David Ostler's book Bridges on LDS faith crisis

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, changed said:

Yin/yang in all of it - I agree.  I do think it could add to SS though, as much of the poetry I think beautifully explains so many principles such as trusting God/ the Tao, explaining what humility is (the last will be first, and first last - put yourself last to be appreciated and know others - why is the sea king of 1000 streams?  Because it lies below them all)  being non-materialistic, to work without being attached to it - do what needs to be done without dwelling on it - I think there are scriptures which match each of these principles, but sometimes one way of saying it makes it click a little more than another.

I took a class on oriental religions in college. I took it with the idea of learning about Buddhism probably because I liked the Kung Fu show when I was a kid. We covered Buddhism in two weeks, and went on to Taoism, and more Taoism, and more.... So I went up to the professor and I said something like ___% of our material is on Buddhism, but we only spent two weeks on it. Are you going to return to it? He was like why do you want to learn about Buddhism? Taoism is so rich... blah, blan. I had never heard of Taoism before that class though, and felt cheated. But I did come to appreciate the beauty in oriental religions. Anyway I think this kind of reflects what Calm said. It is best to learn ideologies from someone who really believes/appreciates them. That professor loved Taoism like I never will.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, changed said:

I'm an individualist, but not secular.

As for individualism, can you name this talk?  Let's discuss the two different churches within the LDS faith

 

I agree with both statements.

Edit: And yes, I know the talk and do not find the change controversial and they are not contradictory.

Edited August 8, 2019 by The Nehor

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Angels are just people in Joseph's theology. I'm not sure how early that formally develops. However certainly the early accounts have the visiting angels as historic people like Moroni. It's definitely in place by 1839 where he starts identifying angelic names with historic names. e.g. Gabriel = Noah, Michael = Adam. 

Angel is a title. Gods are also angels, but angels are not gods. Yeshua was the angel/malek of the covenant - meaning He was the messenger of the covenant. Angels aren't "just people." It is essentially a job description. 

Quote

So the distinction between angels, humans and gods is pretty blurry well before Brigham makes things more explicit or even before the more expansive endowment in Nauvoo. (Which itself is highly parasitic on the Abraham variant of Genesis) The point of Abraham 3 is that the intelligences existed before creation, Abraham and Jesus were among them, Jesus was God in that counsel under El/Lord. The "us" of Abr 4 is the "us" of Abr 3 which is this divine council including these intelligences. This obviously gets made more explicit in Nauvoo - particularly in the endowment. But it's there in Abraham (possibly as early as 1835).

Angels aren't on the divine council of Elohim unless they are also Elohim. Abraham actually makes it clear that the "intelligences" were spirits. I don't find the word intelligences useful anymore.

Quote

Eden in Joseph's view isn't necessarily in Missouri, but Spring Hill is where Adam was when cast out of Eden. A completely valid interpretation of Joseph's comments is that Eden is a different layer or reality although some interpret it as in our world. I tend to favor the former and think it in the terrestrial world while our phenomenal world is the telestial one. However the "eastward" is typically taken in terms of a consistent present geography. Since I see the geographic elements as primarily residue of Canaanite and Babylonian influence it doesn't mean much to me.

The idea that this geography of Adam in Missouri is Brigham Young seems difficult to accept given the explicit 1832 revelation and 1835 revelation. While those don't specify Missouri, the 1838 Joseph Smith Journal does. "In the after part of the day, Prest<s.> smith and Rigdon and myself, went to Wights. Ferry about a half mile from this place up the river, for the purpose of selecting and laying claims to city plott near said Ferry, in Davis [Daviess] County Township 60, Range 27 & 28, and Sections 25, 36, 31, 30, which was called Spring Hill a name appropriated by the bretheren present, But after wards named by the mouth of [the] Lord and was called Adam Ondi Awmen [Adam-ondi-Ahman], because said he it" An 1838 letter also says this. "One of these is situated about 30 miles north of this place on [Gr]and river, which is nearly as large as this place at this time One This is called Adam Ondi Awman [Adam-ondi-Ahman], or the place where Adam dwelt. One at the mouth of Grand river called Dewitt it was a gentile city plott and named by them that is about 40 miles miles East of this place &c. &c. &c."

So by 1838 this place is explicitly Missouri. Again, this is where Adam was put and not Eden. How to interpret its relationship to Eden is more open. It was common among Joseph's associates to see Eden in Missouri as well. 

The 1839 instructions make explicit the idea of angels as humans and the divine council as all humans. 

Joseph clearly believed it, although whether he was wrong I don't think we have a way of determining.

Not quite following you here. Both Robert and I see a lot of errors in scripture and see the Old Testament in particular as complex with a lot of corruption. To say there is "no internal contradiction" seems an odd claim to make. 

What internal contradiction do you see between the description of Eden in Moses vs. Genesis? I see none. That is what I mean. There is one version of the description in our Canonical books - that one of the river heads flowing into Eden started east of/in Assyria. 

