History begins in earnest, and from which there is a formal chronological countdown. A ritual sequence actually takes place, just as it does in many another sacred site ever after. On that basis, anyone saying that there was an actual adam "man" is quite correct, even that is not his actual name. Having taken your own endowments, you know his real name in Hebrew, which means "Who-is-like-God" (Mika'El). The other founding events of Primeval History are likewise ritualized. The Bible is not a history or science text. It is a liturgical guide. I don't happen to favor the theory of biological evolution as the method. I think that God brought everything here from elsewhere in the universe, the way Brother Brigham envisioned -- by Transmission (a version of panspermia). Well, granted...I am easily confused 😕. But seriously, your first statement, that there's no reason God can't use the "method" of biological evolution over eons in the creation process until ready to get everything rolling, then begin with a new, established phase of recorded creation. Honestly, who knows? If God already is in the human form, and if we already have that form in our spirits, the logical reason would be...WHY?? There are already working models extant. But even if you're right, there would be no way of knowing. And seemingly very little reason for so doing. Is GOD the same all over? If creatures evolve differently on different worlds, doesn't it stand to reason that God might not resemble us or create beings in his (or its) image? Thus, if his life forms evolved from silicon rather than carbon, spirit and physical life would be thus different, but the order of Heaven would be the same and He would still be ONE God. Who knows? But I'm getting confused again. 19 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Ultimately it comes out to be BELIEF in a way of seeing the world. You see it as "true" because you BELIEVE in the method. But what verifies the method There is no way to get back to "reality" independent of the method -- in the end it is all belief, faith -- in a method. So if the Bible is assumed to be true scientifically -- THAT is what you believe. No evolution, 6,000 year age of the earth etc. If you instead assume that the Bible is NOT right because you assume science and its method IS right, you believe in evolution and an old earth, big bang, etc. So what is important as far as I am concerned is the BELIEF in Adam -- a freely chosen belief that I determine I want to believe in because that belief makes me understand life better. I recognize there are ways of harmonizing that with science if I want to believe both, or not, as we want to believe. We can justify anything intellectually. The bottom line is that based on our lives, we choose beliefs that work for us. There is no way of knowing if a person "Adam" existed until you choose a BELIEF system on which to base your "knowledge." The BELIEF that his existence is unknown is essential to science as a belief system. But the bottom line is that the "reality" is unknowable -- it is the belief that makes the difference in your life. I think you're making this far too difficult. Belief counts for the way we see things, not necessarily the way things are. If one believes in a flat Earth, for example, it would affect the way he or she sees things in one respect, but may account for those beliefs in some ways because of what they observe. There is only truth and the way we perceive, or interpret it. There is no way of knowing Adam existed until we know it. It has nothing to do with belief whatsoever. If Jesus believed in Adam and one believes in the absolute integrity of Jesus, then one's belief in Adam may overshadow everything to the contrary by science or one's need to fully understand science as it pertains to Adam.
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 55 minutes ago, Cold Steel said: I think you're making this far too difficult. Belief counts for the way we see things, not necessarily the way things are. If one believes in a flat Earth, for example, it would affect the way he or she sees things in one respect, but may account for those beliefs in some ways because of what they observe. There is only truth and the way we perceive, or interpret it. There is no way of knowing Adam existed until we know it. It has nothing to do with belief whatsoever. If Jesus believed in Adam and one believes in the absolute integrity of Jesus, then one's belief in Adam may overshadow everything to the contrary by science or one's need to fully understand science as it pertains to Adam. But you see, in these situations, we CANNOT know the "way things are/were". There is no evidence of Adam, only stories of dubious verifiability when seen from a scientific perspective. "There is no way of knowing Adam existed until we know it". That of course is a circular argument One could argue that that makes no sense at all. Of course we "know" based on testimony and faith, and I understand that and agree with you. Someone else can disagree with you and you cannot back up your position with evidence. That is fine for religious purposes For all we know, the existence of Jesus is a legend in itself. Of course I "know" that he lives- by testimony- but we are talking here about LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. The question here is whether or not we have grounds for belief based on science, We do not. Religious belief can be justified by logic, but as far as I know, using only the epistemology of experience, that our experiences are all we can know, and that epistemology is well founded in philosophical principles. It appears you have no counter to the argument. That's fine, let's just forget about it. You know what you know and I do not disagree with you, just the way you are arguing your position. I do not think it is a good argument, that's all. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 3 hours ago, Cold Steel said: Well, granted...I am easily confused 😕. But seriously, your first statement, that there's no reason God can't use the "method" of biological evolution over eons in the creation process until ready to get everything rolling, then begin with a new, established phase of recorded creation. Honestly, who knows? If God already is in the human form, and if we already have that form in our spirits, the logical reason would be...WHY?? There are already working models extant. But even if you're right, there would be no way of knowing. And seemingly very little reason for so doing. Is GOD the same all over? If creatures evolve differently on different worlds, doesn't it stand to reason that God might not resemble us or create beings in his (or its) image? Thus, if his life forms evolved from silicon rather than carbon, spirit and physical life would be thus different, but the order of Heaven would be the same and He would still be ONE God. Who knows? But I'm getting confused again. No, those are excellent points, Cold Steel, and (as I said) I favor Transmission of life from another system, including already extant humans -- who reproduce in the same old fashioned way as everybody else. Biological evolution is not needed, but it could have been employed. That is all I am saying. We are gods in embryo, sharing the same DNA with our Heavenly Father. .............................................................................. There is no way of knowing Adam existed until we know it. It has nothing to do with belief whatsoever. If Jesus believed in Adam and one believes in the absolute integrity of Jesus, then one's belief in Adam may overshadow everything to the contrary by science or one's need to fully understand science as it pertains to Adam. At the risk of stealing Bukowski's thunder, you are talking about two separate systems of discussion of first things -- science and faith -- and you believe that faith overshadows science. That is a value judgment to which you are certainly entitled, but you cannot prove it. You simply believe it, and that is enough for you and many others. Not enough for everyone, however. 1
Cold Steel Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 On 3/1/2016 at 8:07 PM, mfbukowski said: But you see, in these situations, we CANNOT know the "way things are/were". There is no evidence of Adam, only stories of dubious verifiability when seen from a scientific perspective. "There is no way of knowing Adam existed until we know it". That of course is a circular argument One could argue that that makes no sense at all. Yes, we can know. That's what the gospel is all about is it not? Jesus believed in Adam, the prophets (ancient and modern) believed in him and referred to him, the scriptures reference him as a living person and many have referenced Cain as the first murderer and son of perdition; genealogies link him to Enoch and his city and Jesus was called the Second Adam. If Adam lived and met anciently in that sacred valley in what's now Missouri (which I remind our critics is just as old as anywhere else on the planet), then what reason can we have for denying his existence? We don't know by asking God for a testimony of Adam, but of Christ and the Book of Mormon. Now if one can find a theory that would reconcile both Adam and organic evolution, I'd certainly be willing to consider it. But I don't think denying Adam's existence does that to my satisfaction. You can accomplish the same thing by eliminating Christ, which takes the apostles of his day and the Restoration in our day and leaves only evolution standing when the dust clears. I wish I understood why evolution was so appealing. I wish I knew how someone in Ethiopia can dig up the skeleton of a small tree-dwelling primate and say it was of an ancestor of man and that it is 3.2 million years old. Then came others (Ardi) at 4.4 million years. But just as cars are different, who's to say that Lucy and Ardi aren't just extinct models designed by the same creator? They may have human attributes, but Ardi apparently has some advanced features Lucy didn't, even though Ardi is allegedly a million years older. I also question these ages, as I have problems believing remains can last that long. (Even bones eventually decay after awhile.) Dinosaurs allegedly perished far before that, but the bones tended to be larger and perhaps protected by debris from an asteroid. I know of human remains that crumble to dust in a relatively short time, but others that last thousands. I just don't know. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cold Steel said: If Adam lived and met anciently in that sacred valley in what's now Missouri (which I remind our critics is just as old as anywhere else on the planet), then what reason can we have for denying his existence? Actually I agree with you. Just read what you wrote VERY carefully. If he lived, and that is known to all, we have no reason to deny his existence. But I am not denying his existence anyway. Edited March 2, 2016 by mfbukowski
