Question about the beggining of man

[DigitalShadow]

WARNING: ONLY church publications carrying the words 'Copyright of the First Presidency' are official doctrine of the church. Be careful whom and what you quote as doctrine. Much is 'One man's Opinion", only that copyright is accepted as doctrine, no matter who wrote it. IE Mormon Doctrine by B R McKoncie(?) is NOT official doctrine, good as it is.

That said, there is no doctrine I'm aware of that says specifically that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

I await correction eagerly. The apparent reason for people thinking the Garden was in Mesopotamia is due to the name of a river. A co-incidence, perhaps-I do not know.

I'm confused, who from the church even said the Garden of Eden was in Missouri in the first place?

And what did they base it on?

[Ray A]

I'm confused, who from the church even said the Garden of Eden was in Missouri in the first place?

And what did they base it on?

D&C 117:8:

8 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, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?

[Snow]

The contintental drift according to what I interpret in the scriptures did not occur until the death of Christ.

Helaman 14:20-23

If you are looking to Helaman for an estimate of the time involved in continental drift, you are looking in the wrong place. It happened over millions and millions of years, not a couple millennia.

[Snow]

I'm confused, who from the church even said the Garden of Eden was in Missouri in the first place?

And what did they base it on?

It comes from JS but it is not canonized and who knows if it's true or he he was merely hypothesizing.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

If you are looking to Helaman for an estimate of the time involved in continental drift, you are looking in the wrong place. It happened over millions and millions of years, not a couple millennia.

According to science.

I don't agree with science much anymore. Not since I started studying the Gospel more. I am a physics major too. I took two years of it in high school, my favorite subject. Could whip out concepts and equations like they were nothing. Now I believe in God more and say His works and analysis of things is far greater and superior to science and the works of men.

I don't believe in Evolution(fruit of science) because I do not see how it accounts for the Fall and for a terrestrial world among other things. There has to be death for evolution to occur. There was no death, pain or sickness on the Earth before the Fall. So no evolutionary processes would have begun before 4000 BC approximately. Not millions of years.

[Dale]

If Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, and they were in Missouri....then how did all the people get to all the different places in the world?

I no longer hold the idea they were the first people on earth. I read the Genisis account differently than i used to. I see Genisis 1 as using a broader definition of earth. But they did not have a concept of planet earth yet. Their world was what they could see. Their earth was small. In Genisis 2:5 the earth had not gotten rain in the localized area they called earth. It did not mean it did not rain on other parts of planet earth. When it talks of ground in Genisis 2:7 it means what they could see within their view. Adam to me was the first of the Adamic kind, and eve the mother of all living of the Adamic kind.

"There was not a man to till the ground. (Genisis 2:5) Means what they could see around themselves, within our horizon. It can refer to a specific stretch of land in a local geographic sense. Zech 5:6 "all the earth" means it is talking about Palestine a tract of land or country not planet earth. I made some crummy quick notes from an article i have by Carol A. Hill. She feels the garden existed in the middle east.

So i feel Pre-Adamites existed. I also accept Evolution. I accept the old earth.

Try searching online for an article by Carol A. Hill. It is entitled The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local? It only came up as a printable article. On the 2nd page of the article it explains the use of "ground" and "earth." Her convincing argument forced me to go back and re-interpret how i understood the creation story use of those words. So a lot of things have happened on planet earth just not where they were at.

[Ray A]

I don't believe in Evolution(fruit of science) because I do not see how it accounts for the Fall and for a terrestrial world among other things. There has to be death for evolution to occur. There was no death, pain or sickness on the Earth before the Fall. So no evolutionary processes would have begun before 4000 BC approximately. Not millions of years.

You may have the cart before the horse here. Do you "believe" in forensic science, and DNA testing? Do you "believe" a police forensic officer can trace DNA samples to a criminal, and that this can be used in a court? Or do you think the courts accept this evidence on faith?

If no evolution began until 4,000 BC, how do you explain dinosaur bones and fossils? What is your theory about when they died out, and did they enter Noah's Ark?

[Ray A]

Just a shortlist if dinosaurs constructed from fossil evidence:

Find Dinosaur Pictures - Illustrations of Dinosaurs - Dinosaurios - Dinosaur Art

[THIRDpersonviewer]

The dinosaurs would have died in the flood. There are large concentrations of their bones which have been found in mud.