That 1838 letter is your best evidence, but I would like to know particulars. For one thing it is not some personal letter written by Joseph. It has four signatures. We run into this kind of stuff with claims that Joseph believed Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica because of stuff printed in the Times and Seasons. The issue becomes wasn't JS in jail at the time? So he didn't really write that Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica. I don't know who wrote that letter, but it doesn't look like JS' handwriting to me. Do you know? 

Further, as you note that letter does not explicitly place the garden of Eden in America. I never see that come from the mouth or pen of JS. Scripture says otherwise. The very name tells us otherwise. Eden is a Sumerian word for plain. Are we going to put the Sumerians in the Americas now? 

JS was not perfect. He had a number of beliefs which weren't so. He believed he could translate the Kinderhook plates, and that they were an account by a descendant of a pharaoh. He apparently discovered to his embarrassment that he was wrong, and could not translate them. No translation was ever forthcoming. It has since been proven to my satisfaction that they were a hoax etched with acid. 

In fairness I can see how come people get confused - there end up essentially being two Adam ondi Ahmans. One was a valley where Adam lived, and one is a place where he will come to sit. Why is Spring Hill named that explicitly if that has always been its name in heaven? We would just be told Spring Hill IS Adam ondi Ahman. Instead it gets named that. Hopefully you follow me. It's like it wasn't Adam ondi Ahman beforehand.

Quote

I tend to agree with Robert that these texts are primarily liturgical relating to a heavenly ascent. I think Abr 3-5 definitely points in that direction particular as it was transformed in a more Masonic form in Nauvoo. (People point to Masonry, but I think Abraham is the much stronger influence for the form) I think that's also a clue for how Joseph interpreted the Genesis accounts in any of their variants. That is the Masonic ritual is probably a good basis for thinking of the hermeneutics of ritual and how Joseph viewed these creation accounts.

I'd note that in the Canaanite view of the pantheon, God (El) has a garden near a cave entrance on the divine mount. Elements of this remain in our account such as Gen 2:6 where water comes from the ground (a subterranean river) to water the garden.There's debate on the word here (ed) which doesn't appear to be Semitic and some tie to Akkadian origins. The Ugarit accounts have God (El) living where the upper and lower waters meet. So Genesis 2 could be tied to the flood myth with the primordial waters as well. Ezekiel explicitly (chapter 28) has it on the mountain of El and calls it El's Garden. I think this is a remnant of the merger of the accounts (possibly quite early before the Kingdom era) where the mountain is the Canaanite Mount Zaphon. There El lives "at the springs of the rivers, at the channels/meeting place of the two deeps." (The two deeps are the heavenly and subterraneous primordial waters from before they were divided by the creation of the earth - I'm largely following this persons translation)

These texts could very well have been used liturgically. That doesn't diminish the importance of places they identify. I agree that they aren't really meant to be an historical account. They are full of important symbolism. As I have said repeatedly the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not some historical tree. I believe we all eat from this tree - Adam was just the first isa to do so. Eve is representative of the Church - the mother of all living. The tree of life didn't die in the garden of Eden, but lives on and is in the New Jerusalem. It's the gospel in a nutshell. The texts are not about heavenly ascent but about the temple of heaven. The garden of Eden is the first temple account. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am wedded to the scriptures like they are God's word which he expects us to try to live by. Does this mean every word is from God's mouth? NO, and I have said as much. There is no internal contradiction concerning the locale of the garden of Eden. You are just obfuscating now. The two canonical scriptures on point completely agree, which you ignore in favor of works of man. 

To address your first "problem" you I am sure are full aware that the Hebrew text says one of the rivers comes from 'Cush." That has been changed to Egypt in English texts. Where this land was in Adam's day is ignored by you, but there was a Cush eastward, so there was no river out of Egypt. You also full know Euphrates was a Greek name given by the Greeks at the time of Alexander. But it does correctly identify the river. It is just a redacted name. It does not help your case that Eden was in America. It just hurts it more. Now there are two definite identifying geographical landmarks to explain away.

The second "problem" you bring up is a non-starter. It does not matter the order of God's word. Moses clarifies Abraham on the locale of Eden, and therefore has priority on this particular subject. It agrees with our Genesis for a reason - that is because that is where Eden was. 

Scholars have no problem identifying the Tigris & Euphrates rivers of Mesopotamia as well as the Blue & White NIle in the late biblical texts -- two separate sets of rivers which have no real world connection.  It is not my case that the Garden of Eden was in the New World.  That is Joseph Smith's understanding passed on to us.  And, for some reason, you are angry about it.

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The valley of Adam ondi Ahman is not the place of Adam ondi Ahman in Spring Hill. I believe it to be a valley just east of Eden which one of the four rivers flowed through. So it is you who has misinterpreted the context of what Joseph Smith said - like BY did(and Smoot and Ripley). If we would stop doing that we could actually believe what our canonical scriptures tell us instead of hearsay! What a concept!

You obviously have not been to Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri, because, if you had, you would know that a valley implies hills or mountains, which is what you have at Adam-ondi-Ahman.  That's right, you have both a beautiful valley and mountains there.  You ignore both what Joseph himself said on the record, as well as D&C 117:8. Instead you try to make Brother Brigham your whipping boy.

