No Death Before the Fall?

[Ouagadougou]

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

So, Adam and Eve lived in Missouri; the fall occurred ~ 4,000 B.C.; and before that time there was no death on Earth?  

IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous to believe that death only occurred after the fall.  For example, scientific evidence shows that humans and animals died well before 4,000 B.C. 

"Archaeologists say they have unearthed the earliest evidence of warfare between hunter-gatherers to be scientifically dated, at a remote site in northern Kenya.

The 10,000-year-old remains of 27 people found west of Lake Turkana show that they met violent deaths."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

 

[The Nehor]

From the preface of the Bible Dictionary from which you pulled your 'gotcha' quote:

"It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

I disagree with many things in the Bible Dictionary and the LDS Inquisition has so far not brought charges of heresy against me.

[Rivers]

15 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

So, Adam and Eve lived in Missouri; the fall occurred ~ 4,000 B.C.; and before that time there was no death on Earth?  

IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous to believe that death only occurred after the fall.  For example, scientific evidence shows that humans and animals died well before 4,000 B.C. 

"Archaeologists say they have unearthed the earliest evidence of warfare between hunter-gatherers to be scientifically dated, at a remote site in northern Kenya.

The 10,000-year-old remains of 27 people found west of Lake Turkana show that they met violent deaths."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

 

Maybe there was a period of time when there was no death on the earth preceding the fall.  And that this period of no death was preceded by a time in which there was death.  My theory is that there was death on the earth during the long six-period creation process and was transformed into a paradisiacal state when completed.

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Maybe there was a period of time when there was no death on the earth preceding the fall.  And that this period of no death was preceded by a time in which there was death.  My theory is that there was death on the earth during the long six-period creation process and was transformed into a paradisiacal state when completed.

So how then are humans killing each other around 10,000 B.C., when the Fall occurred around 4,000 B.C., but before the fall there was no death?  

Let the mental gymnastics begin...

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

From the preface of the Bible Dictionary from which you pulled your 'gotcha' quote:

"It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

I disagree with many things in the Bible Dictionary and the LDS Inquisition has so far not brought charges of heresy against me.

Why then does the Bible dictionary say:

"Latter-day revelation teaches..."

It's latter-day revelation, but at the same time not an official endorsement?

So I take it you agree that no death before the fall is pure nonsense? 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Probably written by McConkie and Fielding Smith, neither endorsed evolution or thought much of using science to understand the creative periods (even though the periods sort of line up by scientific standards). 

See Sagan's Dragons of Eden (great read)

[snowflake]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

So, Adam and Eve lived in Missouri; the fall occurred ~ 4,000 B.C.; and before that time there was no death on Earth?  

IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous to believe that death only occurred after the fall.  For example, scientific evidence shows that humans and animals died well before 4,000 B.C. 

"Archaeologists say they have unearthed the earliest evidence of warfare between hunter-gatherers to be scientifically dated, at a remote site in northern Kenya.

The 10,000-year-old remains of 27 people found west of Lake Turkana show that they met violent deaths."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

 

O, you have a couple of options here to make this fit into your worldview.

1. As a young earth creationist (I know call me crazy), the "scientists" are simply wrong on their timeline. When reading the Bible, the more literal and rigid that one reads the Bible, the more one is forced into the young earth view. When I say "I believe the Bible to be the word of God", one must accept what it says as truth, and if a 4 billion year old earth is presented, the Biblical worldview would reject that number as incorrect.   When we take the genealogies in the Bible and trace them back then yes you end up with creation around 4000B.C. or so. Defenders of this view are Ken Hamm and the "answers in genesis" types.  https://answersingenesis.org/ and http://creation.com/

2.  I see many Mormons and Christians with the view that yes the earth is billions of years old.  To get to this position they take the word "day" from the creation account in Genesis and spin it into "creation periods" which can mean basically whatever you want and length of times however you want them to be too. They will also abuse the scripture from Peter that says a day to God is like a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8).  This view typically accepts macroevolution as fact, denies a global flood and accepts death before the fall as well. Often you will hear that there was death before the fall but not the death of Man with this view.  Anyway you cut it, this worldview basically forces modern day "scientific views" of geology and evolution onto the Bible, instead of taking what the Biblical text says about creation and death before the fall. Hugh Ross has an excellent website basically defending this particular worldview. http://www.reasons.org/ 

3. The third option is you throw the Bible out as irrelevant, throw the BOM out as irrelevant and place "scientism" as your worldview. This worldview accepts abiogenesis, big bang, universe billions of years old, macroevolution of species, stellar evolution, chemical evolution as "fact".  I personally find this world view as much of a "religion" as Christianity or Mormonism.