RevTestament Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) On 2/14/2016 at 4:04 PM, cinepro said: Today in out Stake Conference broadcast, Elder Renlund shared a story about a visit to Adam-ondi-Ahman (the Church-owned property in Missouri). While visiting with a non-member there, he shared a brief outline of LDS beliefs regarding that area. As he outlined these beliefs, it struck me as how anachronistic this belief could be to the worldview of some LDS. With this belief, several key aspects of the conventional history of mankind's existence on this planet come into question. Specifically: Significant Events: Three years before he died, Adam called his righteous posterity into this the valley and bestowed on them his last blessing (D&C 107:53–56) So what does this mean? If Adam was living with his children in the land that is now Missouri three years before he died, does this indeed confirm that the Garden of Eden was in the general vicinity? What this mean for scientific models of ancient human dispersion? Should LDS reject these theories (and their attendant evidences)? How do we reconcile this with the idea that Noah's flood was a local flood located in the area of the Middle East? I do not adhere to the apparent LDS view that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Nor are there any mountains there. Doctrine and Covenants 117:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of aAdam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha bShinehah, So, I am an unpopular dissenter from the "traditional" LDS view. When you ask "what does this mean?" I believe you are asking more generally about whether the Garden of Eden was in the Americas, and if so how do we reconcile that from the apparent evidence? I don't believe the garden of Eden was in the Americas. To briefly state my view I believe Jerusalem II or the New Jerusalem will be in the Americas just like Adam-ondi-Ahman II is. So, I am not saying that Adam will not return to Spring Hill, or that it is not Adam-ondi-Ahman. I just interpret that differently apparently. Apparently this name is important. I find relevant the notes of Robert below concerning the etymology of Adam. On 2/15/2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert F. Smith said: The biblical name Adam comes from Hebrew ’ādām, hă’ādām "humanity, mankind, human, person; man,"[1] which "is a collective and is therefore never used in the plural; it means literally 'mankind' (L. Köhler). Luther instinctively translated the word very well with 'Menschen'" in Genesis 1:26-27; cf. Leviticus 18:5.[2] ’Ādām is used in Genesis 5:1 as a proper name, which is not the case in Genesis 1 - 3[3]; ’ādām "man," ’ădāmâ "earth," is the theme of Genesis 2:4b-25; cf. Genesis 3:17b "dust"[4]; this also applies to Ugaritic ʼadamu, adm "mankind, human being," in KTU 1.14:I: 35/36 +36/37, according to Stan Segert (in the phrase il ab adm)[5]; note, however, I. Engnell, who sees Adam in Genesis 1:26 as "divine."[6] Cf. PGP Moses 1:34, 6:9. [1] LDS Holy Bible (1979), 8 n, Hebrew adam “man, mankind.” [2] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, 57; cf. D. Wold in Bible Review, Apr 1994, p. 6, citing R. S. Hess, "Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ’ADAM in Genesis IV," Vetus Testamentum Supplement 41 [1990]:1-15, and H. N. Wallace, "The Toledot of Adam," VTS, 41:17-33. [3] Von Rad, Genesis, 70. [4] Von Rad, Genesis, 76-77. [5] Segert, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 103 (1983):304a; del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 373-374. [6] Engnell, Vetus Testamentum, Supplement, 3 (H. H. Rowley Festschrift, 1960), 112. I will add that Adam also seems to have a Sumerian etymology as pastureland - rich earth. This may lend to the Biblical idea that man comes from the earth or dust of the earth. This is where man plants and eats. Elsewhere Robert also commented that Edin is a Sumerian word for plain or platte - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67037-adam-ondi-ahman-what-does-it-mean-and-do-you-believe-it/?do=findComment&comment=1209592227 How about Ahman? Was it Sumerian or Adamic? In Sumerian Ah can refer to spittle and man can refer to companion. So Ahman may refer to companion of the word. So Son Ahman would be the Son who is a companion in the word. If so, then it is not looking like the garden of Eden was in the Americas. Thus, the question of "what does this mean" becomes very relevant, if taken literally as applicable to the phrase, Adam-ondi-Ahman. How about ondi? Does anyone have any suggestions? Does it have a Sumerian etymology? I honestly haven't checked, so welcome anyone who wants to make suggestions. I'm guessing it too has a probable Sumerian etymology. If so, I'm wondering how many out there would be willing to rethink the belief that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? OK, well that should be enough to get started. Posture, attack, debate, throw stones, comment, "like" my comments or whatever.... Edited April 20, 2018 by RevTestament 1