[Tacenda]

I'm lucky to have a ministering couple that knows all of the issues. And like this man, they want to help all they can with my faith issues. But I prefer to not talk about them, I get enough of that here!

Just saw this, and thought it would be of interest to hear this new interview with the author of the OP's subject.https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/301-ministering-to-those-who-question-david-ostler/?fbclid=IwAR0AgZ5A2w1rXkohO8bL5O--hDFe2jHx2Y3do-uoTioWYzxmRUfMXL8jcwU

[Rivers]

The more I read and hear about people going through faith crisis,  I the more lucky I feel to have gone though my own relatively early in life.  It sucks to have your whole paradigm turned upside down but getting to the other side of the faith struggle feels great.     I imagine a faith crisis becomes more difficult the longer one has been in the church.

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars have no problem identifying the Tigris & Euphrates rivers of Mesopotamia as well as the Blue & White NIle in the late biblical texts -- two separate sets of rivers which have no real world connection.  It is not my case that the Garden of Eden was in the New World.  That is Joseph Smith's understanding passed on to us.  And, for some reason, you are angry about it.

I am? I am glad you can tell me my emotional state...  

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You obviously have not been to Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri, because, if you had, you would know that a valley implies hills or mountains, which is what you have at Adam-ondi-Ahman.  That's right, you have both a beautiful valley and mountains there.  You ignore both what Joseph himself said on the record, as well as D&C 117:8. Instead you try to make Brother Brigham your whipping boy.

Yeah, I know there is a little valley in Spring Hill. It is just not the valley of Adam ondi Ahman where Adam lived. It is where "Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet."

Note it is NOT named that because that is where Adam lived when he came out of the garden of Eden. And i know of no place where Joseph plainly says otherwise. All 117:8 says is that Adam dwelt in Adam ondi Ahman. I do not dispute that. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

The more I read and hear about people going through faith crisis,  I the more lucky I feel to have gone though my own relatively early in life.

True confession: before a few months ago, I'd never once heard this term used by anyone where I live. I've now heard it from two men I know, though it's clear that they picked up both the term and the malady itself from the internet. It's interesting to be able to watch the replication and spread of a social phenomenon from a distance but also in real time. As a postgraduate history student, I spent a good bit of time reading about these kinds of phenomena in colonial settings. Before the advent of the internet, the novel interconnectedness created by the colonial press provided the exact same opportunity for social movements to burst onto the scene, go viral as people in far-flung locales read about and unconsciously replicated them, and then eventually die out -- only to be replaced by the next headline-grabbing social trend. Researchers have compared these occurrences with phenomena like the fad of having a 'nervous breakdown' that spread amongst suburban American housewives in the 1970s. In more contemporary times, we had a university intern in our office last year who said she felt like a complete freak in her residential college because she hadn't yet adopted a named mental health issue ... and stubbornly refused to even when she was assured that (a) everyone has one and (b) there's no stigma attached to it.

Of course, since the internet is almost my sole window into this phenomenon of the 'faith crisis', it's impossible for me to gauge how widespread it actually might be in Latter-day Saint communities in America or what populations it might be affecting. My sister lives in America, and when I asked her about it, she said she'd never heard the term before either and didn't recognise what I attempted to describe. I suspect we might see a bit more of it here before the movement fades into relative obscurity and is replaced by something different, though I wonder if this may be more tied to places where 'Mormonism' exists as an ethnicity or cultural identity. We'll see.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

Yeah, I know there is a little valley in Spring Hill. It is just not the valley of Adam ondi Ahman where Adam lived. It is where "Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet."

Are you now formulating a "Two Adam-ondi-Ahman" theory to account for the clearcut application to the place in Missouri?  And another such place by the same name in the Middle East?

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Note it is NOT named that because that is where Adam lived when he came out of the garden of Eden. And i know of no place where Joseph plainly says otherwise. All 117:8 says is that Adam dwelt in Adam ondi Ahman. I do not dispute that. 

You are in fact disputing the plain meaning of D&C 117:8-11, which assigns responsibilities in that immediate geographical area, and not some place else:

Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman,
and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah,
or the land where Adam dwelt,............     [you admit that Adam dwelt at Adam-ondi-Ahman]
Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion.
Let my servant William Marks ...............
preside in the midst of my people in the city of Far West,
Let my servant Newel K. Whitney .............
come up to the land of Adam-ondi-Ahman,           [this must be a second Adam-ondi-Ahman?]
and be a bishop unto my people, 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

In fairness I can see how come people get confused - there end up essentially being two Adam ondi Ahmans. One was a valley where Adam lived, and one is a place where he will come to sit. Why is Spring Hill named that explicitly if that has always been its name in heaven? We would just be told Spring Hill IS Adam ondi Ahman. Instead it gets named that. Hopefully you follow me. It's like it wasn't Adam ondi Ahman beforehand...................................

