Adam-ondi-Ahman: What does it mean, and do you believe it?

[Rajah Manchou]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The bottom line is that there are many possible paradigms for ways of seeing religious issues and I see the "best" as being one which removes as many logical conflicts as possible. 

The most pragmatic paradigm with the fewest logical conflicts, in my opinion, is found in Stephen Openheimer's book Eden in the East. Oppenheimer, a renowned geneticist, suggests that Eden was the now flooded continent of Sundaland, in present day Indonesia and Malaysia. As the Ice Age ended, Sundaland was flooded and the inhabitants evacuated, probably by boat.

A groundbreaking study came out a few weeks ago demonstrating that Oppenheimer might be right. The DNA of pacific islanders does not completely originate in Taiwan as expected, rather it comes from Sundaland, meaning Polynesians were likely pushed to the islands as glacial melt flooded their homeland. This would explain the unusual concentration of Fruit Garden and Great Deluge myths all across Southeast Asia.

So why do most Austronesian and Polynesian languages originate in Formosa if the DNA comes from Sundaland? Scientists are speculating that a group of elites carrying a new religion spread out from the island around 3000 BC, just around the time the Jaredites would have launched out from the East Asian coast.

Quote

As both archaeologists and linguists have suggested, alluding to the spread of the early Metal Age in Europe, it may be that what began to spread across ISEA around 4000 years ago was primarily a new way of thinking—the adoption of a new ideology and perhaps even a new religion (Blench 2012; Spriggs 2011).

So science is confirming that there was a spread across the Pacific, towards the New World, of a new language and belief system right around the time the Jaredites would have been there.

If we consider the Malay Book of Mormon model, Adam-Ondi-Ahman becomes Sundaland, in what is now the "Andaman Sea". The Andaman floods Adam-Ondi-Ahman at the end of the Ice Age forcing inhabitants to spread out across the Pacific towards the New World (Andaman DNA has recently been found in the New World) and also west towards the Middle East (Sumerians). 



I'm a broken record, but if Book of Mormon scholars would give the Malay model a serious look, there could be some fascinating results. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Kaleb Webb said:

I don't think the Garden of Eden was anywhere near Missouri. In Genesis it seems to be describing an area somewhere in the middle east. It talks about a river that runs towards Assyria and mentions the river Euphrates by name.

...........................................................

Most biblical scholars think that the verses naming the rivers (two in Mesopotamia, and two in Africa) are late, anachronistic insertions.  They are absent from the Book of Abraham.

[rodheadlee]

Ok, I'm really slow but it seems to me if you believe in Adam -ondi-Ahman  that you would also believe in the world wide flood of Noah. in which case all of these migration maps of homo sapiens would really be maps of the migrations of Shem, Ham and Japeth. You are looking for the Garden but you are actually looking at the landing spot for Noah's ark, not the place of the origin of homo sapiens but which would appear to be so.

Edited February 16, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Glenn101]

22 hours ago, rongo said:

To answer your OP, I, for one, believe in a global flood, that Adam and Eve were real historical people, that the Garden of Eden was in what is now Missouri, and that the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman ("Adam in the presence of God" in Adamic) was the site of Adam's blessing and prophecy of his posterity and that it will be the future site of the meeting described in the scriptures. 

For those that this view embarrasses: tough stuff.

Good for Elder Renlund for not tiptoeing around the minefield of traditional LDS views vs. modern scientific/PC claims (e.g., global flood, historical Genesis, etc.). How refreshing in our modern PR/Edelman-driven church!

You have pretty much echoed my own sentiments/beliefs. I have obtained a testimony of the Gospel to which I always come back to (and how I obtained it) whenever these questions come up.

I believe that Abraham was tested by the Lord with Isaac. I believe that there was a flood. Whether it was global one, or local, I have no idea. I believe that Noah spent 120 years building an ark. I don't know how that he squeezed a pair of all the animals extant at the time into that ark, but I believe it. I believe that the Children of Israel sojourned in Egypt for 400 years, although there is little if any archeological evidence for it.

I believe that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God and that it was translated by the Power of God. I believe that he created this universe. I don't know how, but I believe that one day I will know. I believe there were Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites, even if there has never been a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign has yet to be found.

I do believe that God has, does, and will "try the faith" (3 Nephi 26:11) of His people, of those who esteem themselves His disciples. And some will be exercised because the things they read in the scriptures conflict with the reason or the theories they learn through the sciences. Because of men brilliant in their fields of science deride the religious experience, an experience they evidently have never had.

But I also believe God when He says that "wisdom of the wise shall perish" (D&C 76:9) and that "wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Corinthians 3;19).

And, on a side note, I do believe that God has a sense of humor. He throws the evolutionists a trillobite in the Cambrian era for them to ignore. He plays mind games with us in the Book of Mormon by throwing Early Modern English that predates the King James bible. He dictates to Joseph a portion of Isaiah that is word for word from the King James Bible, then changes tack and has Joseph write some stuff from Isaiah which is not word for word, but finds some support from other documentary sources. God will have the last laugh.

It may not be worth it, but that is what purports to be my two cents worth.

Glenn

 

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

It was a thought experiment.  Sheesh.

It was deceitful manipulation.  Double-sheesh.

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most biblical scholars think that the verses naming the rivers (two in Mesopotamia, and two in Africa) are late, anachronistic insertions.  They are absent from the Book of Abraham.

Don't these same scholars also think the Biblical Eden story is just rehash from an older Mesopotamia myth?

And don't we also think that these is a lot more to the Book of Abraham that Joseph did not translate?

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Don't these same scholars also think the Biblical Eden story is just rehash from an older Mesopotamia myth?

And don't we also think that these is a lot more to the Book of Abraham that Joseph did not translate?

Do you? Formulate your own opinons.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours 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)

For many years the local farmers would clear their fields of rocks and dump them at AOA because they knew the visiting Mormons would carry them off as alter souvenirs. True story.

[Gray]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The fact that we need to change has nothing to do with critics who do not understand that there are many ways to interpret Mormonism.

I also have no problem with literalism per se.  It is just that we can all see multiple paradigms of interpretation simultaneously if we want to.

For example, was there a literal Adam?  Honestly I have no idea.  God could have done it that way if he wanted.  Was the world created 6000 years ago?  Honestly God could have done that if he wanted to.  Bertrand Russel pointed out that there is no way to disprove the idea that the world popped into existence 5 minutes ago and all our memories are false.

He did not believe that, nor do I , but the point is, it is logically possible that this is the case.

As far as Adam-ondi-Ahman, it is possibly literally "true" meaning "it actually happened".  I think that is about as probable as the earth popping into existence 5 minutes ago, but who am I to judge God's purposes.

It could be that the place is a symbol for a "peaceful place" which will house a huge meeting of the priesthood including the living and the dead that may take place literally in what is now known as Missouri or in "heaven".  After all, humans can represent God himself in temple symbolism, so why could not AoA symbolize any peaceful place?

The scriptures speak of a "second Adam"- the savior.  Jacob, it is said wrestled with an "angel" which could have been a human representing an angel or the Lord himself or any combination of the above.

All of these are possible and I discount none of them.  There is no need for an either/or interpretation of anything.  In my opinion those who demand an either/or view lack the ability to see other possibilities 

The bottom line for me is that pragmatically, these religious beliefs enrich my life incredibly and make me feel closer to a real person I know as "Christ" whom I believe I have experienced through revelation in the form of feelings in my heart.  This person knows me and my life and problems and is capable of putting answers to fundamental questions into my mind in such a way that I know that they did not come from me.  They are new ways of seeing that I could not or would not come up with on my own.  They are in some cases brand new ideas, or new ways of assembling old ideas which allow me to make sense of a particular problem or theory.

So no, I am not against literalism, I just find it hard to reconcile it with science AND other opinions I hold about the nature of reality, some derived just from living life, and others that have a philosophical origin.

I attack critics who lack the understanding that there are may ways of seeing things, and try to teach members the same principle.  I am gentle with members and reflect the attitude of critics.  If they are here to attack, I attack.  If they are here to be conciliatory and ask questions and reason things out, I respond as I am here.

The bottom line is that there are many possible paradigms for ways of seeing religious issues and I see the "best" as being one which removes as many logical conflicts as possible.  But that view itself is not guaranteed as being "correct" or "what really happened".  Occam's Razor is just a theory like any other theory.  For all I really know it might be "turtles all the way down" but I do not believe anything like that

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

All that is great and I agree with most of it. But why be gentle with members but not with critics? Neither are likely to respond well to attacks. Maybe the critics have a simplistic interpretive framework, but that's really the hallmark of mainstream Mormonism. I don't find much difference between ex-Mormon critics and mainstream Mormon believers. They approach life using the same framework, just facing in opposite directions. 

Do church leaders understand that there are many ways to interpret Mormonism? Maybe, but I think most do not. There are many Mormonisms, but the real diversity mostly exists on the fringes of the faith. 

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years the local farmers would clear their fields of rocks and dump them at AOA because they knew the visiting Mormons would carry them off as alter souvenirs. True story.

That's funny, because it's almost certainly true.

I never saw anything I would believe was an altar on any of my trips.
I have been to where the foundation of Lyman Wight's cabin still exists in the undergrowth, (and a few people took rock chips as souvenirs).

And of course everyone has stood on preacher's rock.  It's kind of a required part of the trip.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

David W. Maurer was right.

"There's a mark born every minute, and one to trim 'em and one to knock 'em."

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years the local farmers would clear their fields of rocks and dump them at AOA because they knew the visiting Mormons would carry them off as alter souvenirs. True story.

Yes, the protection of the alleged altar would have probably been from our own members or those who wanted to make money off of gullible Mormons.  But knowledge that LDS were permanently hanging around the area might have incited some action from the locals back then.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, the protection of the alleged altar would have probably been from our own members or those who wanted to make money off of gullible Mormons.  But knowledge that LDS were permanently hanging around the area might have incited some action from the locals back then.

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. First, are you suggesting that the actual altar was still standing in the 1830's when JS identified AoA and that the church had to protect the altar from other LDS who would take pieces or try to sell it?

Second, what time period are you referring to in your final sentence? Are you talking about LDS hanging around AoA in the 1830's or in the 1940's when the first 38 acres of land was purchased and by a member and returned to the church?  http://www.lds-mormon.com/adam_ond.shtml

AoA appears on maps as the "Mormon Shrine".

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

the real diversity mostly exists on the fringes of the faith. 

Real / true/ functional diversity is integrated throughout the community and supports the community in coming together and moving forward. An array of divergent ideas scattered along the fringe is about as isolating and dysfunctional as it can get, especially when those occupying the fringe identify as a breed apart; it is independence and freedom gone awry. And that serves as a self-regulated safety valve I guess when ideas have proven to be distracting or detrimental to the community.

Edited February 16, 2016 by CV75

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Real / true/ functional diversity is integrated throughout the community and supports the community in coming together and moving forward. An array of divergent ideas scattered along the fringe is about as isolating and dysfunctional as it can get, especially when those occupying the fringe identify as a breed apart; it is independence and freedom gone awry. And that serves as a self-regulated safety valve I guess when ideas have proven to be distracting or detrimental to the community.

What do you mean when you say "Real / true/ functional diversity"?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

What do you mean when you say "Real / true/ functional diversity"?

Diversity of a kind that seems authentic to you and would resonate with you; one that is "integrated throughout the community and supports the community in coming together and moving forward." The slash marks represent an invitation to use your own adjective that conveys the same idea.

[Robert F. Smith]

DUPLICATE

Edited February 17, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Don't these same scholars also think the Biblical Eden story is just rehash from an older Mesopotamia myth?

I have never heard them use the word "rehash," but yes they do, and so do Hugh Nibley and the Mormons.  So did the late Joseph Campbell.  Don't you?

And don't we also think that these is a lot more to the Book of Abraham that Joseph did not translate?

Yes, but you may have noticed how the BofA as published by Joseph Smith skips those names at BofA 5:10-11.  Was he such a well-informed higher critic?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years the local farmers would clear their fields of rocks and dump them at AOA because they knew the visiting Mormons would carry them off as alter souvenirs. True story.

