A couple of questions.
 

I hesitate to post these as I know your people's penchant for pouncing on anybody who shows the faintest bit of interest, but my curiosity has gotten the better of me. Also please keep in mind my knowledge of your beliefs is mostly derived from some videos I was shown when I was trying to make bacon with this smoking hot baptist chick back in college and, to a lessor extent, from that other board.

First question: Missouri is the promised land

My first, rather impolite, reaction to this is: Missouri? Really? Have you been there? My more thoughtful question regarding this tenant or revelation or whatever you call it is could this have been a reaction to Missouri's rather rough treatment of your forefathers? A sort of "You'll get your's Missouri. We're coming back to bust a cap in all y'all's asses." I realize I might be paraphrasing a bit.

My second question involves the trek west, when your people came out of the mountains and Brigham Young says "This is the place."

I realize he was the prophet and thus was to be followed without question, but I can't help but think that a few in the flock looked at each other and said "He's kidding, right?" I've got nothing against the Salt Lake area per se, but after trekking across Nebraska and southern Wyoming from comparatively lush Missouri and Illinois I have to imagine the rank and file were expecting something a bit more. I guess there's technically no question there, but you see what I'm getting at.

Though couched in light-hearted terms, the questions are sincere.

There were more than a few in the flock that said "what the hell" or whatever they said in those days. The tougher ones are the ones that came by way of boat to Calif. and Brigham Young told them they had to keep on coming to Utah. Some wouldn't do it and stayed. Of course some like to tell stories about those that didn't come ended up miserable and bankrupt people in Calif.

To me it is a testament to the leadership of Brigham Young. It is up to each person to determine if the leadership was brought about divinely or he was just a great leader. A leader can get people to do what they wouldn't normally do.

Any insights into Missouri? That's more puzzling to me than Utah but a long stretch.

Nope, you will have to get input from those who are more into it.

I could tell you what I was taught as a kid, but I have found the church doesn't believe a lot of what I was taught anymore, so if I said something I could get shot down real quick. :)

I guess I'll stick to my "bust a cap in all y'all's ass" theory until told otherwise.

Those reactions pretty much mirror mine. I'm hoping I'm dead before the saints gather to Missouri or that maybe I can stay behind to take care of church property. I don't care for Missouri at all. My sister is very found of it, though.

Adam and Eve were in Missouri. It's either where the Garden of Eve was or where they went when they were cast out of the Garden, so that might have something to do with it.

As far as Salt Lake goes, it's OK but I'm not overly fond of it. I wish the Saints would have continued on to Vancouver Island, British Columbia as they were threatening to do but I think that was just a ploy to get the US government to co-operate.

Probably one of the reasons Salt Lake was selected was because it was so remote. Nobody else wanted it.

From what I understand, when the earth was created, all of the continents were pieced together and what is currently Jackson County, Missouri, was in the center, and it housed the garden of Eden. Then during the days of Peleg (Genesis) the earth was divided into continents. Then during the flood (Genesis), Noah's ark rode the waters and landed somewhere in present-day Turkey. From that point on, biblical geography became heavily populated in the Middle East.

Then in the days of Jared (Tower of Babel - Genesis), some people sailed to the Americas including present-day Missouri, and later in the days of Jeremiah (New Testament) more people sailed to the Americas and filled the continent (Book of Mormon). Sometime in the fifth century AD, nearly all of the people inhabiting Missouri and the Americas were killed in wars and plagues.

When Christ returns and cleanses the earth, he will direct his people to build a new temple at the site where it all began: the garden of Eden.

So from a doctrinal timeline standpoint, were Adam and Eve in Missouri before or after your people were there. That is, did their location change or was it not determined prior to the exodus from Missouri?

landpoke, I consider the Genesis account to be symbolic and I'm not looking for a literal Garden of Eden someplace.

Joseph Smith was looking to make Jackson County Missouri the home of communal Mormonism. Brigham Young may very well have misinterpreted or misquoted Joseph Smith in some of his comments about Missouri. All American has done research on this. I hope he pops in today.

Regardless, most Mormons no doubt believe that the Garden of Eden was in the place that is now called Missouri, and believe that the New Jerusalem will be established there. This sort of thing almost never comes up in Church meetings.