Nonsense.  I can see how you must now declare that there are two Adam-ondi-Ahmens, but you cannot wriggle out of the "where Adam dwelt" of D&C 117:8-11, in which the name is local.  As for Spring Hill, that area carries several different names, as do many other locations.  That does not in any way obviate an earlier name.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  I can see how you must now declare that there are two Adam-ondi-Ahmens, but you cannot wriggle out of the "where Adam dwelt" of D&C 117:8-11, in which the name is local.  As for Spring Hill, that area carries several different names, as do many other locations.  That does not in any way obviate an earlier name.

That Spring Hill is being named after the place where Adam dwelt has been my position all along Robert - for years now - because says the Lord, that is where Adam will return and sit. It's not some new position or reasoning. You will see that is obvious in all my posts on the subject. I also believe the name is a Sumerian name, and have come to strongly suspect that Sumerian is the "Adamic" language JS spoke about. Sumerian has no known linguistic source. It's unique. Ahman seems to be a word meaning something like "companion in the word." I am not yet sure about ondi though. 

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Rivers said:

The more I read and hear about people going through faith crisis,  I the more lucky I feel to have gone though my own relatively early in life.  It sucks to have your whole paradigm turned upside down but getting to the other side of the faith struggle feels great.     I imagine a faith crisis becomes more difficult the longer one has been in the church.

You would be right I'm thinking. My son is 30, he went on a mission at 19 and fulfilled it, then came home and continued on to college but went inactive.

He knows about everything I've gone through and he had his own crisis but he said his was far easier than mine because of all the years I've been faithful.

I warned him against being anything like me, addicted to all things Mormonism by listening to podcasts or posting on discussion boards. I hope he has more of a life than I have.

That is the travesty of some people like me. We can't move on, we're stuck. We believed a certain way for so many years, and then we're thrown into a new paradigm, and like you mention, turned upside down. We lose friends, some lose family and even jobs. It's a really sad thing.

And many can't just pick up and live elsewhere, we're stuck in the places that aren't always the friendliest. Like the interview I listened to this morning on, "It's a Thoughtful Faith", with the author David Ostler. He brings up that he put out a questionaire to collect data from those that are in a faith crisis. One of them responded to a question about speaking to their church leaders about their crisis of faith, and one answered to not bring up their issues with their church leaders because they then become like a piranhas. 

This is my feeling, once I brought it up with my bishop in a brand new ward, and with my former bishop,  they left me entirely alone, and I even got the feeling that they didn't want others around me as well. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

You would be right I'm thinking. My son is 30, he went on a mission at 19 and fulfilled it, then came home and continued on to college but went inactive.

He knows about everything I've gone through and he had his own crisis but he said his was far easier than mine because of all the years I've been faithful.

I warned him against being anything like me, addicted to all things Mormonism by listening to podcasts or posting on discussion boards. I hope he has more of a life than I have.

That is the travesty of some people like me. We can't move on, we're stuck. We believed a certain way for so many years, and then we're thrown into a new paradigm, and like you mention, turned upside down. We lose friends, some lose family and even jobs. It's a really sad thing.

And many can't just pick up and live elsewhere, we're stuck in the places that aren't always the friendliest. Like the interview I listened to this morning on, "It's a Thoughtful Faith", with the author David Ostler. He brings up that he put out a questionaire to collect data from those that are in a faith crisis. One of them responded to a question about speaking to their church leaders about their crisis of faith, and one answered to not bring up their issues with their church leaders because they then become like a piranhas. 

This is my feeling, once I brought it up with my bishop in a brand new ward, and with my former bishop,  they left me entirely alone, and I even got the feeling that they didn't want others around me as well. 

I love you honesty Tacenda.  The very fact that you know who you are and how you feel about them is a treasure!!  So many others in and out of church can't seem to even touch their real feelings.  God Bless You and your family....they are fine...they have you!!

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Angel is a title. Gods are also angels, but angels are not gods. Yeshua was the angel/malek of the covenant - meaning He was the messenger of the covenant. Angels aren't "just people." It is essentially a job description. 

I don't disagree although I don't see how that affects what I said. Joseph said explicitly angels are resurrected beings who are messengers. The underlying Hebrew need not even imply a supernatural like being. But the point is they're just people - people on a mission yes. But just people.

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Angels aren't on the divine council of Elohim unless they are also Elohim. Abraham actually makes it clear that the "intelligences" were spirits. I don't find the word intelligences useful anymore.

The point is that all the pre-mortal beings in Abr 3 are all of God's children for this creation and all are eloheim until they start falling. John 10:34-5 "Is it not written in yoiur Law: 'I said, ye are gods?' If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

What internal contradiction do you see between the description of Eden in Moses vs. Genesis? I see none. That is what I mean. There is one version of the description in our Canonical books - that one of the river heads flowing into Eden started east of/in Assyria

I was more making a point about contradiction in general. However as Richard says, we know where some of these rivers are and they don't fit the description. That means either these are liturgical & symbolic rivers (i.e. not an actual geography), or that there is an error/contradiction, or that we have a different place from the middle east geography and Eden is elsewhere.

