A new theory of mine-- please poke holes in it

[All-American]

As many of you know, the LDS church teaches that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri. Every so often, somebody as low as a CES teacher or as high up as a member of the Twelve will reiterate this teaching. For example:

"Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley." (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, three volumes in one, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft 1960, p. 127)

I don't think that's true. Specifically, I don't think Joseph Smith ever taught it. I believe statements of his were misconstrued and eventually evolved into what now passes as "doctrine."

Joseph Smith arrived in what was then known as Spring Hill, Daviess County, Missouri on May 19, 1838. He then renamed it Adam-Ondi-Ahman, saying it would be the place where the Ancient of Days (Adam) would gather his posterity shortly before the second coming, as prophesied in Daniel.

With relative ease, a listener could mistake this meeting with one Adam had shortly before his death, where he gathered his righteous posterity and blessed them. I have looked for, but not found a first-hand account where Joseph says this; the second-hand accounts tend to be twenty years old or more. Later authorities unmistakeably claimed that Joseph believed the alter that was located there to be the site where Adam offered sacrifices after being expelled from the Garden of Eden (though, curiously enough, the alter was also identified as a Nephite alter at times).

It seems very plausible to me that somebody would have made the connection associating Adam-Ondi-Ahman with the site of the ancient gathering, perhaps even using the same name (as some suggest was the case with the Hill Cumorah). From there, it is easily construed that since the Garden of Eden was nearby, it must have been in Jackson County. The tendency to link a current sacred site with an ancient one is as old as civilization-- the Egyptians, for example, inseparably linked the temple with the site of the first creation, and temples are frequently built on sites of important/sacred events. Is it possible that this bit of church doctrine is completely artificial?

Notice that if it turns out that the Garden of Eden was not in America, it does nothing to our doctrine. Church leaders will have repeated bad information they were given-- their claim to authority is not damaged, so long as the claim to infallability is released. It does allow for the (far more likely) local flood theory, now that Noah no longer has to traverse an entire ocean.

Where are the holes in my thinking?

[ute4ever]

Sounds good to me. Let the Community of Christ or whatever their sponsorship name is these days, have their crappy Jackson County. I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Garden was in Ocean Beach, CA.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

As many of you know, the LDS church teaches that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri. Every so often, somebody as low as a CES teacher or as high up as a member of the Twelve will reiterate this teaching. For example:

"Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley." (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, three volumes in one, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft 1960, p. 127)

I don't think that's true. Specifically, I don't think Joseph Smith ever taught it. I believe statements of his were misconstrued and eventually evolved into what now passes as "doctrine."

Joseph Smith arrived in what was then known as Spring Hill, Daviess County, Missouri on May 19, 1838. He then renamed it Adam-Ondi-Ahman, saying it would be the place where the Ancient of Days (Adam) would gather his posterity shortly before the second coming, as prophesied in Daniel.

With relative ease, a listener could mistake this meeting with one Adam had shortly before his death, where he gathered his righteous posterity and blessed them. I have looked for, but not found a first-hand account where Joseph says this; the second-hand accounts tend to be twenty years old or more. Later authorities unmistakeably claimed that Joseph believed the alter that was located there to be the site where Adam offered sacrifices after being expelled from the Garden of Eden (though, curiously enough, the alter was also identified as a Nephite alter at times).

It seems very plausible to me that somebody would have made the connection associating Adam-Ondi-Ahman with the site of the ancient gathering, perhaps even using the same name (as some suggest was the case with the Hill Cumorah). From there, it is easily construed that since the Garden of Eden was nearby, it must have been in Jackson County. The tendency to link a current sacred site with an ancient one is as old as civilization-- the Egyptians, for example, inseparably linked the temple with the site of the first creation, and temples are frequently built on sites of important/sacred events. Is it possible that this bit of church doctrine is completely artificial?

Notice that if it turns out that the Garden of Eden was not in America, it does nothing to our doctrine. Church leaders will have repeated bad information they were given-- their claim to authority is not damaged, so long as the claim to infallability is released. It does allow for the (far more likely) local flood theory, now that Noah no longer has to traverse an entire ocean.

Where are the holes in my thinking?

This reasoning appeals to me. That concept has always bothered me as it hasn't made sense to me, in light of my beliefs in natural selection and how the species arose. And given the nature of how "doctrine" and folk wisdom arises, I can see that happening.