Guidelines Responses to Common Questions- Leak

[rongo]

I personally believe our Restoration scriptures literally (including the Pearl of Great Price). I taught standard, accepted science when I was a science teacher. This led to some interesting conversations, particularly in middle school, where it seems that every student is a fundamentalist (anti-evolution, young earth, global flood). I explained to those who were up in arms about learning science that my personal views are similar to theirs, but that neither they nor I should feel threatened a) learning why modern science insists on certain things, and b) that others don't see the world how we do. 

As far as geological, biological, cosmological, etc. evidence --- most of this is assumption-laden. I don't think anti-global-flooders have a good idea of what sedimentary or other evidence of a flood would look like. *If* the entire world were submerged at one time, the pressure exerted and its effect would be quite different from what many assume, in my view. But this possibility is dismissed a priori as ludicrous and unthinkable. 

It will be interesting to see if Newsroom/essays ever ventures into global flood or pre-Adamites. That's a third-rail for many members. But so far, traditionalists have a perfect record in official teaching. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

And just so we're all clear, the CES manual used in the Church colleges and institutes to this day still teaches this.  This means that any young adult (or adult) that takes a college-level religion course on the Old Testament in 2017 is still taught this:

 

Where it says, "we teach that the Garden of Eden was on the American continent located where the City Zion, or the New Jerusalem, will be built," this means the Garden of Eden was on the American continent, and the City Zion / New Jerusalem will be on that same "land" as 3 Nephi 20:22 suggests. Joseph Smith's vision was in line with this. The City of Zion / New Jerusalem is to be built upon the whole land, and even to fill the continent. "This is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion."

In a letter outlining/detailing the plans for the City of Zion, he wrote, "When this square is thus laid off and supplied, lay off another in the same way, and so fill up the world in these last days..." (Joseph Smith) http://urbanplanning.library.cornell.edu/DOCS/smith.htm

See also the 6th paragraph here: https://www.lds.org/manual/truth-restored/chapter-6-the-church-in-missouri?lang=eng&clang=ara

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"We" believe these other details? Like Pangea separating 4200 years ago? Or are you referring to something else? You say we have better information today which informs our understanding. I agree. But wouldn't part of that be that there is no way that Pangea separated 4200 years ago? And why 4200 years ago? The only reason I can think that they would make that specific claim is in order to stick with a new earth creation philosophy. Again, don't "we" know better than that today?

And just to be clear, when you are stating that we have "better information" are you privileging scholarship over prophetic teachings?

You seem to be hyperventilating. Is there a question about Pangea and in the leaked material, and a concern with how it is being handled?

I am not privileging scholars and scholarship over prophets and prophecy. I find they are quite complimentary in the right hands.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've heard this a lot but Joseph Smith's contemporaries attribute the teaching to him. There are multiple men who were apostles (later prophets) who make the claim, and it fits his other teachings of the time so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered a revelation. I understand there is no contemporary writing of a "revelation" but that's not really unusual for times when Joseph didn't have a scribe. But there are enough consistent, and presumably reliable, sources making the claim that it seems fairly strong.

I see your point about putting distance between a painful memory but I just read today (already forgot where) about how the fall affected the garden just as it affected Adam and Eve so it that's the case there wouldn't have even been a garden to look longingly upon. AoA is a good 75 miles north of Independence which is a good distance, especially in days where walking is the primary mode of transport. I live in a small town and I'm often amazed by how many old people were born and have lived in the same 10 mile radius their entire lives. I don't think it that strange that people in antiquity would also stay pretty close to home as travel would be arduous as would creating new shelters etc. I can see them sticking pretty close...assuming this is literal of course.

 

But even Joseph might have made the same assumption if he saw Adam and Eve as farmers and it turned out they were nomadic for a good time.

Why eould  there need to be an angel if the change was overnight and it was removed?  I can see the mortality hitting and taking a number of years to revert to the surroundings' status, but Adam and Eve might not have have been aware that would happen.

Nomads could travel quite a distance.  So could people with large flocks.  It all depends on if they settled down to be farmers quickly or not.  Not having a greater community to provide support, there would not be the social structure to keep them locked in one place.

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Easy to understand when you understand what is being dated in carbon dating.

God never said all of the carbon or other elements he used to create were brand spanking new when he created this planet, or even the universe.

 

Can you find that teaching in a current CES manual?

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But even Joseph might have made the same assumption if he saw Adam and Eve as farmers and it turned out they were nomadic for a good time.

Why eould  there need to be an angel if the change was overnight and it was removed?  I can see the mortality hitting and taking a number of years to revert to the surroundings' status, but Adam and Eve might not have have been aware that would happen.

Nomads could travel quite a distance.  So could people with large flocks.  It all depends on if they settled down to be farmers quickly or not.  Not having a greater community to provide support, there would not be the social structure to keep them locked in one place.

Taken literally these stories quickly become a mess as attempts to discredit the science of carbon dating incorrectly assumes materials like rock and bones and fossil fuels have been transported in their entirety to this planet from another. This is why I tend to think of the garden, Adam and Eve, as an allegory. It's so much simpler and makes so much more sense.  

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you find that teaching in a current CES manual?

Of what God never said?

Um, probably not, I don't think so.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Taken literally these stories quickly become a mess as attempts to discredit the science of carbon dating incorrectly assumes materials like rock and bones and fossil fuels have been transported in their entirety to this planet from another. This is why I tend to think of the garden, Adam and Eve, as an allegory. It's so much simpler and makes so much more sense.  

Only if one assumes the whole world was in the same state as the Garden (which it couldn't have been given the descriptions of both) or if one assumes "First Man and Woman" mean no other humans and not first covenanters.  Of course, if one assumes the latter, it has become an allegory in at least one part so one is altering the story if one chooses to place it in history.

I am okay with that as I believe it has been done worldwide, real people's stories not being the same as their experience at the time.  Goodness knows, I can see it happening right in front of my eyes on a daily basis almost, people altering the telling of events to fit the comforting narrative rather than altering the narrative.  I don't have a problem with that most of the time if used to motivate ourselves to try harder (too harsh a personal history remembered could lead to despair).

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Of what God never said?

Um, probably not, I don't think so.

Cute. But you're implying that the carbon dating is wrong because God pulled rocks and bones and fossil fuels from other planets and created the earth with those which is why we have the old carbon dating right? Were you joking or did I misunderstand you?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Cute. But you're implying that the carbon dating is wrong because God pulled rocks and bones and fossil fuels from other planets and created the earth with those which is why we have the old carbon dating right? Were you joking or did I misunderstand you?

He could have used:

1) What was here before his creation, not altering it in any way

2) What was here before his creation, altering some of the elements somehow 

3) What was somewhere else

4) a combination of the above.

All we know is that the planet was void (uninhabited) before he used it to create what he made from it.  We don't know how old the carbon was that was either here or brought from somewhere else.

The idea that all of the carbon here was 0 days old back then is not backed with any evidence.

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Taken literally these stories quickly become a mess as attempts to discredit the science of carbon dating incorrectly assumes materials like rock and bones and fossil fuels have been transported in their entirety to this planet from another.

The foundational assumption of radio carbon dating is that C-14 has always decayed at standard rates (the rates we now observe it decaying at) at all times on the earth. This is an assumption that different factors could significantly change. I think it's silly to argue that "old" organic material was transported in order to explain how "old" organic material can exist, and I've never believed that. I do think that what we think are precise and iron-clad dating techniques are not as precise and iron-clad as we think.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

He could have used:

1) What was here before his creation, not altering it in any way

2) What was here before his creation, altering some of the elements somehow 

3) What was somewhere else

4) a combination of the above.

All we know is that the planet was void (uninhabited) before he used it to create what he made from it.  We don't know how old the carbon was that was either here or brought from somewhere else.

The idea that all of the carbon here was 0 days old back then is not backed with any evidence.

