Where is the Garden of Eden?

[creekster]

Here is a link ot a site that describes the materials used to support the idea that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Quo...ndi-Ahman.html

[LA Ute]

Irregardless of what he meant, his post doesn't jive with my understanding of the situation. Doesn't bold well for DDD's popularity, does it?

Don't give me that jibe, man. It's unphantomable to me.

[creekster]

I don't think many even ask the question, let alone search for an answer.

I think you are being a bit smug in thinking this. My guess is that the vasy amjority have done the first and the majority have attempted the second. That they dont disucss it is odesn't mean they don't think about it. Surely you don't believe that because I and others like me fail to respond to every one of SU or other's little jabs and pokes that we have simply failed to consider the issues raised?

[SCcoug]

Cmon people...
I'm honestly not attacking anyone's belief--I'm just curious to see how people's minds wrap around things.
To those who answered A: How do you reconcile this with the obvious conflicts with anthropologic evidence? clackamas at least gave it a shot with the simultaneous Edens thing (at least as far as I can comprehend what he's saying). I can even accept Eddie's model of God transplanting from Missouri to the Old World (God can do anything, right?). Any other ideas?
Those believing Mormons who answered B or C: What about the statements locating Eden in Jackson County? Cardiac--do you just blow these off? Do you think these are moving to the "less emphasized" category, along with JFS's statements on evolution? In 20 years, will we no longer be discussing Jackson County at all?

Maybe most are just following UD's approach in not really caring. I don't have a problem with not knowing everything, but I still feel like I have to at least come up with some models for resolving obvious violations of reason. I'm not quite ready to "embrace absurdity".

Kevin Barney at By Common Consent tackled the question a few years ago with some different takes by members and leaders through the years. I'm partial to option 5 myself. On a side note I was watching a history channel show on Columbus where they mentioned that on one of his last voyages he traveled to Venezuela and was convinced he had found the Garden of Eden.

[Babs]

This reminds me of the recent interview posted on mormonstories, which actually was a rebroadcast of a Speaking of Faith episode. I can't remember the woman's name, but she had written a book called "The Case For God", in which one of her points was that the attempt to literalize scripture is a modern, and inappropriate, phenomenon. It's certainly not isolated to Mormonism, although I agree we're pretty good at it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112968197

[Jarid in Cedar]

I think you are being a bit smug in thinking this. My guess is that the vasy amjority have done the first and the majority have attempted the second. That they dont disucss it is odesn't mean they don't think about it. Surely you don't believe that because I and others like me fail to respond to every one of SU or other's little jabs and pokes that we have simply failed to consider the issues raised?

I was referring to populations in general not the current board membership. Sorry to come across as smug. As someone who asks many questions and ponders many meanings, I am surprised when talking to some people that the thought that A&E and the Garden are mythical/allegorical has not crossed their mind.

[creekster]

I was referring to populations in general not the current board membership. Sorry to come across as smug. As someone who asks many questions and ponders many meanings, I am surprised when talking to some people that the thought that A&E and the Garden are mythical/allegorical has not crossed their mind.

Sorry if I came on too strong as well. In my admittedly limited and anecdotal experience, this is not an issue that mebers of the church fail to consider. Even among thos that are viewed as highly orthodox, they think about these things a lot. They are simply able to walk away from the question with a still peaceful soul even when they lack answers. This should not put them in the category of those leading an unexamined life. To some is given the gift of faith.

[woot]

I think you are being a bit smug in thinking this. My guess is that the vasy amjority have done the first and the majority have attempted the second. That they dont disucss it is odesn't mean they don't think about it. Surely you don't believe that because I and others like me fail to respond to every one of SU or other's little jabs and pokes that we have simply failed to consider the issues raised?

I think the reason you don't see a lot of honest attempts to answer the question is because the result is often in the vein of what clackmascoug posted, and there aren't many people that are willing to believe stuff like that. My ex-father-in-law once gave me his theory on things, and it involved stuff about time slowing down when the earth was thrown from its orbit around Kolob, etc. It was grade-A nutbar stuff, and he was a very smart dude.

There's really no good way to reconcile the evidence with the doctrine, so a big dose of "I don't know" is probably the healthiest choice. Instead, we mostly see denial of the evidence or deflection.

[CardiacCoug]

I think you may be right, but it's confusing to me - I would think that the LDS endowment lends itself much more to the belief of Adam and Eve as being allegory - we're told flat-out that Adam and Eve "represent" us - mankind.

Good point. I agree.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm guessing you meant "voilà?"

actually, no I didn't.

you are slow.

[TripletDaddy]

Irregardless of what he meant, his post doesn't jive with my understanding of the situation. Doesn't bold well for DDD's popularity, does it?

You are in shape.

[creekster]

I think the reason you don't see a lot of honest attempts to answer the question is because the result is often in the vein of what clackmascoug posted, and there aren't many people that are willing to believe stuff like that. My ex-father-in-law once gave me his theory on things, and it involved stuff about time slowing down when the earth was thrown from its orbit around Kolob, etc. It was grade-A nutbar stuff, and he was a very smart dude.

There's really no good way to reconcile the evidence with the doctrine, so a big dose of "I don't know" is probably the healthiest choice. Instead, we mostly see denial of the evidence or deflection.

This is a direct refutation of Jarid's premise. You are describing why people may not articualte their answers, but in order to even reach that point they have to ask the question and attempt an answer in their own mind, which is my point.

[TripletDaddy]

Here is a link ot a site that describes the materials used to support the idea that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Quo...ndi-Ahman.html

creekster (or anyone else, I suppose), are you aware of any accounts that explain what happened to the altar remnants found at AOA? The wall that was 30 feet long, 3 feet thick, 4 feet tall and laid in mortar?

[woot]

This is a direct refutation of Jarid's premise. You are describing why people may not articualte their answers, but in order to even reach that point they have to ask the question and attempt an answer in their own mind, which is my point.

Yeah, it's hard to know if my thoughts are more accurate or if JiC's are. For me, I made several nominal attempts to reconcile, each time stopping when I realized the impossibility of it before I got to the point of concocting crazy schemes. So maybe it's a combination.

I would like to hear from more LDS believers on how these things can be reconciled. Perhaps even those who accept evolution just compartmentalize and also accept the fall of Adam as being necessary for the atonement and don't worry about it beyond that?

[UtahDan]

I think you are being a bit smug in thinking this. My guess is that the vasy amjority have done the first and the majority have attempted the second. That they dont disucss it is odesn't mean they don't think about it. Surely you don't believe that because I and others like me fail to respond to every one of SU or other's little jabs and pokes that we have simply failed to consider the issues raised?

But I think that people can consider the question and decide that it isn't particularly important to have an intellectually satisfying answer, don't you agree? I think that is what a lot of folks do.