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

That 1838 letter is your best evidence, but I would like to know particulars. For one thing it is not some personal letter written by Joseph. It has four signatures. We run into this kind of stuff with claims that Joseph believed Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica because of stuff printed in the Times and Seasons. The issue becomes wasn't JS in jail at the time? So he didn't really write that Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica. I don't know who wrote that letter, but it doesn't look like JS' handwriting to me. Do you know? 

The idea that Joseph thought Adam-ondi-Ahman is Spring Hill is overwhelming. It's not just those letters but how everyone around him refers to them that way. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Zarahemla. When something is published is different from when it was composed. I don't know the history of the Times and Seasons article you're referring to. To the letter in question, Joseph had scribes write most of his letters. Read the JSP notes on it. I linked to the source for you.

Honestly this sounds like you just are trying to explain away what was a pretty widespread and early belief of Joseph and his contemporaries. Not sure where you got the idea Brigham came up with it. At minimum the burden of proof is now on saying Joseph didn't believe it.

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Further, as you note that letter does not explicitly place the garden of Eden in America. I never see that come from the mouth or pen of JS. Scripture says otherwise. The very name tells us otherwise. Eden is a Sumerian word for plain. Are we going to put the Sumerians in the Americas now? 

The letter explicitly puts Adam in America when cast out of the garden. If you are adopting a "literalist" exegesis of Gen 2-3 then you have to deal with it being just to the east. Note that the text explicitly says that the garden is guarded by an angel with a sword to keep Adam out. If you see this not as a heavenly ascent but earthly geography then I think that poses a problem for you.

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

JS was not perfect. He had a number of beliefs which weren't so. 

Certainly. The question is the reasons for the claims we make. I'd note though that the letter claims reference to an explicit statement of deity.

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

These texts could very well have been used liturgically. That doesn't diminish the importance of places they identify. I agree that they aren't really meant to be an historical account.

If the genre of the text is liturgical then the notion of place becomes much more problematic.  You're taking place historically as a real geography in this world. However if the text is liturgical then that's severely undermined, much like in our own liturgy we have encounters with people that couldn't be historic. (Think the three visitors Adam encounters)

Not a big deal, but it's just not clear to me why you need it to be a place in the middle east. There's no real textual reason for it, it contradicts early belief by Joseph and others, and from what I can see there's no strong argument for it.

Edited August 8, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I love you honesty Tacenda.  The very fact that you know who you are and how you feel about them is a treasure!!  So many others in and out of church can't seem to even touch their real feelings.  God Bless You and your family....they are fine...they have you!!

🤗🥰

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't disagree although I don't see how that affects what I said. Joseph said explicitly angels are resurrected beings who are messengers. The underlying Hebrew need not even imply a supernatural like being. But the point is they're just people - people on a mission yes. But just people.

Aren't the fallen who don't come to the earth called angels as well? You don't have to be resurrected to be an angel. I accept that angels are "people." They may just be in spirit form.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The point is that all the pre-mortal beings in Abr 3 are all of God's children for this creation and all are eloheim until they start falling. John 10:34-5 "Is it not written in yoiur Law: 'I said, ye are gods?' If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

I disagree. Yeshua is quoting Ps 82 which is written to the "chosen people." Why are they the chosen people? The ones who received the law? Because they were elohim. Not all premortal spirits are elohim.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I was more making a point about contradiction in general. However as Richard says, we know where some of these rivers are and they don't fit the description. That means either these are liturgical & symbolic rivers (i.e. not an actual geography), or that there is an error/contradiction, or that we have a different place from the middle east geography and Eden is elsewhere.

They do fit the description given in Hebrew. The identity of Cush was later taken to be the Cush next to Egypt, when it was east - not as far as the more modern Hindu Kush, but it was eastward. The contradiction arises as a result of improper interpretation.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The idea that Joseph thought Adam-ondi-Ahman is Spring Hill is overwhelming. It's not just those letters but how everyone around him refers to them that way. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Zarahemla. When something is published is different from when it was composed. I don't know the history of the Times and Seasons article you're referring to. To the letter in question, Joseph had scribes write most of his letters. Read the JSP notes on it. I linked to the source for you.

Honestly this sounds like you just are trying to explain away what was a pretty widespread and early belief of Joseph and his contemporaries. Not sure where you got the idea Brigham came up with it. At minimum the burden of proof is now on saying Joseph didn't believe it.

Joseph did believe Spring Hill was Adam ondi Ahman. The Lord told him so.  There is nothing to indicate he believed it was near Eden. Whether he believed the Lord transported Adam there, I am not sure. I guess that is a possibility, but that is not why the Lord says He was naming Spring Hill Adam ondi Ahman.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The letter explicitly puts Adam in America when cast out of the garden. If you are adopting a "literalist" exegesis of Gen 2-3 then you have to deal with it being just to the east. Note that the text explicitly says that the garden is guarded by an angel with a sword to keep Adam out. If you see this not as a heavenly ascent but earthly geography then I think that poses a problem for you.

