OnlineBookClub.org

Why does the Book of Mormon include a very literal account of such things as Noah's Ark (Ether 6:7), Adam & Eve, or the Garden of Eden (Alma 42:2)? If Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel story of the languages forming or many of the other things mentioned in the Bible aren't literal (and they aren't by any stretch of the imagination)--neither are the portions of Book of Mormon history relying on these items as literal. Similarly, why did Joseph Smith state that Adam and the Garden of Eden were literally located in Missouri?
"Like Roberts, James Talmage believed that the 5,931-year-old Adamic race had been preceded on earth by pre-Adamic life. The usually cautious father boasted to his son that in discussions among the Twelve he had been "bold enough to point out" some conclusive evidence against (Joseph Fielding) Smith's position. He had personally inspected a pile of stones at Spring Hill, Missouri, declared by Joseph Smith to be part of "the altar on which Adam offered sacrifices," and had seen that it contained fossilized animals. "If those stones be part of the first altar," he reasoned, "Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam's time." (The original quote is from a letter written by James Talmage in 1931 to his son, Sterling Talmage, also a geologist. It is quoted in Ronald L. Numbers The Creationists. The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Berkeley: University of California Press), 1992. The section on Creationism in Mormonism (pp. 308-14) is excellent. This quote is from page 311).

Thanks for sharing that one.

I've personally read very little of the Book of Mormon, but my best friend is Mormon and I've learned some about it. I personally find that a lot of Mormon theology stands on very shaky ground, particularly in its efforts to add history to itself.

I imagine the reason why, if I had to argue against its credibility, would be that the more facts you try to pretend you know, the more credible you sound. Of course, that only works if you have facts that you can at least halfway prove are accurate, at least when it comes to testing a book. The location of a sub-marine land bridge in the Red Sea, for example, adds credibility to the Exodus account for the Israelites escaping Egypt that way. A pile of stones in Missouri with animal remains is probably the worst bit of evidence I've heard. I would imagine there are better citations of evidence, but I have yet to find any that don't make me raise my eyebrows. Interesting, but inconclusive.

Not to bash anyone's beliefs! But if you're asking a non Mormon why he finds such evidence insufficient, and asking the opinion of why the Book of Mormon includes such detail not present in the Bible, those are my answers, given with all respect and acknowledgment that I hardly know everything.

I've never read anything like that before, but I'm always interested in something new, so I'll check it up!

Being a non-mormon from Utah, I have been exposed to the mormon religon and have even had missionaries to give me lessons. But some of it I cant swallow, for instance why isnt there any archelogical evidence, writings, that sort of thing in the Americas? Ive asked knowledgeable people about that, they flat said they didnt know. Im not knocking it, they have some wonderful programs and I have a lot of respect for them for the hardships they went through. But its not for me. Somebody once said, "Every religon says all the other religons are going to Hell, so apperently no body is going to Heaven." Hell is probably where Ill end up, I havent been exactly a good boy all my life, but Ill have lots of company.