There are some scriptural passages that Mormons draw on for the idea that the New Jerusalem will be in Missouri. The Articles of Faith come from a letter Joseph Smith wrote to a Chicago newspaper editor in 1842 and serve as a kind of "quick notes" guide to basic Mormonism. The Doctrine & Covenants has 138 sections and two official declarations, the overwhelming majority of which were given by Joseph Smith as modern revelation.

Article of Faith #10

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

Doctrine & Covenants 42: 9, 35, 62, 67

9 Until the time shall come when it shall be revealed unto you from on high, when the city of the New Jerusalem shall be prepared, that ye may be gathered in one, that ye may be my people and I will be your God.

35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed—

62 Thou shalt ask, and it shall be revealed unto you in mine own due time where the New Jerusalem shall be built.

67 And ye shall hereafter receive church covenants, such as shall be sufficient to establish you, both here and in the New Jerusalem.



Doctrine & Covenants 84: 2, 4

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

What's your address? I know a couple nice young men in your area who would love to visit with you in your home.

What a lovely summary. It all makes perfect sense! But seriously, no it doesn't. None of that ever happened. I do wonder about the Missouri thing. Was that doctrine introduced while they were still somewhat happy there or was it as they were starting to be kicked out?

As for the SLC thing, it may have been just good luck, but it actually worked out really well. It was important for the church to be able to grow and establish itself without having anybody else around, who tend to get very annoyed when being told they're going to hell, etc. If they had kept going to the coast, they'd have had an easier time for a bit, but would have been surrounded by people in short order. BY actually handled that one pretty well.

Just curious. Do you mean, in your opinion none of this ever happened?

Why, were you offended? Fine. It is my opinion that 2 + 2 = 4, for standard values of 2 and 4. Your math teachers must have loved you.

No, I wasn't offended at all. I was curious as to whether you were making the statement as a matter of fact statement or an opinion statement.

My math teachers did love me by the way, it was my best subject.

Religion wasn't my best because some people wanted to act like they knew something for sure, when I realized they had no way of knowing for sure.

They would say something like, the garden of eden was in Missouri. I would say is that your opinion or are you stating it as fact. They then would say something about 2+2 is 4 and how does my math teacher like me.

I'm sorry, have we not met? I'm woot, and I'm not religious. Stating that the garden of Eden was not in Missouri is not religious. It is obvious fact based several independent disciplines. First, the garden of eden is part of a metaphorical (or "false" if that's too presumptuous) creation myth, and never actually existed. We know this in various ways which have been discussed extensively on this forum. Therefore, we know it wasn't in Missouri since it wasn't anywhere. Second, plate tectonics is a well-established scientific theory, and we have a pretty good idea of when Pangaea existed. It wasn't during the time of "Peleg" or any other human. Therefore, even if we pretend that the garden of eden existed, it couldn't have been in Missouri.

When scientific principles are occasionally instructive concerning religious matters, they don't temporarily become opinions for the duration of the religious conversation.

Which bring up yet another question: What's your cut-off age for the babies you eat? I've got a one year old that I'm kind of fond of which that might constrain my ability to entertain your sales staff.

But of course you have ZERO evidence to support your statements -and no more than any old religious idiot does ;)

So there wasn't a giant land mass during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago?

If it makes you feel good to think that, so be it, but I doubt that even you are that dishonest as to actually believe that.

That sounds about right. What's your point? That god planted Adam and Eve in Missouri 250 million years ago, which was probably about the time that the first mammals began appearing? Did they just not reproduce and somehow avoided being killed for the next 249.85 million years until they finally started reproducing? Surely not even you are capable of believing that.

Why do you care about what science thinks about pangaea? That conclusion is based on all that icky "evidence" stuff. Not really your thing, eh?

I hope that the gathering to Missouri starts TOMORROW.

The sooner the chaff is burned, the better.

I am the son of a man that bought a nice pair of hiking boots that he couldn't really afford, in case he had to WALK to Missouri. His blood is my blood.

So you accept the idea that there was a giant land mass on the earth at one point? And yet you ridcule the notion in regards to the Garden of Eden. And yet was such knowledge common knowledge in the time of Joseph Smith?

Fascinating.

LOL :)

Lay out the evidence ... there's lots of it. Of course you might struggle a little to make it all fit together in a nice neat little package to prove your assumptions.

I don't know how to respond to that. I doubt Joseph Smith considered many of the implications of his assertion. That you seem to believe that a garden of eden 250 million years ago conforms to his beliefs doesn't make him right. It makes both of you wrong.

Which assumptions? You admitted yourself that pangaea existed 250 million years ago, not 5000 years ago, as the Bible suggests. Unless you can come up with a scenario in which Adam and Eve existed 250 million years ago, that's already plenty of evidence to refute the whole story.

I agree with you that the Garden of Eden story is not literal, and you are right that thinking of the Genesis creation myth as metaphor is presumptuous. Metaphors assert (and all metaphors assume a metaphysics, but that's another discussion for another day) a significant similarity between two referents or concepts. I'm more apt to value the Genesis creation myth as metonym.

I'd caution you not to implicitly equate truth with fact when you declare things like the Genesis creation myth false. I'm well aware of the scientific arguments you are marshalling against TB and I probably agree with them (In this thread you haven't as of yet made a factual claim that I'd dispute). But indicting the Garden of Eden in terms of fact is not the same as indicting it in terms of truth. Fiction can have great truths when it speaks to how we understand the human condition. Nonfiction, such as autobiography, can be jam packed with lies. People can find truth in the Genesis creation myths if they find the human condition in them, regardless of their factual foundation. A psychoanalyst could find them to be true to the degree that they accurately depict patterns of sexual repression that beset Western culture. A transcendentalist, like Emerson, could find that they teach truths about how humans relate to nature.

I'm sure you are aware of these things. I wrote them mostly for the benefit of passersby.

Indeed, I actually find the Judeochristian creation myth to be quite beautiful, and there might certainly be profound meaning in there for those willing to look for it. I am personally more apt to think that the writer thereof was simply wrong due to inevitable ignorance, but certainly whoever it was included some very interesting and potentially meaningful stuff besides.

It just saddens me when people insist on thinking that it's literally true, when it just obviously isn't. It really does reduce our ability to look at it in the same way we look at various other creation myths. If nothing else, it provides a window into the lives of ancient people, but when so many people are foolish enough to think it's actually true, it just sours the whole endeavor.

You suggested they HAD to exist 250 million years ago. I merely suggested that at one time there was one giant land mass on the earth ;)

Who said anything about the story being literally true ... Me thinks you are projecting.

So your insistence that Adam and Eve and garden of eden all existed has nothing to do with Genesis? Are you ever going to actually come out and explain what you believe? Do you still believe that truth is fluid and always changing according to the beliefs of the day? I never really got you explain how that could possibly be correct.

Surely you will concede the idea that what you believe concerning evolution is much different than what Darwin believed concerning evolution. Am I on trial here? And what determines correctness -who is authority, and how did he/she/it attain authority to determine correctness?

Is it so much to ask that you actually just say what you mean instead of only asking these cryptic, leading questions?

Obviously science has progressed far beyond Darwin. That doesn't mean that Darwin was 100% correct and that the truth has changed so that science today is now 100% correct. The whole point of science is to get closer and closer to whatever the truth is (and has always been).

Thank you for conceding that truth is fluid.

I just did the exact opposite of that. I'm beginning to wonder about your intellect.

You did write this ... "Obviously science has progressed far beyond Darwin. That doesn't mean that Darwin was 100% correct and that the truth has changed so that science today is now 100% correct. The whole point of science is to get closer and closer to whatever the truth is (and has always been)."

In the above statement you concede science has progressed ... that science is not 100% correct and that it's point is to get closer and closer to whatever truth is ... therefore by your own words truth is fluid.

Let's apply a definition of fluid: "changing readily; shifting; not fixed, stable, or rigid"

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Let me try again:

The truth is fixed. Science's task is to figure out what that truth is. As new evidence is discovered, science gets closer and closer to determining what the truth is about any given topic.

Perhaps you're confusing "truth" with the search for truth? I just don't see any possible way for you to conclude from my words that the truth is readily changing.

But it's not fixed -it changes with every generation ... in fact with every circumstance.

The only Mormons who eat babies are the ones with horns ... stay away from all balding first year BYU students -actually stay away from all balding BYU students!

So then genes didn't actually exist until the 20th century? Scientific discovery dictates truth? The universe really was 6000 years old until the scientists decided it was much older than that? For not believing in science, it's weird that you allow them to dictate your "fluid" truth.