Doesn't surprise me.  People do that worldwide, and it is a real problem.  Many years ago a Jewish guy from the States was visiting Tel Hazor in Israel, found a cuneiform tablet lying about and took it back to the USA.  Decades later he returned it to the Israel Dept of Antiquities.  A lot of important artifacts go missing.  This is also true of ignorant Mormon pot hunters in Utah and Arizona, who illegally dig and trade in Native American artifacts, thus destroying the context (provenance) and making archeology that much more difficult.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

All that is great and I agree with most of it. But why be gentle with members but not with critics? Neither are likely to respond well to attacks. Maybe the critics have a simplistic interpretive framework, but that's really the hallmark of mainstream Mormonism. I don't find much difference between ex-Mormon critics and mainstream Mormon believers. They approach life using the same framework, just facing in opposite directions. 

Do church leaders understand that there are many ways to interpret Mormonism? Maybe, but I think most do not. There are many Mormonisms, but the real diversity mostly exists on the fringes of the faith. 

I actually find the most diversity in personality, lifestyle, and the like amongst the core of true believers. The further you get from there the more people seem to think they are unique but fall into a kind of drab sameness. I go out with missionaries a lot and see less-actives and the like and many imagine their profound musings are new when they are copy and pastes from the internet. I care about them but it can be hard to respect that level of self-deceit.

Now if you mean diversity of belief maybe...........but on the other hand the LDS faith does not spend a lot of time outside of core doctrines telling us what we must and must not believe. Some of the things they do tell us (no homosexuality, no sex outside of marriage, no alcohol, tithing, go on a mission, love everyone) are obnoxious to people who do not like them but they are not where you find the oddities. I know a member who believes all the pagan deities of the past were devils who manifested themselves and gave their real names. I know a crazy lady who is convinced angels rearrange her mirrors while she is not looking. I know an LDS communist and an LDS trade-syndicalist. I know a member convinced that the Ten Tribes live under the ice of Europa. I know a member who believes Adam is a Hindu-style avatar of God the Father, another who believes the Three Nephites are in politics and that John the Revelator personally overthrew the Eastern bloc (I think he thought he cursed Stalin or something too). All of these people are members in good standing with temple recommends and appear orthodox in pretty much every respect. I do not see the monotonous sameness our critics claim to see.

And we will not even get into the weird things I believe.  

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And we will not even get into the weird things I believe.  

Hey, that's my line...wanna compare weird beliefs?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. First, are you suggesting that the actual altar was still standing in the 1830's when JS identified AoA and that the church had to protect the altar from other LDS who would take pieces or try to sell it?

Second, what time period are you referring to in your final sentence?

No to the actual altar, that is why I used "alleged".  

If I recall the conversation clearly enough, Tacenda wanted to know why the Church hadn't protected the altar (I think there was a post, either hers or someone else, where Wilford Woodruff reported it still standing in 1857).  I am talking about sending out people after they got kicked out of the area, after the Extermination Order happened and the Saints headed out west and there was still a lot of animosity going on towards the Saints, including physical attacks.  I would assume it would have been relatively safe for the Church to have a presence (as opposed to passing through or living there quietly without making a big deal that one was Mormon) there in the late 1800s, but don't know when it would have become safe. Hedrickites went to Independence in 1867 but I haven't yet found anything that talks about if there was any persecution or if they were seen as Mormon or not.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I know a member who believes  . . . that John the Revelator personally overthrew the Eastern bloc

Careful making fun of these (well, some of them). Elder Wirthlin told us this very thing ^^^^  in the Hamburg Mission in October 1994 (mission conference). He told us that John the Revelator was instrumental in bringing about the fall of communism and in opening up Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for the preaching of the gospel.

I know that the sophisticated members today roll their eyes at such things as this, or a historical Adam, etc., but if translated beings are real, they are doing something. Some important things. Not just changing tires on the I-15 and disappearing . . .  

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Careful making fun of these (well, some of them). Elder Wirthlin told us this very thing ^^^^  in the Hamburg Mission in October 1994 (mission conference). He told us that John the Revelator was instrumental in bringing about the fall of communism and in opening up Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for the preaching of the gospel.

I know that the sophisticated members today roll their eyes at such things as this, or a historical Adam, etc., but if translated beings are real, they are doing something. Some important things. Not just changing tires on the I-15 and disappearing . . .  

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, 
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. 
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quickquotes/quickquotehamletdreamt.html

[Sevenbak]

21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I guess it's safe to assume those emoji are in the attitude of mocking and pointing fingers?

 

The Church correlation is very specific.  

From the D&C manual.

https://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.