cinepro Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I do not adhere to the apparent LDS view that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Nor are there any mountains there. Doctrine and Covenants 117:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of aAdam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha bShinehah, So, I am an unpopular dissenter from the "traditional" LDS view. When you ask "what does this mean?" I believe you are asking more generally about whether the Garden of Eden was in the Americas, and if so how do we reconcile that from the apparent evidence? I don't believe the garden of Eden was in the Americas. To briefly state my view I believe Jerusalem II or the New Jerusalem will be in the Americas just like Adam-ondi-Ahman II is. So, I am not saying that Adam will not return to Spring Hill, or that it is not Adam-ondi-Ahman. I just interpret that differently apparently. Apparently this name is important. I find relevant the notes of Robert below concerning the etymology of Adam. I will add that Adam also seems to have a Sumerian etymology as pastureland - rich earth. This may lend to the Biblical idea that man comes from the earth or dust of the earth. This is where man plants and eats. Elsewhere Robert also commented that Edin is a Sumerian word for plain or platte - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67037-adam-ondi-ahman-what-does-it-mean-and-do-you-believe-it/?do=findComment&comment=1209592227 How about Ahman? Was it Sumerian or Adamic? In Sumerian Ah can refer to spittle and man can refer to companion. So Ahman may refer to companion of the word. So Son Ahman would be the Son who is a companion in the word. If so, then it is not looking like the garden of Eden was in the Americas. Thus, the question of "what does this mean" becomes very relevant, if taken literally as applicable to the phrase, Adam-ondi-Ahman. How about ondi? Does anyone have any suggestions? Does it have a Sumerian etymology? I honestly haven't checked, so welcome anyone who wants to make suggestions. I'm guessing it too has a probable Sumerian etymology. If so, I'm wondering how many out there would be willing to rethink the belief that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? OK, well that should be enough to get started. Posture, attack, debate, throw stones, comment, "like" my comments or whatever.... Thank you. I am preparing my response and will get back to you by June of 2020. 1
RevTestament Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 1 minute ago, cinepro said: Thank you. I am preparing my response and will get back to you by June of 2020. LOL. Thank you. That is very specific. Perhaps you are writing Cinepro's Guide to the Scriptures?
Robert F. Smith Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I do not adhere to the apparent LDS view that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Nor are there any mountains there. Doctrine and Covenants 117:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of aAdam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha bShinehah, The Hebrew word for "mountain" can include hill country, as in Palestine, and there is plenty of that in Missouri (I lived there 7 years), including Adam-ondi-Ahman. Indeed, the Garden of Eden is eastward of the Great Plains, and (as you know) Eden means "plain" anyhow, and Adam "pastureland.". So it fits the locale rather well. 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: ........................................... If so, I'm wondering how many out there would be willing to rethink the belief that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? ..................................... A local flood in the Carolinas would be all that was necessary to set Noah's ark on its long ocean drift to the Middle East where only an inland hill (not a high mountain) would have been needed for it to come to rest. The actual time-depths need only have been ceremonial rather than literal. So we don't need constricted time demands. Thus, cinepro's demands are unnecessary. 1
cinepro Posted April 20, 2018 Author Posted April 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A local flood in the Carolinas would be all that was necessary to set Noah's ark on its long ocean drift to the Middle East where only an inland hill (not a high mountain) would have been needed for it to come to rest. The actual time-depths need only have been ceremonial rather than literal. So we don't need constricted time demands. Thus, cinepro's demands are unnecessary. In the end, that's really just a fancy way of saying you don't believe the story of Noah and the flood. 1
rongo Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 38 minutes ago, cinepro said: In the end, that's really just a fancy way of saying you don't believe the story of Noah and the flood. Local flooders are embarrassed by the Church's "backwards" doctrine and teaching on the global flood. There are some convoluted attempts to be "nuanced" that I find to be embarrassing as well. Tapirs instead of horses, black skin didn't really refer to skin color at all, etc. LDS attempts to explain how the Flood could only have been local fit in this category for me. Does this same phenomenon exist among other conservative Christian churches (believers who try to explain how the Flood of the Bible was really just a local flood)? I respect that some people believe that geology, biology, etc. simply don't leave room for belief in the Flood, but it's sad to me to feel their embarrassment that most active members (and many non-members of other faiths) believe that the Flood story is literal. 2