I am only nineteen so my secular knowledge is lacking. I do not know the intricacies of forensic science nor do I understand DNA very well.

If forensic science proves the DNA of a crime scene and a criminal match then that is sufficient evidence for men. It may be used because it uses the processes and analysis of men to make a judgment by men. Of whom the law abides with men. If the processes are proven "correct" by men to be used by men, then the laws of men may abide by their men's analysis.

[Ray A]

The dinosaurs would have died in the flood. There are large concentrations of their bones which have been found in mud.

That's because layers of deposits are in - mud.

I am only nineteen so my secular knowledge is lacking. I do not know the intricacies of forensic science nor do I understand DNA very well.

Every human has a unique DNA. Even twins have different DNA. Barring complications of mixed DNA at crime scenes, forensic officers can pinpoint criminals who leave blood traces, or even skin fragments or sperm at crime scenes. DNA studies is what led the Church to revise its statement that the Nephites (or, more accurately, Lamanites) are not the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians, because the DNA evidence shows overwhelming evidence of Asiatic origin. That is why a smaller-scale geography has been proposed for BoM peoples.

In the words of John Clark, a BYU archaeologist:

"There's no way that negative evidence on [DNA] hurts the Book of Mormon whatsoever once you believe in a limited geography. If you believe in a global geography, you're basically done, toasted, game over."

So even Clark accepts this evidence. So do FARMS, who have been proposing a LGM for years. In fact the LGM goes back to the 19th century. Yet, contrary to this many still believe that the Nephites were all over America.

If forensic science proves the DNA of a crime scene and a criminal match then that is sufficient evidence for men. It may be used because it uses the processes and analysis of men to make a judgment by men. Of whom the law abides with men. If the processes are proven "correct" by men to be used by men, then the laws of men may abide by their men's analysis.

It's not a question of "men's analysis". Do you doubt your doctor's prognosis and instead rely on scripture? If your doctor says you need a specific treatment to cure, or mitigate diabetes, or epileptic seizures, or ulcers, or bowel infections, do you turn to the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, for a better answer? This is the same science which gave us palaeontology, the systematic study of fossil evidence and human origins.

Does this eradicate what Jesus taught on the Mount? It would be almost bizzare to think so. But apparently some do, and I'm not referring to you, specifically.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

That's because layers of deposits are in - mud.

Every human has a unique DNA. Even twins have different DNA. Barring complications of mixed DNA at crime scenes, forensic officers can pinpoint criminals who leave blood traces, or even skin fragments or sperm at crime scenes. DNA studies is what led the Church to revise its statement that the Nephites (or, more accurately, Lamanites) are not the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians, because the DNA evidence shows overwhelming evidence of Asiatic origin. That is why a smaller-scale geography has been proposed for BoM peoples.

In the words of John Clark, a BYU archaeologist:

So even Clark accepts this evidence. So do FARMS, who have been proposing a LGM for years. In fact the LGM goes back to the 19th century. Yet, contrary to this many still believe that the Nephites were all over America.

It's not a question of "men's analysis". Do you doubt your doctor's prognosis and instead rely on scripture? If your doctor says you need a specific treatment to cure, or mitigate diabetes, or epileptic seizures, or ulcers, or bowel infections, do you turn to the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, for a better answer? This is the same science which gave us palaeontology, the systematic study of fossil evidence and human origins.

Does this eradicate what Jesus taught on the Mount? It would be almost bizzare to think so. But apparently some do, and I'm not referring to you, specifically.

Sorry, I shouldn't have put emphasis on mud. But what is not to suppose that they died in the flood?

We know that there was possibility of a people coming over and mixing with the Lamanite seed. It was shown that was possible by Mulekites and Jaredites and so forth. So the DNA can change or be altered over time.

Men's analysis is meant for proof. Just what I am doing now. Your doctor is not proving anything but that science can give insight to truth but cannot be the source of it. Which is why I don't believe it. I don't want a process, but a source. There is a process to tap the source but that is given to men, by the Holy Ghost. That is the process. What is science process. There is no source and the process is the thinking of men. Who are occasionally enlightened by God when he sees fit to enlighten them.

