Garden of Eden...in Missouri?

[jinc1019]

Of all the claims anti-Mormons make about Joseph Smith, this one seems to me to be one of the most valid criticisms. I realize that no one really knows where the Garden of Eden is, thus any place could hypothetically be the Garden of Eden, it still seems very unlikely (to say the least) that it would be in Missouri of all places. I am not at all trying to trash Mormonism. I want to be as fair as I possibly can...As I said before, I am quite impressed by much of the evidence I have seen about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, but this one...this is hard to understand.

How do Mormons generally understand this teaching? Do Mormons really accept that the Garden of Eden is in/near Missouri? If so, how do you explain all the other early events of the Bible occurring in locations much further away (Israel and Middle East)?

I am very interested to hear what Mormons think about this.

Justin

[pam]

Joseph Smith/Garden of Eden in Missouri - FairMormon

[estradling75]

We understand it based on faith...

Does the evidence seem to be against it... Yeap...

But when faced with the idea of Trusting God or trusting the evidence that man has pieced together I am going to go with God every time

[jinc1019]

Joseph Smith/Garden of Eden in Missouri - FairMormon

Thanks for this Pam. I did read this already and while it was helpful in that it explained what Mormons officially believe, I was curious what everyday Mormons think of this. Obviously it seems essentially impossible, doesn't it?

[jinc1019]

We understand it based on faith...

Does the evidence seem to be against it... Yeap...

But when faced with the idea of Trusting God or trusting the evidence that man has pieced together I am going to go with God every time

I can certainly understand that position, but your faith is based on the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet and a true prophet doesn't teach false things. So shouldn't this at least be an issue of importance? I am not saying there is no conceivable way it's true...only that it seems incredibly, incredibly unlikely.

[estradling75]

Thanks for this Pam. I did read this already and while it was helpful in that it explained what Mormons officially believe, I was curious what everyday Mormons think of this. Obviously it seems essentially impossible, doesn't it?

I can certainly understand that position, but your faith is based on the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet and a true prophet doesn't teach false things. So shouldn't this at least be an issue of importance? I am not saying there is no conceivable way it's true...only that it seems incredibly, incredibly unlikely.

With God all things are possible...

[trubludru]

Of all the claims anti-Mormons make about Joseph Smith, this one seems to me to be one of the most valid criticisms. I realize that no one really knows where the Garden of Eden is, thus any place could hypothetically be the Garden of Eden, it still seems very unlikely (to say the least) that it would be in Missouri of all places. I am not at all trying to trash Mormonism. I want to be as fair as I possibly can...As I said before, I am quite impressed by much of the evidence I have seen about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, but this one...this is hard to understand.

How do Mormons generally understand this teaching? Do Mormons really accept that the Garden of Eden is in/near Missouri? If so, how do you explain all the other early events of the Bible occurring in locations much further away (Israel and Middle East)?

I am very interested to hear what Mormons think about this.

Justin

There is nothing that clearly connects modern geography with anyplace mentioned before the time of Noah in the Bible. Adam who lived for hundreds of years could have easily traveled the world several times over. Just because Noah and his descendants settled near the middle east doesn't mean that everyone prior to that lived there.

[jinc1019]

There is nothing that clearly connects modern geography with anyplace mentioned before the time of Noah in the Bible. Adam who lived for hundreds of years could have easily traveled the world several times over. Just because Noah and his descendants settled near the middle east doesn't mean that everyone prior to that lived there.

That is not correct. The Bible clearly says the Garden is located near the Tigris and the Euphrates (rivers), even saying the Tigris flows east of Assyria.

[mnn727]

Obviously it seems essentially impossible, doesn't it?

I am curious as to why you believe it to be impossible?

I don't find it any more impossible to believe that the G of E was in Missouri than I do to believe it existed at all.

Either way if it existed at all Adam and Eve were removed from it and it was taken from the Earth.

Let me give you one scenario whereby it would be possible. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the G of E and ended up in Missouri, whereupon God removed the G of E from the Earth,

Generations later God flooded the Earth and Noah and company who were in the boat for about a year finally landed in the Middle East.

I personally believe that much of the Old Testament is more metaphorical than historical, but that's my personal belief.

[Vort]

Justin, I have a suggestion: Why don't you just list out every single anti-Mormon propaganda piece you can all at once, complete with trademark anti-Mormon wording (e.g. "planet Kolob") and unqualified (and non sequitur) implications? That way, we can get this all over with at once, instead of stretching this foolishness out interminably.

I want to be as fair as I possibly can...

Oh, yes, I'm sure.

[mnn727]

That is not correct. The Bible clearly says the Garden is located near the Tigris and the Euphrates (rivers), even saying the Tigris flows east of Assyria.

People when coming to a new continent name thing after their old continent names.

new England, New York, New Amsterdam, New Rochelle, Georgia, etc etc etc.

there is no place in the middle east that matches the description in Genesis.

There is no river with 4 heads (verse 10)

There is no Pison (verse 11)

There is no river that encompasses Ethiopia (verse 13)

There is no river Hiddekel (verse 14)

Genesis 2: 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

What makes Genesis 2 believable to you? and what exactly puts it in the middle east?

Edited November 7, 2013 by mnn727

[Just_A_Guy]

That is not correct. The Bible clearly says the Garden is located near the Tigris and the Euphrates (rivers), even saying the Tigris flows east of Assyria.

Well, technically, it says that a river that flowed out of Eden and then divided into four rivers; among which were the Hiddekel (Tigris) and the Euphrates. The other two rivers haven't been pinpointed--heck, Josephus identified them with the Nile and the Ganges, which are thousands of miles away from each other.

Even if you reject Josephus, the simple problem is that there is no single river that divides into the Tigris, Euphrates, and two other rivers (or even, as far as I know, dry riverbeds). For that reason, I don't take the Biblical description literally. I figure the author (Moses, or whoever) was basically trying to make the point that "wherever it is, it's a long ways away--but it's part of this earth, and would be as geographically plottable as any of these other real-world landmarks".

[jinc1019]

I appreciate the responses. I honestly can't understand how anyone could believe it's true that Eden was in Missouri, but I certainly can respect the opinion.

[jinc1019]

What makes Genesis 2 believable to you? and what exactly puts it in the middle east?

As I said before, the Tigris, Euphrates, and Assyria all clearly point to the Middle East, OR AT LEAST that part of the world! How does it point to Missouri? That is really the question.

[Just_A_Guy]

As I said before, the Tigris, Euphrates, and Assyria all clearly point to the Middle East, OR AT LEAST that part of the world! How does it point to Missouri? That is really the question.

There's nothing other than Smith's statements substantiating it.

But there's one other way to think about this: Assuming you take the narrative of a global flood at face value, and assume Noah really was drifting on a boat for over a year while the trade winds, currents, and occasional storms continued unabated--what are the odds that he ends up less than five hundred miles from where he started?

That, in conjunction with the fact that the geography suggested in Genesis just doesn't work, leads me to think that wherever Eden was--it wasn't the middle east.

[bytebear]

That is not correct. The Bible clearly says the Garden is located near the Tigris and the Euphrates (rivers), even saying the Tigris flows east of Assyria.

How can that be? Noah built an ark, floated around for a while, and just happened to land right where he took off from? No, I think the landscape of the Earth changed during the great flood. and the Tigris and Euphrates didn't exist prior to the flood.

[jinc1019]

Both of you make valid points about the global flood, but you are missing the point. The Bible clearly says Eden was located near the Tigris, Euphrates, and Assyria (relatively speaking). Missouri, clearly, is not. So unless you are saying this part of the Bible is wrong, the Missouri assertion makes no sense based on the Genesis account. It doesn't matter how far away from Eden Noah floated because the Bible specifically states that Eden was somehow connected to the Euphrates, the Tigris, and Assyria.

I suppose an alternative theory to the suggestion that the Bible is factually wrong or that an incorrect insertion was made is to say that the entire story is allegorical...but that still doesn't explain why Missouri makes sense, it only makes it possible to avoid ruling it out. If this is the case, why would the inspired writer lead readers to believe that Eden is somehow connected to the Middle East when it isn't? What's the point of setting the stage in a false location (even if the story is allegorical)?

For me, this is perhaps the most illogical thing Mormons support. That doesn't mean it's wrong (I could be wrong!) but it does mean it's hard to accept as valid. It just SOUNDS like something someone would make up, whether it was made up or not. I don't at all mean that in an insulting way, but it's how I feel upon examining the evidence.

I know that the location of Eden really isn't an important point for Mormons, but I do think it says something about Smith as a prophet.

[mnn727]

It doesn't matter how far away from Eden Noah floated because the Bible specifically states that Eden was somehow connected to the Euphrates, the Tigris, and Assyria.

There is always this verse:

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;....

[HiJolly]

Good thoughts, jinc1019.

I personally don't think the Garden of Eden was _ever_ on this mortal world, but it was on the earth in a spiritual way. Mormons say that this mortal earth is in an un-glorified Telestial state of existence. And that before that, it was in an un-glorified terrestrial state of existence. And that when the Millenium comes, it will _return_ to an un-glorified terrestrial state. "The earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory" (AoF #10) (I take "glory" in this case as non-literal, at least until after the Millenium).

I don't think the "Fall" of the Earth brought the Garden with it, but it seems Joseph disagrees, perhaps only in a particular sense. I'm ok with that.

[jinc1019]

There is always this verse:

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;....

Very interesting yes...although the "earth" literally dividing did occur, it didn't occur when humans were around (as far as we know).

[jinc1019]

Good thoughts, jinc1019.

I personally don't think the Garden of Eden was _ever_ on this mortal world, but it was on the earth in a spiritual way. Mormons say that this mortal earth is in an un-glorified Telestial state of existence. And that before that, it was in an un-glorified terrestrial state of existence. And that when the Millenium comes, it will _return_ to an un-glorified terrestrial state. "The earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory" (AoF #10) (I take "glory" in this case as non-literal, at least until after the Millenium).

I don't think the "Fall" of the Earth brought the Garden with it, but it seems Joseph disagrees, perhaps only in a particular sense. I'm ok with that.

It seems like Mormons have a lot of different views on this as well. I am surprised by the wide array of views Mormons have that seem to be widely accepted. Mormons don't seem to be afraid to come up with theories while acknowledging that they are just that...theories.

[HiJolly]

It seems like Mormons have a lot of different views on this as well. I am surprised by the wide array of views Mormons have that seem to be widely accepted. Mormons don't seem to be afraid to come up with theories while acknowledging that they are just that...theories.

<big smile> :D

[jinc1019]

<big smile> :D

lol, I am glad you like that. I said from the very beginning, I am a fair guy. I will call it like I see it!

[HiJolly]

lol, I am glad you like that. I said from the very beginning, I am a fair guy. I will call it like I see it!

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (Joseph Smith Jr.; History of the Church 5:340)

[Just_A_Guy]

So unless you are saying this part of the Bible is wrong, the Missouri assertion makes no sense based on the Genesis account.

No assertion as to Eden's location makes sense based on the Genesis account.

It doesn't matter how far away from Eden Noah floated because the Bible specifically states that Eden was somehow connected to the Euphrates, the Tigris, and Assyria.

Not quite. It says that a river ran out of Eden and fed those two rivers of which you speak (one of which runs on to Assyria), and two more rivers which Josephus identified as being some thousands of miles away.

There is no such central river. There is no location that fits the plain meaning of the text as it stands in Genesis..

It's like finding an ancient text saying that Atlantis is located at the confluence of the Mississippi and Sacramento rivers, and therefore insisting that Atlantis must have been located in the present-day United States.

If this is the case, why would the inspired writer lead readers to believe that Eden is somehow connected to the Middle East when it isn't? What's the point of setting the stage in a false location (even if the story is allegorical)?

Joseph Smith's proposed location amplifies that conundrum; but it does not create it. The geography proposed in the Bible itself does that.

For me, this is perhaps the most illogical thing Mormons support. That doesn't mean it's wrong (I could be wrong!) but it does mean it's hard to accept as valid.

So, don't. It's not a litmus test for Church membership. :)

I know that the location of Eden really isn't an important point for Mormons, but I do think it says something about Smith as a prophet.

What does it say about the author of Genesis?

Edited November 8, 2013 by Just_A_Guy