Calm Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) "Local flooders are embarrassed by the Church's "backwards" doctrine and teaching on the global flood." Not this local flooder. The Church leadership should teach what they believe is correct, doesn't mean I have to accept everything outright. "There are some convoluted attempts to be "nuanced" that I find to be embarrassing as well." Perhaps you are projecting your reaction on to others. Edited April 20, 2018 by Calm 1
Stargazer Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 On 15/02/2016 at 2:24 AM, mfbukowski said: You DO understand that Genesis describes a temple play. right? Sigh. No, you're wrong. We must believe that it describes exactly what happened, in exactly what way, and in the exact period of time. It took 6 24-hour days to create the solar system, including the Earth, and on the sixth day God put Adam and Eve into the Garden. Then He went off to rest for the seventh day, leaving A&E completely unsupervised in the GofE. Small wonder that this gave Satan the opportunity he was looking for to go and corrupt them! Yep, it's all LITERAL. I don't know what temple play you're talking about. 1
Stargazer Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: LOL. Thank you. That is very specific. Perhaps you are writing Cinepro's Guide to the Scriptures? Dang, and here I thought this was a new thread. It's over two years old! RevTestament has necromanced yet another thread!
Jeanne Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 10 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Dang, and here I thought this was a new thread. It's over two years old! RevTestament has necromanced yet another thread! Something tells me we have run out of things to talk about...
MDalby Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 This has some good references on Adam ondi Ahman. http://www.LDSLastDays.com/Adam-ondi-Ahman
mfbukowski Posted April 20, 2018 Posted April 20, 2018 27 minutes ago, Stargazer said: No, you're wrong. We must believe that it describes exactly what happened, in exactly what way, and in the exact period of time. It took 6 24-hour days to create the solar system, including the Earth, and on the sixth day God put Adam and Eve into the Garden. Then He went off to rest for the seventh day, leaving A&E completely unsupervised in the GofE. Small wonder that this gave Satan the opportunity he was looking for to go and corrupt them! Yep, it's all LITERAL. I don't know what temple play you're talking about. There you go. That's what happens when God goes on vacay
Scott Lloyd Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) On 2/15/2016 at 8:09 AM, ALarson said: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/adamondiahman/ Adam-ondi-Ahman is the site of a future grand council where Jesus Christ will meet with His stewards of all dispensations and receive back the keys of the kingdom in preparation for His Second Coming. Only those called to the meeting will know of its occurrence. I wonder when the "myth" or belief started that all members would be asked to "walk back to Missouri" or at least gather in Missouri? I remember that my parents believed this. Does anyone know how it originated? I have a theory, if you're interested. I gather that many among the first generation of Latter-day Saints firmly believed that the Second Coming of Christ and the events attendant thereto would occur within their collective lifetimes. In those days, walking -- and perhaps pulling a handcart -- was the principal means of overland travel. Furthermore, the Church as a whole was yet small enough that it could fit easily within Jackson County, Missouri, and its environs. Thus arose the myth that, prior to the Second Coming, the Latter-day Saints would be required to walk back to the the "center place of Zion,” i.e. Jackson County, Missouri, there to build the iprophesied New Jerusalem. The myth merely persisted through the generations, with many people not bothering to think it through. Edited April 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 3 hours ago, cinepro said: In the end, that's really just a fancy way of saying you don't believe the story of Noah and the flood. There are numerous versions of that Great Deluge, many of them much earlier than the biblical version. We have to be very arrogant indeed to imagine that the late biblical version is the only one to which we owe our attention. Something certainly happened, but it is not at all clear that we can accurately reconstruct it at this remove in time and space. I believe that Noah likely sailed from the Carolinas during massive local flooding, drifted in the ocean for a long time and ended upriver in Mesopotamia when the ocean surges ceased and the clouds cleared. When and just how that happened is beyond my capacity to understand, but there is nothing absurd about such a circumstance. That the legend surrounding such an event may have grown over time is understandable. Simple misinterpretations of the biblical text are all too common in any case.
Recommended Posts