There is a difference between proving and using. Truth is given to use, not to prove. But since I have already entered into speculation, then I have to prove my speculation which I am doing.

[Ray A]

Sorry, I shouldn't have put emphasis on mud. But what is not to suppose that they died in the flood?

Why would Noah leave them out of the Ark, especially when God said to gather "two of every kind"? Two dinosaurs would take up all the space, I suppose, and feeding them would be impossible. Simple solution: Let them die in the flood. "Sorry guys, but you're too big, no room in the ArkInn for you". "Nothing personal." Sorry, but my sarcasm is merited.

We know that there was possibility of a people coming over and mixing with the Lamanite seed. It was shown that was possible by Mulekites and Jaredites and so forth. So the DNA can change or be altered over time.

Why only the Mulekites and Jaredites? Both would have Jewish/Middle Eastern DNA, and Asiatic DNA dominates American prehistory. If they were the "principal ancestors", then Middle-Eastern DNA would predominate the population. It doesn't. It's only found in specks and traces, barely identifiable. 99% of New World population can be traced backed to Asiatic origins. To give a practical example: If you migrated to a Caribbean Island in 1700, and populated a large portion of that island, your genes and DNA record would be firmly established. Easily traced, even with future intermingling scientists can trace this, because the biology is like a computer record.

Men's analysis is meant for proof. Just what I am doing now. Your doctor is not proving anything but that science can give insight to truth but cannot be the source of it. Which is why I don't believe it. I don't want a process, but a source. There is a process to tap the source but that is given to men, by the Holy Ghost. That is the process. What is science process. There is no source and the process is the thinking of men. Who are occasionally enlightened by God when he sees fit to enlighten them.

All of the cures in history, for all of diseases in history, have been revealed by "men". Maybe God inspired some, no doubt. The Black Death is a prime example of what God didn't inspire. Millions died in this Death, and you know how the source of it was made known? After millions died, three-quarters of the population of Europe died, they discovered that it was caused by fleas biting infected rats, then biting humans. It was a rodent disease transferred to humans via fleas. One might ask, where was God at the start? It took scientific investigation to understand this, after a few thousand miles of graves lined the cities. Preachers capitalised on this - we need to repent! God has sent this plague! "It's the end of the world!" The answer came through science, not the scriptures.

There is a difference between proving and using. Truth is given to use, not to prove. But since I have already entered into speculation, then I have to prove my speculation which I am doing.

Your speculation is worthless if you reject science, which is not run by devils in disguise, but by humans trying their best to understand the human condition.

[MobyMule]

Ray I have to ask why you would think the Jaredites whould have Jewish DNA? I don't think they would have had DNA like the Jews now or in Christ's time. I wouldn't even think it to be similar to be honest.

[MobyMule]

I have learned through many years that I am not ever going to fully understand the hows/steps of creation of the earth/man in this life. But I do gain spirtual testimony from both science and scripture. Realizing that God has all knowledge and putting my trust into him suffices for me.

[Dear434]

Adam is described as being the "first flesh" upon the earth.

Moses 3:7:

This theory doesn't seem workable.

Moses 3:7 seems to be in error since the animals were made before Adam, and they are certainly as much "flesh" as we are.

[Dear434]

The contintental drift according to what I interpret in the scriptures did not occur until the death of Christ.

Helaman 14:20-23

20 But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead.

21 Yea, at the time that he shall yield up the ghost there shall be thunderings and lightnings for the space of many hours, and the earth shall shake and tremble; and the rocks which are upon the face of this earth, which are both above the earth and beneath, which ye know at this time are solid, or the more part of it is one solid mass, shall be broken up;

22 Yea, they shall be rent in twain, and shall ever after be found in seams and in cracks, and in broken fragments upon the face of the whole earth, yea, both above the earth and beneath.

23 And behold, there shall be great tempests, and there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great.

It is suspected, by me, that the flood was the time of the separation of the one giant land mass, spoken of in the scriptures.

Aren't you forgetting about Jared's barges? No need for them if the earth was just one land mass.

[Ray A]

Ray I have to ask why you would think the Jaredites whould have Jewish DNA? I don't think they would have had DNA like the Jews now or in Christ's time. I wouldn't even think it to be similar to be honest.

