RevTestament Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You DO understand that Genesis describes a temple play. right? Sigh. No, I understand that a temple play describes Genesis and the creation.
bcuzbcuz Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 14 hours ago, 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 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? Adam-ondi-Ahman is nonsense. The heritage lines of Adam and Eve are given in the Torah, a Hebrew text. Even if the Torah wasn't written down until many years after Noah, it still has zero links to the Americas. The peoples around Lake Tana, at the sources of the Blue Nile, at 3,000 meters above sea level, have as their ancient traditions that the water springs there constitute the location of Eden. Their traditions have a better chance than the idea of Adam-onthe-Amen. The charts of ancient human dispersion have zero references to populations of mankind beginning in the Americas. To think that mankind began in Missouri flys in the face of all accepted biological anthropology, cultural anthropology and archaeology. Certainly a person is free to choose what they want to believe, but if one wants to study and accept scientific studies of mankind, while simultaneously maintaining a belief in Adam-ondi-Ahman, it requires having two divisional separations of thinking within ones brain. One part of the brain is devoted to scientific studies and another part of the brain is devoted to unprovable stories of faith, both parts in strict conflict with each other.
Tacenda Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: I agree. If we were to give credence to scientific evidence then we would have to reject most of what JS taught us. I believe as some believe of the Zelph story, that Joseph was just telling stories or parables along the trail or exploration, maybe to get the men in the party excited about the restoration.
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I believe as some believe of the Zelph story, that Joseph was just telling stories or parables along the trail or exploration, maybe to get the men in the party excited about the restoration. Yes, Zelph the white Lamanite According to Heber C. Kimball, this was revealed to Joseph and he had a "vision". Quote t was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph. This caused us to rejoice much, to think that God was so mindful of us as to show these things to his servant. Brother Joseph had enquired of the Lord and it was made known in a vision. [
RevTestament Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 18 minutes ago, Buckeye said: My family's 2015 summer vacation took us through A-O-A. It actually was a bit of "Zion" for us considering that an hour earlier our van had almost gotten stuck in the mud trying to visit Haun's Mill. I admit that, more than any other historical site on the trip (we visited most everything in Missouri and Nauvoo), A-O-A didn't really resonate with my kids. It doesn't get much mention at all in current curriculum. As to the historical accuracy of the place, my personal belief is that Joseph's ideas were skewed by a belief in an ante-dilluvial pangea of sorts. Yes, science conflicts. But no more so than with the Hill Cumorah. Since many members embrace a "two-Cumorah" theory, why not also a "two-A-O-A" theory? Adam-ondi-Ahman was not Eden. Adam was kicked out of Eden remember? Adam-ondi-Ahman is a spiritual place where Paradise is close to the earth. It is where Adam shall soon return. (Here come the Eden is in America people).... 1
Tacenda Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: No he did not teach that was a scientific "fact". What he said in no way conflicts with science. He said that that was a revealed belief which we accept, and of course we do. He did not say if it was symbolic, if it was allegorical, when Adam lived, what "Adam"'s identity was or anything else. He said it was our religious belief and to explain it as something we believe was revealed. And indeed it is. It seems you tend to take everything literally but there are many other possibilities. We have had this discussion so many times I am tired of it. He didn't get the memo from the scholarly, just like Elder Bednar saying Jesus' birth was on April 6th in Gen Conf. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 54 minutes ago, RevTestament said: No, I understand that a temple play describes Genesis and the creation. Then you need to read Moses. 2