[JAHS]

We only know that no "soul" has died before Adam fell and introduced death into the world. A soul is the combination of spirit and body. Adam and Eve and the animals that existed at his time had souls made of both body and spirit. The fall of Adam initiated the process of death caused by separation of body and spirit. We do not know how long the earth existed before that time. Perhaps it was millions of years before Adam as the scientists suggest; and the geological records would indicate that there was life in the form of dinosaurs during that time. It has been suggested that perhaps these were creatures without spirits(i.e. not souls) and only suffered a biological death and not the same kind of death(separation of spirit and body) that happened after the time of Adam. 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

So, Adam and Eve lived in Missouri; the fall occurred ~ 4,000 B.C.; and before that time there was no death on Earth?  

IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous to believe that death only occurred after the fall.  For example, scientific evidence shows that humans and animals died well before 4,000 B.C. 

"Archaeologists say they have unearthed the earliest evidence of warfare between hunter-gatherers to be scientifically dated, at a remote site in northern Kenya.

The 10,000-year-old remains of 27 people found west of Lake Turkana show that they met violent deaths."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

I see the story of Adam and Eve as an introduction of the Word to man. As Paul taught, then the law came and I died. Before man was responsible for right and wrong, there was no spiritual death. But the fall created the need for the tree of life to be introduced to the world. In other words before Adam introduced the Word of God to the world there was no sin, and therefore no death.

Personally, I also reject the Garden of Eden story in America. Adam-ondi-Ahman was named here because that is where Adam will return imho. It is not the same as the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. Go to Adam-ondi-Ahman and find a valley.... just sayin. Also see the inspired Book of Moses which clearly places Eden on a river going east of Assyria. There just is no getting that in America. BY was just wrong imho.

[stemelbow]

It's likely the Church is wrong regarding this teaching.  I suspect sometime down the road the Church will put out an anonymously written essay suggesting something like, "...past leaders have, in times past, speculated how the earth was formed and when it was formed.  But we know that such information would never be revealed to us (D&C 10...).  The biblical account might supply us with some history, but it is not exhaustive and in some cases we may not know whether all the events discussed in that record are historical.  Some have speculated that the Bible's story of creation is figurative.  Some thoughtful LDS people take that position.  What we know is that God has revealed scripture in our lives and that we are very blessed to have the light given to us as we partake in temple ordinances.  So science and history can teach us stuff, but that doesn't mean it can tell us what God knows. 

We encourage and support scientific research.  We think it helps humanity and will continue to do so.  God formed the earth eons ago.  He could have used old materials lying around.  He could have tricked us into thinking the earth is older than it is to test our faith.  So think what you must, but go to the temple, attend your meetings and magnify your callings.  Maybe He'll give you special info that others aren't privy to.  President Hinckley, or one of those past leaders said, you learn more and more about the temple as you go more and more.  I'm old and stuff and have gone through the temple tons, but there is still more for me to understand about it.  So, we're saying...the Church is the truth, baby.  See you on the other side..."

 

[Darren10]

Ouaga;

The problem with your post so far as I can tell is that you are taking revelation and man's science and assuming they are both based on the same foundational knowledge. They are not. I know of no official revelation by the LDS church which says that Adam and Eve lived at 4,000 BC; and even if there was one, is that 4,000BC based on dating carbons? If not then it would be based on some other means of dating Adam and Eve. I strongly suspect that if the methodology between man's science and divine revelation used the same methodology than we would see remarkable compatibility. So it's not so much that the LDS doctrines are "absurd' so much as that its revelations and man's science may use different standards of measurements.

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

So, Adam and Eve lived in Missouri; the fall occurred ~ 4,000 B.C.; and before that time there was no death on Earth?  

I didn't realize that was still in the Bible Dictionary. Hopefully they'll change that as the quoted passages simply don't say that. Interestingly the teacher's manual is far more careful and emphasizes the fall had an effect on mankind. I'd lay good odds they just haven't gotten around to updating that page yet. The main argument for no death is the rather vague "And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." But this seems to be talking of only what was going on in the garden. There are very strong reasons to think the garden of eden was a terrestrial world and simply was a different place than the fallen telestial world Adam and Even were sent to.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Personally, I also reject the Garden of Eden story in America. Adam-ondi-Ahman was named here because that is where Adam will return imho. It is not the same as the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. Go to Adam-ondi-Ahman and find a valley.... just sayin. Also see the inspired Book of Moses which clearly places Eden on a river going east of Assyria. There just is no getting that in America. BY was just wrong imho.

Note the Book of Moses just consists of additions to Genesis. It shouldn't be assumed that because a particular passage wasn't changed that it was correct. Joseph continued to go back to passages he'd modified and modify them more. 

Beyond that though Joseph puts Adam in America after the fall. The description of the garden is thus not necessarily on earth. I know various CES people pushing a no death before the fall view tend to say that the garden fell and thus ceased to exist. (See for example this old Ensign) That directly contradicts scripture though which has an angel guarding the entrance to the garden (Moses 4:31) My guess is that Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball were referring to where the entrance was and not the garden proper or were inferring that if Adam was there so too was the garden. (Also note that the BY quote is secondary - it appears in Woodruff's journal so we have a 3rd hand account of a distant memory)

Quote

Go to Adam-ondi-Ahman and find a valley.... just sayin.

I suspect it means the small valley where the creek runs down to the river at Adam-ondi-Ahman. It's not a valley the way we think of them in the west with our mountains. Here it is in Google Maps. The elevation gain is only 100 feet over reasonable distance. But I suspect when you hear "valley of Adam Ondi Ahman" it's Joseph specifying the location that people were familiar with and not claiming it was a large valley with high sides. But if you look at Google's street view you quickly see it's not a valley like we're used to.

Edited May 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[longview]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But this seems to be talking of only what was going on in the garden.

No basis for your assumption.  You already quoted:  "And all things which were created . . ."  This directly implies the organization of the earth and all things therein.  The Bible also states that Spiritual Creation before Physical Creation, indicating that all living things have core spirit being that would later acquire fleshly tabernacles of clay.

Gradualism used to be heavily favored by scientists but as later scholars continued to reexamine the evidence, they are turning more and more to Catastrophism (sudden and more frequent changes).  One example is the continents being one land up to time of Peleg.  Another is the residual effect of the change from Terrestrial state to the Telestial state which would affect the age estimates and whatever assumptions about conditions in successive periods.

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I didn't realize that was still in the Bible Dictionary. Hopefully they'll change that as the quoted passages simply don't say that. Interestingly the teacher's manual is far more careful and emphasizes the fall had an effect on mankind. I'd lay good odds they just haven't gotten around to updating that page yet. The main argument for no death is the rather vague "And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." But this seems to be talking of only what was going on in the garden. There are very strong reasons to think the garden of eden was a terrestrial world and simply was a different place than the fallen telestial world Adam and Even were sent to.

Yeah, it's not like Moses 3 puts the Garden of Eden eastward in an area with 4 river heads:

14 And the name of the third river was Hiddekel; that which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river was the Euphrates.

15 And I, the Lord God, took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it.

So now there are two Assyrias? - one in a separate Terrestrial world?

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

 It has been suggested that perhaps these were creatures without spirits(i.e. not souls) and only suffered a biological death and not the same kind of death(separation of spirit and body) that happened after the time of Adam.

I HATE that hypothesis.
The idea that Adam had a biological father but he had no spirit is abhorrent, and in my opinion contradicts the scriptures which categorically state that ALL things were created spiritually before they were created physically.
There is no such thing as a creature without a spirit.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I HATE that hypothesis.
The idea that Adam had a biological father but he had no spirit is abhorrent, and in my opinion contradicts the scriptures which categorically state that ALL things were created spiritually before they were created physically.
There is no such thing as a creature without a spirit.

I admit it does start to sound like an episode of Supernatural.  

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yeah, it's not like Moses 3 puts the Garden of Eden eastward in an area with 4 river heads:

14 And the name of the third river was Hiddekel; that which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river was the Euphrates.

15 And I, the Lord God, took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it.

So now there are two Assyrias? - one in a separate Terrestrial world?

Reread what I said. Moses is modifications of Genesis and just because Joseph left some verses alone shouldn't be taken to imply they are correct. I think the Book of Mormon is clear that the Old Testament is corrupt textually. The standard scholarly view is that it was compiled around 200 BC from a variety of sources from competing political movements by uninspired scribes. I'm fine with the scriptures in their original form as "it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew" (1 Nephi 11:13) I think Genesis 2 in the form we have it is quite late and contains a lot of corruption from the period in Babylon. Thus the text's ties to Babylon and Assyrian geography.

I think the Garden of Eden wasn't on earth but that during the Babylonian exile the oral traditions and perhaps even texts were modified to place it in the Babylonian region.

Edited May 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note the Book of Moses just consists of additions to Genesis. It shouldn't be assumed that because a particular passage wasn't changed that it was correct. Joseph continued to go back to passages he'd modified and modify them more. Beyond that though Joseph puts Adam in America after the fall.

Not that I don't believe you, but I want your sources for JS saying this. Are they second hand? He may have said something like this, but I have come to learn that He didn't always understand everything the Lord said. To me the scriptures are primary, and they just don't say Eden is in America. To me it's a ridiculous notion.

Quote

The description of the garden is thus not necessarily on earth. I know various CES people pushing a no death before the fall view tend to say that the garden fell and thus ceased to exist. (See for example this old Ensign) That directly contradicts scripture though which has an angel guarding the entrance to the garden (Moses 4:31) My guess is that Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball were referring to where the entrance was and not the garden proper. (Also note that the BY quote is secondary - it appears in Woodruff's journal so we have a 3rd hand account of a distant memory)

I suspect it means the small valley where the creek runs down to the river at Adam-ondi-Ahman. It's not a valley the way we think of them in the west with our mountains. Here it is in Google Maps.

I concede there is a river basin there. It's about 140 feet below the surrounding land, so I guess it could be conceived of as a valley. The original valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman could have been the Gihon River valley which is a real mountain valley. I believe the real garden of Eden is now mostly under water - so yes, did cease to exist.

Edited May 25, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Reread what I said. Moses is modifications of Genesis and just because Joseph left some verses alone shouldn't be taken to imply they are correct. I think the Book of Mormon is clear that the Old Testament is corrupt textually. The standard scholarly view is that it was compiled around 200 BC from a variety of sources from competing political movements. I'm fine with the scriptures in their original form as "it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew" (1 Nephi 11:13) I think Genesis 2 in the form we have it is quite late and contains a lot of corruption from the period in Babylon. Thus the text's ties to Babylon and Assyrian geography.

I think the Garden of Eden wasn't on earth but that during the Babylonian exile the oral traditions and perhaps even texts were modified to place it in the Babylonian region.

Moses 1:

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.

42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.)

So, here we have God saying He is correcting Genesis in Moses. Moses is the corrected version.

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

No basis for your assumption.  You already quoted:  "And all things which were created . . ."  This directly implies the organization of the earth and all things therein.  The Bible also states that Spiritual Creation before Physical Creation, indicating that all living things have core spirit being that would later acquire fleshly tabernacles of clay.

Not sure how that invalidates what I said. I fully agree things were created spiritually first. I don't think that implies the world where Adam and Eve were in the garden is that same world. Moses 3:5 is clear that this spiritual creation was in heaven. 

A way to look at this is that we have a move downward from the spiritual creation in heaven (Moses 2; Gen 1) which is the celestial kingdom. Then Adam and Eve are created in a physical form and placed in Eden which is the terrestrial world. Then they are cast out and put in the telestial world. They then have to reverse the process and return to heaven. This is very common in Jewish heavenly ascents where the tree of life and the garden of eden is in the 3rd heaven of 7.

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So, here we have God saying He is correcting Genesis in Moses. Moses is the corrected version.

Again, Moses is a book in the Pearl of Great Price because of how Franklin Richards published those excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation in the British Mission in 1851. When Joseph translated it there was no book of Moses in the form you are thinking. Likewise the JST was never complete in a strong sense. It was complete in the sense that he'd gone through the entire Bible as commanded and never talked about continuing the translation of the Bible. But Joseph continued to receive new revelation on Genesis 1-3 often pointing out the effects of uninspired scribes. It is true that parts of Genesis and Matthew were distributed among members in Kirtland and Nauvoo. But I simply don't think it is accurate to say what you are saying. In addition when the Book of Moses was put together by Orson Pratt he didn't have access to the original texts of the JST. We keep Orson Pratt's version in the canon since that was what was canonized. But it's actually not making use of the best texts. T

Joseph is very clear on these points, mirroring what the Book of Mormon says.

Quote

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327)

From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (TPJS, pp. 9-10)

I'd also add that while in places the JST might be restoring ancient texts, by and large it's not a reversion to the original text of the Bible. Rather as he would read versus he'd get inspired commentary. Sometimes those ended up in what we call the JST and in other cases he'd get revelations we have as sections in the D&C. I think it'd be more better described as an inspired commentary than restoration of an original text.

This is why Joseph would sometime translate the same passage quite differently at different times. The revelations are tied to the questions he's asking and not a proper translation even akin to the Book of Mormon (which itself is a loose translation). You can see this with the two different translations of Matthew 26 for instance. There are considerable differences. Were Joseph to have translated the verse in question again I suspect it'd read differently depending upon the questions he was focused on.

The best example that Joseph didn't see the JST as complete is how he returned to Genesis 1:1 in the King Follet Discourse and retranslates it as "the head God brought forth the gods." In the JST Moses version we have in the Pearl of Great Price that is given in a form pretty similar to the KJV.

JST Moses 2:1 "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest."

KJV Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

KFD Gen 1:1 (TPJS harmonization) "The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time."

So if the JST is complete and the correct reconstruction of the text then why does Joseph say something very differently? Why didn't Joseph in 1830 correct what he later says, "a man a Jew without any authority, thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head" and corrupted the text?

Now Moses 3 basically just leaves Genesis 2:10-14 unmodified. Note though that it doesn't just mention a river in Assyria but also "the second river is Gihou: the same is that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia." Of course though if Eden is in Babylon how on earth did a river reach Ethiopia in Africa?

Edited May 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

We only know that no "soul" has died before Adam fell and introduced death into the world. A soul is the combination of spirit and body. Adam and Eve and the animals that existed at his time had souls made of both body and spirit. The fall of Adam initiated the process of death caused by separation of body and spirit. We do not know how long the earth existed before that time. Perhaps it was millions of years before Adam as the scientists suggest; and the geological records would indicate that there was life in the form of dinosaurs during that time. It has been suggested that perhaps these were creatures without spirits(i.e. not souls) and only suffered a biological death and not the same kind of death(separation of spirit and body) that happened after the time of Adam. 

A geologist friend once suggested that many life forms are part of Earth and they partake of the spirit.  Prior to Adam and Eve, all living beings were part of that extended everliving spiritual being.

Just as our hair and skin cells die, but the spirit that animates them lives on so it could be with the world preAdam.  In part, the naming ceremony within Eden marked when some creatures gain independent spirits, became beings in themselves.  Once all left Eden and went into the world, that core of beings went as well, so now some of the higher beasts are self spiritual beings, but not all creatures, many remain as part of the spiritual system of earth.

He never claimed it as anything but speculation that resolved some issues.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

This thread is one of thousands of examples showing that literalism is the greatest stumbling block to getting any meaning out of the scriptures. 

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not that I don't believe you, but I want your sources for JS saying this. Are they second hand?

They're all second hand but it appears to have been widely discussed by people and was in a variety of journals. The main references are the following:

Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God. (Brigham Young, Journal History, March 15, 1857)

The spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where [the city of] Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam. (Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 10:235)

Again Presdet [sic] Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize [sic]. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 7:129 (journal entry dated 30 March 1879)

The Newsroom has backed off from the view we know where the Garden of Eden is. 

Quote

Do Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri?

We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. ("Mormonism 101: What is Mormonism?")

It's worth noting for the young earth people that the altar Joseph said Adam used when cast out of Eden has fossils in it. I always found that funny. Talmage wrote about the fossils to his son who was a geologist saying, "if those stones be part of the first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam's time." (James E. Talmage to Sterling B. Talmage, 21 May 1931, cited by Jeffrey E. Keller, “Discussion Continued: The Sequel to the Roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 [Spring 1982]: 83; reprinted in Sherlock and Keller, “The B. H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair,” Search for Harmony, 99)

Quote

 but I have come to learn that He didn't always understand everything the Lord said. To me the scriptures are primary, and they just don't say Eden is in America. To me it's a ridiculous notion.

(BTW - is there a way to change the text "Quote" in quote blocks to the person I'm quoting? I know if you press the quote button it generates one for you but if you want to use multiple boxes to reply to different parts it gets confusing quick)

I am not willing to say the scriptures are primary. I think they are very important but I find the OT to be fairly problematic due to corruption as the Book of Mormon notes. I think the scriptures are very important of course, but I also think claims of non-scriptural revelation by prophets to be of nearly equal weight. Balancing multiple versions can be tricky though. 

I think we should be cautious with these second hand claims of Joseph. First off we don't have the original revelation Joseph used. So we're dealing with Joseph's memory and understanding of a revelation we don't have as mangled through tertiary (often late) memories by other people. However there's so much to Adam being in America that I think that Adam most likely was cast somewhere in the mid-east after leaving Eden. While just a guess, I suspect the equating of Eden to Missouri is more likely an inference since Adam's altar was there.

Edited May 25, 2017 by clarkgoble