Moby, it's not just about DNA. Here's something I posted a while ago on FAIR, April 9, 2006, to be exact:

I find the whole of 1 and 2 Nephi occurring in around 590BC to be anachronistic. Filled with basic Christian teachings we never see until the time of Christ. Not even the DSS is a good comparison, because you don't see the Christian terminology and beliefs there that you do in the BoM. Need I really go through them? Baptism, the HG, faith, repentance, "exegesis" of a Bible that would not exist until well after the time of Christ. Explanations of such prophecies that could not have been known to Jews in 590BC, Nephi seeing events over 2,000 years into the future and commenting on them from what's obviously a 19th century perspective. He sees and comments on Columbus from a perspective not known to historians until BoM times, and in some cases not even commented on until after 1830. That the BoM contains sharp insight is beyond doubt, but those sharp insigts, as perspicacious as they are, do not solve the anachronism problem. As I've said before, most historians would be startled to find a record, even an aprocryphal one, that might find George Washington talking about getting the latest edition of Windows. And that's only a three hundred year difference. That might put some perspective on the anachronism problem. What did the Bible writers forsee? Apart from highly debatable prophecies in Revelation? Paul didn't even know when the second coming would occur, but talked as if it would be in their lifetime. Don't buy, sell, marry or bother going into long term business, "the time is at hand". Yet Nephi sees 2,000 years ahead.

And most anachronistic of all - Jews practising Christianity and the Law of Moses at the same time. They know exactly who Christ is, all of his teachings regarding salvation, practise baptism by immersion "for the remission of sins", but they keep the Law of Moses to "fulfill the law". According to Nephi, they live and breathe Christ. This makes no sense from any historical perspective. Not even Barker's. Commentary on the second temple might have some interest, but it doesn't explain these far more problematic points. Using Barker is skimming by comparison.

This is why I find the technical discussions about metallurgy, barley, etc, almost irrelevant to the far deeper issues.

The Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text, and even Mr. Magoo on ecstasy can see that. Yet, I still consider it a modern revelation.

[Dear434]

How? Or rather how'd we come to that conclusion. I know Brigham Young said it. I just sort of dismissed it as something I didn't need to know. I would like to see what he said.

I know that is was something like Adam and Eve came from "Kolob" or some planet and God took them and brought them here. So they were created, organized, established(whatever your definition) just as we were here on this sphere, but on another planet. This wouldn't break from eternal principle. All things could then could be created in the same manner, ordained by law from before the foundations of the worlds. It makes sense, but I want to hear(see) it from the source which would be Brigham Young.

According to Brigham Young, Adam was not created or "formed" on planet earth. He came here with Eve, one of his wives, and according to B.Y. he was the god of this world.

[Ray A]

Moses 3:7 seems to be in error since the animals were made before Adam, and they are certainly as much "flesh" as we are.

So are you saying that there is an error in the revelations?

[Dear434]

- Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 7:282

There were others, but I am not able to find them easily enough to offer more right now.

-a-train

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." Journal of Discourses Volume 1.

[Dear434]

So are you saying that there is an error in the revelations?

Gen. 1:25 clearly shows that animals were created before Adam. Also, Moses 1:34 says "And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many." So, if you believe the book of Moses, then wouldn't this indicate that Adam was the first man on this planet? Wouldn't that negate the possibility of a pre-Adamite race?

[Ray A]

Moses 3:7 seems to be in error since the animals were made before Adam, and they are certainly as much "flesh" as we are.

Look at it in full context:

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

8 And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.

Note verse 8. It doesn't say that the garden was planted before the man was formed. But he placed the man in the garden, and the man was already formed (before the garden).

[Dear434]

So are you saying that there is an error in the revelations?

Moses 3:7 is either in error or the interpretation is in error. Look at Moses 2 you'll see that in chapter 2 it says animals were created before man. So, if this is true, then how could Adam be the 'first flesh'?

[Ray A]

Wouldn't that negate the possibility of a pre-Adamite race?

It not only negates it, it makes it nonsensical speculation, at least in regard to scripture.

[Dear434]

Look at it in full context:

Note verse 8. It doesn't say that the garden was planted before the man was formed. But he placed the man in the garden, and the man was already formed (before the garden).

If "first flesh" = "first man" then I would agree with that interpretation.