Except he also created the planet, right? Behold, there is matter unorganized. So did he organize the planet in a way that made us think dinosaurs roamed and that it was inhabited thousands of years before the earth was even created? If that is the case, we may have a trickster God.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

The foundational assumption of radio carbon dating is that C-14 has always decayed at standard rates (the rates we now observe it decaying at) at all times on the earth. This is an assumption that different factors could significantly change. I think it's silly to argue that "old" organic material was transported in order to explain how "old" organic material can exist, and I've never believed that. I do think that what we think are precise and iron-clad dating techniques are not as precise and iron-clad as we think.

I agree. While I trust the carbon dating in general based on my limited understanding, I'm sure there is room for carbon dating errors.

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

The foundational assumption of radio carbon dating is that C-14 has always decayed at standard rates (the rates we now observe it decaying at) at all times on the earth. This is an assumption that different factors could significantly change. I think it's silly to argue that "old" organic material was transported in order to explain how "old" organic material can exist, and I've never believed that. I do think that what we think are precise and iron-clad dating techniques are not as precise and iron-clad as we think.

 

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. While I trust the carbon dating in general based on my limited understanding, I'm sure there is room for carbon dating errors

I'm not a scientist, but I'd like to challenge both of these comments a bit.   Why are we so skeptical of a method of learning that has such a strong track record?  I can't argue for carbon dating scientifically, but I'm not comfortable calling it into question without any substantive arguments against it.  

Rongo, I would ask you this question, are you aware of any peer reviewed scientific theories that call the carbon dating method into question?  

HappyJackWagon, when you say there is room for dating errors how big of an error are you talking about?  Something dated at 100s of Millions of years, could actually be only thousands of years old?  Do you think an error that large could fall into your "room for dating errors"?  

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Except he also created the planet, right? Behold, there is matter unorganized. So did he organize the planet in a way that made us think dinosaurs roamed and that it was inhabited thousands of years before the earth was even created? If that is the case, we may have a trickster God.

 

No, not a trickster God. Just one who does things that we may not completely understand.

I envision a huge chunk of matter composed of various elements that may or may not have been organized at some time prior to when he said it was unorganized. (The fact that it was unorganized then doesn't necessarily mean it had never been organized at some time before that moment) And then he organized that chunk of matter to suit his purposes, either adding or not adding some matter from somewhere else. And he either changed some of the elements somehow or he used them exactly as he found them. (someone who could change water to wine could conceivably change elements in other ways too). And then, eventually, voila! It was all done, as he wanted it then, and it was all good.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I'm not a scientist, but I'd like to challenge both of these comments a bit.   Why are we so skeptical of a method of learning that has such a strong track record?  I can't argue for carbon dating scientifically, but I'm not comfortable calling it into question without any substantive arguments against it.  

Rongo, I would ask you this question, are you aware of any peer reviewed scientific theories that call the carbon dating method into question?  

HappyJackWagon, when you say there is room for dating errors how big of an error are you talking about?  Something dated at 100s of Millions of years, could actually be only thousands of years old?  Do you think an error that large could fall into your "room for dating errors"?  

No. I'm thinking more in the thousands. But accepting room for error isn't really dismissing the science. I believe there is room for error in everything humans touch.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Where it says, "we teach that the Garden of Eden was on the American continent located where the City Zion, or the New Jerusalem, will be built," this means the Garden of Eden was on the American continent, and the City Zion / New Jerusalem will be on that same "land" as 3 Nephi 20:22 suggests. Joseph Smith's vision was in line with this. The City of Zion / New Jerusalem is to be built upon the whole land, and even to fill the continent. "This is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion."

 

In a letter outlining/detailing the plans for the City of Zion, he wrote, "When this square is thus laid off and supplied, lay off another in the same way, and so fill up the world in these last days..." (Joseph Smith) http://urbanplanning.library.cornell.edu/DOCS/smith.htm

See also the 6th paragraph here: https://www.lds.org/manual/truth-restored/chapter-6-the-church-in-missouri?lang=eng&clang=ara

 

I'm afraid I'm not following your line of thought.  Are you saying that you think the "City of Zion" will cover the entire continent, and thus the Garden of Eden probably covered the entire continent as well?

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I'm thinking more in the thousands. But accepting room for error isn't really dismissing the science. I believe there is room for error in everything humans touch.

I agree that humans create errors, history has a pretty good track record of this.  It sounds like you think carbon dating is accurate, but you allow for some probability of error, but nothing too extreme, is that safe to say?  

I know some people who use this errors argument to support young earth creationism and intelligent design arguments, I'm guessing you wouldn't take things to that extreme?  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm afraid I'm not following your line of thought.  Are you saying that you think the "City of Zion" will cover the entire continent, and thus the Garden of Eden probably covered the entire continent as well?

I’m saying that the Garden of Eden was somewhere on the American continent before it became a continent; that other places related to the post-Edenic Adam (Spring Hill, Olana Shinehah, Adam-ondi-Ahman and the lands and features they pertain to) and the initial location of the latter-day City of Zion / New Jerusalem are in modern Missouri; and, that the City of Zion / New Jerusalem will expand to fill the maximal geographic area as prophesied in terms of “land” (Book or Mormon) and “world” (Joseph Smith).

I wasn’t trying to imitate an Article of Faith, it just came out that way! LOL

Joseph also envisioned the kingdom filling North and South America and the world, however he conceptualized “world” to mean.

Edited March 30, 2017 by CV75

[Ahab]

I must say that I rather like the idea of the place where the ancient garden of Eden once was becoming the center place of the future city of Zion. It would be a nice melding together of those important places and what they signified and will signify on this planet. I'm sure the capital city of Zion will have a lot of nice garden spaces. And then the whole world will be blossoming as a rose.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’m saying that the Garden of Eden was somewhere on the American continent before it became a continent; that other places related to the post-Edenic Adam (Spring Hill, Olana Shinehah, Adam-ondi-Ahman and the lands and features they pertain to) and the initial location of the latter-day City of Zion / New Jerusalem are in modern Missouri; and, that the City of Zion / New Jerusalem will expand to fill the maximal geographic area as prophesied in terms of “land” (Book or Mormon) and “world” (Joseph Smith).

I wasn’t trying to imitate an Article of Faith, it just came out that way! LOL

Joseph also envisioned the kingdom filling North and South America and the world, however he conceptualized “world” to mean.

It sure seems to take some twisting and contorting to reject the idea that the garden was in Independence as Brigham claimed Joseph taught via revelation. What's the point other than to back up a modern statement of uncertainty by prophets who haven't claimed revelation on the matter.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sure seems to take some twisting and contorting to reject the idea that the garden was in Independence as Brigham claimed Joseph taught via revelation. What's the point other than to back up a modern statement of uncertainty by prophets who haven't claimed revelation on the matter.

I'm not rejecting the idea; it's a fine idea and easy to work with. I'm explaining where the linked lesson manual seems to be coming from in relation to the question asked in the leaked document from your OP.

As far as believing the variations on a theme, I think they are harmless, and the Garden of Eden might as well have been in Independence. I simply have no primary source from Joseph Smith to that effect, just recollections of conversations with him that were passed down. The best we have are in the D&C, which do not say that, so I think the GA guidance is fine. It's a better answer than some of the others I've seen and more mannerly than saying, "It might as well have been for all I care."

And while it may first make its appearance there, the City Zion/New Jerusalem is ultimately not limited to the 1830 town limits of Independence, Mo. A good deal of it  has been somewhere else for thousands of years, and as we speak, too.

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

...the City Zion/New Jerusalem is ultimately not limited to the 1830 town limits of Independence, Mo. A good deal of it  has been somewhere else for thousands of years, and as we speak, too.

Enoch's people, you mean? Good point.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Enoch's people, you mean? Good point.

Yes, the translated City of Enoch.

[probablyHagoth7]

On 3/29/2017 at 1:40 PM, cinepro said:

It would have to have looked something like this...

And the neighbor represents Adam...hiding himself....?

...because someone suggested he was naked? 

Edited March 31, 2017 by probablyHagoth7