The garden was to the east of where Moses and Abraham received the word, yes. That is not inconsistent. It is consistent. I'm not sure if a cherub is an angel, but cherubim strongly implies two. They seem to be a messenger of an higher order. Their purpose was to keep Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of life and receiving eternal life. They had to wait for the gospel to develop. They had to read and live the sword[the word]. They couldn't receive eternal life until Yeshua completed His work. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Certainly. The question is the reasons for the claims we make. I'd note though that the letter claims reference to an explicit statement of deity.

If the genre of the text is liturgical then the notion of place becomes much more problematic.  You're taking place historically as a real geography in this world. However if the text is liturgical then that's severely undermined, much like in our own liturgy we have encounters with people that couldn't be historic. (Think the three visitors Adam encounters)

Not a big deal, but it's just not clear to me why you need it to be a place in the middle east. There's no real textual reason for it, it contradicts early belief by Joseph and others, and from what I can see there's no strong argument for it.

Thanks for the discussion, but I disagree. If it's location is not important, why do I get so much push back for saying Eden is not in America? It's like I'm stabbing people in the heart or something. And next thing you know I'm out eating worms...

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

That Spring Hill is being named after the place where Adam dwelt has been my position all along Robert - for years now - because says the Lord, that is where Adam will return and sit. It's not some new position or reasoning. You will see that is obvious in all my posts on the subject.

I'm sorry.  I must still say that it reminds me of the absurd Two-Cumorahs theory.

Quote

I also believe the name is a Sumerian name, and have come to strongly suspect that Sumerian is the "Adamic" language JS spoke about. Sumerian has no known linguistic source. It's unique. Ahman seems to be a word meaning something like "companion in the word." I am not yet sure about ondi though. 

I don't know what Awmen means (it is a name) but here is my take on the whole phrase, Adam-ondi-Awmen (cf. Adam-Ondi-Ahman D&C 117:8,11; McIntire Minute Book “the Great God has a name By wich He will be Called which is Ahman” [1]; Joseph Smith’s journal indicated that a site in Daviess County, Missouri, which was selected on 19 May 1838 for a settlement of the Saints, was “after wards named by the mouth of [the] Lord and was called Adam Ondi Awmen”[2]):

Sumerian Á-DAM, a₂-dam “country, pasture, habitation” (= Akkadian namû, nawû “flock, pastureland,[3] steppe-dweller”[4]; = Nauvoo).

Since Sumerian is an agglutinative language, we could take Sumerian AN, an “sky, heaven (God of); upper; high; crown (of tree)” (= Akkadian šamû), and combine it with Sumerian TI, til, til₃ “"to live; to sit (down); to dwell" (= Akkadian ašābu; balāţu), to maybe refer to an-ti Awmen as “Living-God-of-Heaven, Awmen." or the whole phrase as "Habitation of the God of Heaven Awmen."

Compare, for example, Sumerian combinations such as AN.EDIN, an-eden, aneden “the high steppe, high plains” (= Akkadian şēru); anta, an-ta “upper”; AN.TUR, diĝir-dumu "divine son."

Sumerian AN also appears in such Jaredite names as Coriantumr, Moriancumr, etc.  Coriantumer, for example, can be etymologized as hypothetical Sumerian *KUR.I.AN.TIMER “Heavenly-Dragon-god," with KUR as "dragon," AN for "heavenly," and TIMER, TIMMER as "god" in north Sumerian Emesal dialect (normally DINGIR).  In ancient Mesoamerican parlance, the name fits very well a warrior of the Feathered Serpent moiety.  The other is the Jaguars.

---

[1] https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/words-joseph-smith-contemporary-accounts-nauvoo-discourses-prophet-joseph/1841/9-march-1841 .

[2] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-8-july-1838-e-dc-117/2 .

[3] Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion, 234.

[4] ePSD.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks for the discussion, but I disagree. If it's location is not important, why do I get so much push back for saying Eden is not in America? It's like I'm stabbing people in the heart or something. And next thing you know I'm out eating worms...

There have been almost no objective questions the past few months here on the forum. I think some of us who like discussions to keep our scripture study interesting latch on to the few that pop up. Everything else seems like outrage reactions or quasi-political opinion. So when an actual objective discussion pops up, particularly ones tied to actual scripture and actual evidence, we tend to enjoy it. I don't think any of it is meant to be personal but just to actually have arguments we can engage.

As to the main issue, I don't think the point is so much over whether Eden is in America. As I said I tend to think it a place in a heavenly ascent and thus not on the earth at all. I think though you weren't only saying Eden wasn't in America but neither was the scriptural Adam-ondi-Ahman. I also think you were arguing Eden was in the Middle East which I think is problematic in terms of the evidence. Again, I'm less interested in what you believe than the arguments for it. If you just said, "it's what I believe but I acknowledge I don't have good evidence" I'd almost certainly not engage. Heaven knows I have beliefs like that.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Aren't the fallen who don't come to the earth called angels as well? You don't have to be resurrected to be an angel. I accept that angels are "people." They may just be in spirit form.

 Yes, although I think that's more for late historic reasons. It first arises out of the Enochian tradition where the Watchers are fallen angels who interbreed with humans and produce the giants. When later angelology develops in the Hellenistic period to replace earlier pre-exilic divine pantheons then the notion of a fallen angel becomes significant. It's not quite clear how to take Nephi's use of Isaiah 14 there. Even Isaiah 14 is itself a heavily disagreed upon text. For a long time (and you still find this in some commentaries) Biblical scholars saw this as a reflection of the Battle between Baal and Yam or Mot. For various reasons Canaanite scholars have really undermined that. (If you do a search on that here you can find a discussion where I change my mind on that due to newer evidence) The question then becomes whether the Book of Mormon passages reflect 19th century views or an earlier tradition of a devil like figure or whether Nephi himself is discovering the fallen angel motif out of a prophecy about Babylon's king which then becomes a type for Satan. And of course it's also possible that the Enochian traditions go back to pre-exilic times in some form. There's also a chance that it reflects a Sethian myth out of Egypt, perhaps dealing with how Seth changes from a quasi-good divine figure into an evil one possibly tied to the backlash to Canaanite influence in Egypt or the recently discovered Canaanite uprising to Egyptian influence around 1000 BC.

So I'd say the term isn't used consistently and you have to be clear what period you are talking about. With regards to scripture that gets hard since we don't know when texts were written and most are composite in various ways. 

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I disagree. Yeshua is quoting Ps 82 which is written to the "chosen people." Why are they the chosen people? The ones who received the law? Because they were elohim. Not all premortal spirits are elohim.

The theological picture based upon Abr 3 is that they all kept the law as given to them until the plan when Satan and company rebel. So by that sense Satan is Eloheim until he rebells and humans are Eloheim until they rebel unless they accept the law. The point being that the divine council in Abr 3 is the gods. Something Joseph emphasizes more later in the King Follet Discourse.

So I think you're equivocating a bit here. Who is Elohim (or part of the divine council) depends upon the time/council in question and the time period of the scripture.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

They do fit the description given in Hebrew. The identity of Cush was later taken to be the Cush next to Egypt, when it was east - not as far as the more modern Hindu Kush, but it was eastward. The contradiction arises as a result of improper interpretation.

The rivers all coming from a common source simply don't fit the description. That's the point Richard and I are talking about, not Cush. I think that names might relate to extant places but that most likely reflects textual corruption of the underlying source. So for example, if you accept that Adam at Adam-ondi-Ahman is Spring Hill, then the Canaanites of Moses can't be the Canaanites of the near east.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Aren't the fallen who don't The garden was to the east of where Moses and Abraham received the word, yes. That is not inconsistent. It is consistent.

 It's inconsistent in that the descriptions don't match the area to the east of them. (I don't think it's clear where Abraham is in Abr 3 I should add. Verse 1 talks about Ur (which we don't know the location of with any confidence although many have their own opinions) but only in terms of where he got the Urim and Thummin and not that it is where he is talking to God.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not sure if a cherub is an angel, but cherubim strongly implies two. They seem to be a messenger of an higher order. Their purpose was to keep Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of life and receiving eternal life. They had to wait for the gospel to develop. They had to read and live the sword[the word]. They couldn't receive eternal life until Yeshua completed His work. 

Again I suspect there's textual corruption here or at least references we don't understand. It's worth noting that in the early forms of the endowment Joseph lifts the Tyler role from Masonry (basically a guard for the ceremony) and transforms him into a single angel with sword guarding the endowment. This became reduced over time to where it's now just a guy at the elevator to see if your name is stamped. But in the earlier forms it represents this guard to entering Eden thereby emphasizing part of the ceremony as a return to Eden by the individual.

For the identity of cherubim again it depends upon the time period you're discussing. By the late Hellenistic period it's one of the fantastical creatures of Apocalypse or possibly Merkabah literature. So it's a bull or lion with eagles wings and a human head. As Judaism (and later Christianity) develop extensive angelology it becomes the second order of angels and thus a class of angels rather than just one or two beings. Their role is as a guard. If we talk later periods, especially the Renaissance, semiotic drift has combined it with Roman myth and it's a baby with wings. If we talk about Genesis 2-3 then it gets tricky since we don't know the origins of that text in its final form or when the guard appears. It's in the Book of Mormon so I think in some form it's most likely pre-exilic and most likely tied to the Seraph on the Ark of the Covenant and the temple. They appear in Isaiah 6 (there as Seraphim and with six wings) but also Ps 99 as cherubim where they are in the temple. (The first temple since there weren't cherubim in the second temple)

Joseph appears to think it's a traditional Mormon angel. How that relates to his claim about angels always being resurrected isn't clear. I think it clear he sees it as a divine figure you have to pass as part of a heavenly ascent. I don't think it's guarding an actual Eden on this earth. I further don't think the whole planet falls ala BRM/JFS model.

Edited August 8, 2019 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm sorry.  I must still say that it reminds me of the absurd Two-Cumorahs theory.

