Fence Sitter wrote:Yeah, the "pre-Adamite" explanation actually raises more questions than it solves from a Mormon theological point of view.Claiming pre-Adamites changes early biblical stories like the flood and Garden of Eden into myths and is pretty much just a step before claiming Adam & Eve are just myths too.
I don't think that follows. After all Joseph had already pretty well made where Adam and Eve were expelled to as Missouri. The Garden of Eden seems different. If you're a "no death before the fall" type then the Garden of Eden is really the whole planet and the planet as a whole falls with Adam. I don't think that makes any sense at all. The other view (which lines up much better with heavenly ascent literature from the 1st century) is that Eden is a heaven closer to heaven. That is, a different place from this world. The text pretty well suggests that since an angel is guarding the entrance - this later becomes angelic guardians for each level in heavenly ascents during the apocalypse literary period. In Nauvoo Mormonism they adopt the Masonic tyler to become this angel guardian the endowment where there is a return via a heavenly ascent. (Not really part of the contemporary endowment except a trace where the guy checks you before going up the elevator when you've received your name)
So Eden really isn't an issue if it's already an other heaven. Traditionally the 3rd and there are hints Joseph knew this based upon how he comments upon Paul's visit to the third heaven. I'd have to check but there may be part of the tradition in Masonry as well.
Anyway, with pre-Adamites you have Adam and Eve cast out of Eden into an already existing Missouri (or somewhere else if one doesn't trust Joseph there). No need to assume it's a myth.
The flood likewise is dealt with. Most of the apologists were pushing for a local flood long ago. It was ubiquitous in the 90's. Even way back Nibley had pushed a spectator theory where Noah could only describe what he saw, and if it looked like everything was flooded that's what he wrote. Joseph, according to one account, had Noah living in the Carolinas so it could easily be explained as a local hurricane that wiped out the people.
From a more contemporary view, one can easily adopt the Documentary Hypothesis here. We know that the Noah account was a combination of at least two accounts compiled into its present form by the Priestly tradition most likely in the post-exilic period. As such, it's already corrupt textually. So that offers an easy third way between so-called "literalism" and myth.