Gray Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: No he did not teach that was a scientific "fact". What he said in no way conflicts with science. He said that that was a revealed belief which we accept, and of course we do. He did not say if it was symbolic, if it was allegorical, when Adam lived, what "Adam"'s identity was or anything else. He said it was our religious belief and to explain it as something we believe was revealed. And indeed it is. It seems you tend to take everything literally but there are many other possibilities. We have had this discussion so many times I am tired of it. That's a sensible approach. However, before deriding Cinepro for taking it literally, how likely do you think that Elder Renlund (and every GA who has spoken on the subject) is not taking it literally too? Orthodox Mormonism tends toward literal/surface level interpretation, with few exceptions. Edited February 15, 2016 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 That Adam was the first person to hold the Priesthood. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 34 minutes ago, Gray said: That's a sensible approach. However, before deriding Cinepro for taking it literally, how likely do you think that Elder Renlund (and every GA who has spoken on the subject) is not taking it literally too? Orthodox Mormonism tends toward literal/surface level interpretation, with few exceptions. Oh gosh. Again? There is no such thing as "orthodox Mormonism" and I would not hazard a guess on how anyone else interprets anything To be a Mormon and attend the temple one must honestly pass the temple recommend interview. I do not recall any questions on biblical interpretations on that interview. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 What does it mean Its literal meaning is still something of a mystery. Adam literally means man. Ahman (according to revelation) literally means God. Ondi is the mysterious word - man meets with God, man is called God, man becomes God, Adam meets with God, Adam becomes God, Adam is called God. Lots of ideas out there. But it somehow connects man (or the man Adam) and God. It is the valley where Adam was sent after being cast out of the Garden of Eden. It is the valley where Adam gathered and blessed his posterity. It is the valley where the grand council spoken of in Daniel and by Joseph Smith will take place prior to the second coming. (D&C 116) It is located in Missouri near the same area where the New Jerusalem will be built. Do you believe it Yes. Absolutely. I've been there many times, and the spirit is so strong. That is sacred ground. 1
Gray Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Oh gosh. Again? There is no such thing as "orthodox Mormonism" and I would not hazard a guess on how anyone else interprets anything To be a Mormon and attend the temple one must honestly pass the temple recommend interview. I do not recall any questions on biblical interpretations on that interview. Orthodox Mormonism is always evolving, but I would define it as Mormonism as it's taught through official church channels. That seems reasonable. I agree that unorthodox members can still get a recommend while rejecting orthodoxy and literalism. But I just find it curious that you criticize critics for their naive literalism but don't seem to blink at the same literalism that is coursing through everything that comes to us via official church channels. There is no hint that any of them are approaching this the way you do. Or the way I do. I think literalism is usually pretty silly, but I can't fault former believers for maintaining the same interpretive lens that they learned in church. Edited February 15, 2016 by Gray 2
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: What does it mean Its literal meaning is still something of a mystery. According to Bruce R. McConkie, "as near as we can judge", it means "the place or land of God where Adam dwelt" in the pure Adamic language. Quote “Adam was the first man of all men; Ahman is one of the names by which God was known to Adam. Adam-ondi-Ahman, a name carried over from the pure Adamic language into English, is one for which we have not been given a revealed, literal translation. As near as we can judge -- and this view comes down from the early brethren who associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, who was the first one to use the name in this dispensation -- Adam-ondi-Ahman means the place or land of God where Adam dwelt. 2
cinepro Posted February 15, 2016 Author Posted February 15, 2016 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Oh gosh. Again? There is no such thing as "orthodox Mormonism" and I would not hazard a guess on how anyone else interprets anything To be a Mormon and attend the temple one must honestly pass the temple recommend interview. I do not recall any questions on biblical interpretations on that interview. Sounds good. I'll chalk you up in the "I don't believe it" column.