 

I'm surprised you find that absurd. The idea that Joseph and others came to call the hill he got the plates from Cumorah which is different from the Cumorah/Ramah of the Book of Mormon seems pretty defensible. I understand why some reject it, but I'm surprised you see it as absurd. The problem with a two Adam-ondi-Ahman model is more that it seems difficult to line up with the scriptural history. With the Book of Mormon we know Moroni traveled so I think it less of an issue.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm surprised you find that absurd. The idea that Joseph and others came to call the hill he got the plates from Cumorah which is different from the Cumorah/Ramah of the Book of Mormon seems pretty defensible. I understand why some reject it, but I'm surprised you see it as absurd. The problem with a two Adam-ondi-Ahman model is more that it seems difficult to line up with the scriptural history. With the Book of Mormon we know Moroni traveled so I think it less of an issue.

There was ever only one Cumorah, and that is still true today.  The angel Moroni did not call that hill near Manchester "Cumorah," and neither did Joseph -- until others began doing so much later.  A huge mistake, just like the silly notion that Joseph had Urim & Thummim.

The original and only Hill Cumorah is still the repository of Nephite records located far from New York.  The Jaredites called it Ramah.

[Stargazer]

On 8/6/2019 at 8:59 PM, Duncan said:

I want to know what is meant by "non traditional testimony? Did the Holy Ghost bear witness to XYZ that Jesus is the Christ or didn't he? it's like saying you are kind of a dentist, well, either you are or you aren't, you can't be kind of, licensed to practice or not (a student let's say) I don't want to hear about someone's beliefs about Church teachings and exclude the Holy Ghost. A testimony is what the HG bears witnesses to, not what you think about something, excluding the HG

I, too, am a little confused about what a "non-traditional testimony" might be.  

I know that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior, and Only Begotten of the Father (in the flesh), that he died, was resurrected, and atoned for our sins, upon condition of our "accepting" His sacrifice.  That is my testimony.  Is this a "traditional" testimony?  Or a "non-traditional" one?  If this is a "traditional" one, what is a "non-traditional" one?

 

[Stargazer]

On 8/6/2019 at 9:51 PM, churchistrue said:

In the book, Ostler says most people he studied in this have "can have faith in ambiguity and hold nuanced beliefs."

I extrapolate that out and added the bit about "non traditional testimony". I define that as having beliefs similar to the following (every person is a bit different):

• Belief in the LDS Church as a good and meaningful church and maybe even the most true church but not usually as God’s one, exclusively true church.
• Belief that our scriptures are inspired and meaningful but lacking a belief in historicity of some scripture such as the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham
• Belief that prophets have likely been wrong at times in church history, such as related to polygamy or the priesthood ban
• Belief in God and Jesus Christ and afterlife, but maybe not aligning with all of the many and specific details on these doctrines
• The Earth is very old, the human race has been around for 100,000+ years, and the Genesis creation story should be taken metaphorically

I think the people with these beliefs would say the formulation of this new modified testimony came in the same way the original one, through study, prayer, and the Holy Ghost.

 

I'm having a little trouble separating belief and testimony here.  

I happen to believe that "the Earth is very old, the human race has been around for 100,000+ years, and the Genesis creation story should be taken metaphorically," with the proviso that Adam and Eve were real people.  As it turns out, I would probably never stand up in Testimony meeting and testify as to the truthfulness of this belief.  Because I don't think it's "testimony" but "belief".  I probably believe a few other things that other believing LDS might argue with me about.  But this doesn't bear on my testimony.

 

[Stargazer]

Nevermind.

I'm doing this a lot lately
 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Stargazer

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There was ever only one Cumorah, and that is still true today.  The angel Moroni did not call that hill near Manchester "Cumorah," and neither did Joseph -- until others began doing so much later.  A huge mistake, just like the silly notion that Joseph had Urim & Thummim.

The original and only Hill Cumorah is still the repository of Nephite records located far from New York.  The Jaredites called it Ramah.

Ah. OK. That's my view as well although I'd call that the two Cumorah theory. 

The Urim & Thummim is a bit more complicated I think given some of Don Bradley's work but we'll have to await his book to really see how strong his evidence is. Certainly he argues that there's a de facto new Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies of a tabernacle that Lehi/Nephi had and that the breastplate and Interpreters were explicit copies of the High Priest ephod. Presumably the differences (the lack of the 12 colored stones representing the tribes) may reflect an earlier pre-exilic tradition perhaps unique to the North. The parallels are interesting, particularly the parallels to Exodus and Moses. I'm convinced, but I'd say at this point there's only weak circumstantial evidence. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/6/2019 at 10:21 PM, The Nehor said:

Is it that hard to talk about struggles?

For some people it is hard.  Sometimes the struggle is something they are ashamed of and are afraid that others will judge them for their struggles. Other times they feel the struggle is personal and don't want to burden others unnecessarily.

During the time my late wife was dying I was struggling with the day-to-day observation and handling of her gradual decline.  It was just one of those things, and there was nothing I could do about it, and talking about it with someone was just something that wouldn't have helped me.  So I kept it to myself and just dealt with it.  Some might say that it is a bad thing to keep such things "held in", and in some cases that might be true, but not here.  The cards were dealt and I played them as best I could.