Most of contemporary religion acknowledges the theory of Pangaea (the big huge continent that existed before it was split up into the 7 continents we know now). Science didn't know that Pangaea had even existed (and refuted the idea) until the 1950's when a group of scientists studying the mid-atlantic ridge spoke out and acknowledged that it was true.
Pangaea's split was most likely caused by Polar Ice caps freezing quickly and placing pressure on Earth's access. This caused a huge crack in the continent, melted the ice caps and caused a huge flash flood (the Deluge aka Noah's flood).
Did you know that Jackson County, Missouri was actually literally in the Geographic Centre of Pangaea?
So, even though the Mormons may appear to be way off on a lot of things, a lot of their 'crazy theories' actually do make a lot of sense. It's weird to think about that, especially given the limited educational background of Joseph Smith...
2007-02-20 05:29:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by James, Pet Guy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
For all people who's heavily thinking this, i wish you notice the cardboard trick right here. The LDS responders all say "do no longer take my word for it," yet they *do* choose so which you would be able to take their word which you would be able to by some potential understand despite if Joseph Smith replaced right into a respected witness via praying. if fact be recommended fact would not continuously sense stable. in case you got here across your considerable different have been cheating on you, that would not sense stable. Does that advise it did no longer ensue? of direction no longer. Joseph Smith married 34 women human beings. a third have been already married to different adult men, and a third have been toddlers. Helen Mar Kimball replaced into purely 14 whilst Joseph confident her she ought to maintain herself and her entire kinfolk via marrying him. Does that make you sense stable? specific, he's basically a guy and could make errors. yet he's the guy you're trusting once you connect Mormonism. individually i do no longer discover any reason to have confidence him, from the evolving First imaginative and prescient™ tale to the anachronistic e book of Mormon to the completely fabricated e book of Abraham translation. it relatively is a demonstrable fraud. yet once you hear to the missionaries and pray with faith and a choose to have self belief, I haven't any doubt you will get your answer.
2016-10-02 07:25:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why not? Does anyone really know where Adam and Eve were before being kicked out? Or where civilization was before the big flood?
And if we believe a new Zion-like place can be in North America, again I say, so what? At least we won't be fighting over the Jerusalem in Israel like everybody else is.
2007-02-17 05:45:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by daisyk 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
You're correct that's what we believe. Adam and Eve lived there as well as those before the flood. After the flood, the ark landed in a differant land or as we know now a different country, and that's were the rest of the bible takes place.
Hope this helps!
2007-02-18 17:25:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jedi Lizard 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
What's up with you assuming that it's not there? How do you know where it was/is/will be again??
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.
Latter-day revealtion affirms the account of the Garden of Eden in the bible and also points to the location where Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden - which I believe is also called Adam-ondi-Ahman.
The term Adam-ondi-Ahman has been speculatively translated as the "Valley of God, where Adam dwelt" (by Orson Pratt), "The valley of God in which Adam blessed his children" (by LDS historian John Corrill), "Adam's grave" (by Community of Christ historian Herman C. Smith), or "Adam with God," because in scriptures by Joseph Smith, Jr., the term Son Ahman is said to refer to Jesus. (LDS D&C 78:20.) The term Ahman, therefore, is popularly interpreted to mean "God".
2007-02-17 06:33:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
I guess there's really no other theory to compare it with, is there? Other religions may have theories (at least those high in the churches), but maybe we don't hear about them. I definitely can't say it's incorrect just because I haven't heard it before. Who knows? I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one.
2007-02-20 02:49:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by straightup 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why do you think the garden of eden is anywhere on earth?
2007-02-17 05:46:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by XX 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
You want to know?
When a prophet stands up and contradicts what the Bible says, then you know what you have - a false prophet. The book of Deuteronomy has orders for us when it comes to dealing with false prophets.
2007-02-19 23:22:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Buzz s 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
And that Adam was a talking horse named Gus!
2007-02-17 05:43:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Don't know, they have so much good to offer, but they are leaving the bible in the dust. Hope they wake up one day.
2007-02-17 05:44:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by whattheheck 4
·
1⤊
2⤋