Tacenda Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Gray said: Orthodox Mormonism is always evolving, but I would define it as Mormonism as it's taught through official church channels. That seems reasonable. I agree that unorthodox members can still get a recommend while rejecting orthodoxy and literalism. But I just find it curious that you criticize critics for their naive literalism but don't seem to blink at the same literalism that is coursing through everything that comes to us via official church channels. There is no hint that any of them are approaching this the way you do. Or the way I do. I think literalism is silly, but I can't fault former believers maintaining the same interpretive lens that they learned in church. My mother in law would appreciate that Elder Renlund verified that Missouri is where Adam and Eve visited, she still believes that is where the church will be gathered in the last days, at least I thought she mentioned something like it recently. Here is an LDS.org talk that might be of interest, it presents that some things in the church are myths. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/04/missouri-myths?lang=eng Why wasn't the alter preserved? Seems if this were a true story, our church would do more. http://www.lds-mormon.com/adam_ond.shtml it was about sixteen feet long, by nine or ten feet wide, having its greatest extent north and south. The height of the altar at each end was some two and a half feet, gradually rising higher to the center, which was between four and five feet high--the whole surface being crowning. Such was the altar at "Diahman" when the Prophet's party visited it. Now, however, it is thrown down, and nothing but a mound of crumbling stones mixed with soil, and a few reddish boulders mark the spot which is doubtless rich in historic events . History of the Church , Vol. 3, p. 39, Footnotes. (bold mine) Edited February 15, 2016 by Tacenda
CV75 Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 I feel a couplet coming on.... I don't know and I don't care / But when invited I'll be there. 1
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why wasn't the alter preserved? Seems if this were a true story, our church would do more. http://www.lds-mormon.com/adam_ond.shtml it was about sixteen feet long, by nine or ten feet wide, having its greatest extent north and south. The height of the altar at each end was some two and a half feet, gradually rising higher to the center, which was between four and five feet high--the whole surface being crowning. Such was the altar at "Diahman" when the Prophet's party visited it. Now, however, it is thrown down, and nothing but a mound of crumbling stones mixed with soil, and a few reddish boulders mark the spot which is doubtless rich in historic events . History of the Church , Vol. 3, p. 39, Footnotes. (bold mine) I thought I'd seen pictures of the flat, stone slabs that still exist (?). Maybe those are thought to be something else, or maybe I'm mistaken with what I remember. . Edited February 15, 2016 by ALarson
Calm Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why wasn't the alter preserved? Seems if this were a true story, our church would do more. Have you forgotten what happened to the Saints in Missouri? How many lives do you see preserving the altar was worth? (assuming all the details are true)
Calm Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: I thought I'd seen pictures of the flat, stone slabs that still exist (?). Maybe those are thought to be something else, or maybe I'm mistaken with what I remember. . iirc, Elder Talmage suggested the stones were more recent arrivals.
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Have you forgotten what happened to the Saints in Missouri? How many lives do you see preserving the altar was worth? (assuming all the details are true) Well, we know it still existed in 1873 (according to Wilford Woodruff).
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: iirc, Elder Talmage suggested the stones were more recent arrivals. Oh...ok, that is interesting. Thanks!
Tacenda Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Have you forgotten what happened to the Saints in Missouri? How many lives do you see preserving the altar was worth? (assuming all the details are true) I guess you're right, it's taken years for the church to find the graves that the mobs tore the headstones from in the old Nauvoo cemetery. This was two years ago, that an elder missionary was using a dowsing stick to find the graves. After all these years this was started?
ALarson Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: I guess you're right, it's taken years for the church to find the graves that the mobs tore the headstones from in the old Nauvoo cemetery. But the mobs didn't tear the alters down (unless it was 30+ years later).
JLHPROF Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 43 minutes ago, ALarson said: According to Bruce R. McConkie, "as near as we can judge", it means "the place or land of God where Adam dwelt" in the pure Adamic language. I find McConkie's switch of Ahman from God the person to land of God a little bit of a stretch.
Tacenda Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: But the mobs didn't tear the alters down (unless it was 30+ years later). Yes, and the RLDS church owned the burial ground until 1989 I believe. I wonder how long the church has owned Adam-ondi-Ahman? I just remember speaking to the missionary dowsing to find the graves. I thought he said the headstones were taken off during a mob raid and thrown in a ravine or I heard wrong. Just learned it wasn't until 1989 until the church had ownership. So given that it was in that short of period I'm sure it's a difficult task. Edited February 15, 2016 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts