Where is the Garden of Eden?

[UtahDan]

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.

I'm not sure this is fair, I actually think most people I know would readily admit that they don't know.

[UtahDan]

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?

This is my perception. And since Rosebud thinks compartmentalization is a high level skill (she may have called it something else) I certainly don't look down my nose at it. In fact, I do it quite a bit!

[LA Ute]

actually, no I didn't.

you are slow.

No doubt! Perhaps the problem is that I don't spend enough time studying your posts so that I understand made-up words like "wallah." I'll try to do better.

[myboynoah]

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.

I'm with CC. This is a good point, and one I've considered. It seems a strong argument for allegory.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not sure this is fair, I actually think most people I know would readily admit that they don't know.

Very few have done such in this very thread. Actually, to be honest, have you admitted to not knowing? (maybe you did, I don't recall)

For whatever reason, I find that there is a great reticence amongst some to admit that they don't know the answer in instances wherein science seems to trump or confound revelation/tradition. Instead it is usually a parade of dissembling...the SeattleUte effect.

Speaking for myself, the explanation that many aren't overly concerned with an intellectual answer seems weak, although I do agree with your premise. The conundrum here is rooted in the same murk from whence many of our other modern tar babies have sprung: way back in the day, an early Church leader probably said way too much on something that really didn't matter, that statement made its way into the record books, and now today we are stuck with trying to either support it or abandon that which is apocrypha or flat out wrong. JaCoMo is just one possible example of this.

If Joseph Smith bothered to be so specific about the location and the events surrounding AOA, it is probably worthwhile for us as members to explore the issue beyond a simple, "oh, well...." Again, just my take.

[ERCougar]

The early Mormons were apocalyptic in their outlook. They thought the second coming was imminent, just like early Christians. I think you have to interpret speculation about the Second Coming in Jackson County Missouri, and the idea that this was also the location of the Garden of Eden in that context. I think the literalism of this location is going to be gradually de-emphasized.


The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism by BYU professor Grant Underwood is a pretty interesting book about the apocalyptic outlook of early Mormons. Among other interesting things, he explains the difference between millenarianism and millennialism and how Joseph Smith sort of changed his mind during the last 18 months of his life and started to say that the second coming was not going to happen as soon as the Millerites thought it would come.

That's an interesting angle as to why they would link Eden to Jackson County (another question I've always wondered). It's natural to assume that if the Second Coming were imminent, it would involve the location of Christ's restored church.

[ERCougar]

Perhaps the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for earth. Therefore, to ask where the Garden of Eden was/is, is to ask where the Earth is?

It is possible that Adam and Eve are/were literal beings and that the proverbial bite out of the apple is allegorical. I offer some thoughts from my research of this past year that are some what related and that I have previously posted:

Children even as young as nineteen months old are capable of what philosophers call counterfactual thinking. “Counterfactuals are the woulda-coulda-shouldas of life, all the things that might happen in the future, but haven’t yet or that could’ve happened in the past, but didn’t quite.”1 Counterfactuals permit humans the evolutionary advantage to “say what [is] possible or impossible, based on [our] causal knowledge of the physical, biological and psychological world.”2 In other words counterfactuals permit humankind to develop causal theories and in essence “consider alternative ways the world might be [or] act on the world and intervene to turn it into one or the other of [potential future] possibilities”.3 To place it in a different context, perhaps it could be argued that Eve’s choice in the creation story of Genesis is demonstrative of ‘counterfactual thinking’, the development of a ‘causal theory’ and the first recorded example of direct human intervention in the course of human history.

Furthermore, how long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? As well, how old is man?

Good stuff, tooblue. Interesting to think about.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm with CC. This is a good point, and one I've considered. It seems a strong argument for allegory.

One of the first thoughts I had when I sat down to watch the temple film was, "Satan has a body?"

Hard to argue against allegory. It obviously isn't 100% literal, ergo some of it has to be something else beyond literalism. The question is, "how much?" And as a nod to our resident apologists, "does it really matter?"

[ERCougar]

I didn't say it was my approach, just that I think it is a common one. Also, I said this earlier in the thread and it got no traction, but what is the scriptural authority for Missouri as Eden? When I perused it seemed like I didn't see any good direct authority for that. If there really isn't authority, it certainly would make it easy to toss that idea on the Zelph/Kinderhook Plates pile.

I agree, but what I find interesting is that we (as a church) don't treat this like Zelph or the Kinderhook plates. This is much more "doctrinal".

[TripletDaddy]

No doubt! Perhaps the problem is that I don't spend enough time studying your posts so that I understand made-up words like "wallah." I'll try to do better.

fortunately for you, the made up words do not trace to my posts, therefore no study time is necessary. You can simply read the board, in general, as well as cougarboard.

start with backpeddle and work from there.

[Babs]

This is my perception. And since Rosebud thinks compartmentalization is a high level skill (she may have called it something else) I certainly don't look down my nose at it.

In fact, I do it quite a bit!

Which one? Look down on people or compartmentalize?

[Rosebud]

wallah...the SeattleUte effect. This time with emoticon for emphasis.

If you're going to post dribble, you ought to at least spell it correctly. FTR, it's Wahlah (capitalization necessary).

[TripletDaddy]

If you're going to post dribble, you ought to at least spell it correctly. FTR, it's Wahlah (capitalization necessary).

fair point. "Wahlah" it is.

you are in shape.

[UtahDan]

Very few have done such in this very thread. Actually, to be honest, have you admitted to not knowing? (maybe you did, I don't recall)

I said it doesn't matter to most, but to be clear, I don't have any idea.

For whatever reason, I find that there is a great reticence amongst some to admit that they don't know the answer in instances wherein science seems to trump or confound revelation/tradition. Instead it is usually a parade of dissembling...the SeattleUte effect.

This is because there is no intellectually satisfying answer, not that I have ever heard. What is to be done from a faithful perspective? Either embrace a possibility that doesn't make too much sense, or say you don't know. I guess not worry too much about it is the other answer.

Speaking for myself, the explanation that many aren't overly concerned with an intellectual answer seems weak, although I do agree with your premise. The conundrum here is rooted in the same murk from whence many of our other modern tar babies have sprung: way back in the day, an early Church leader probably said way too much on something that really didn't matter, that statement made its way into the record books, and now today we are stuck with trying to either support it or abandon that which is apocrypha or flat out wrong. JaCoMo is just one possible example of this.

If Joseph Smith bothered to be so specific about the location and the events surrounding AOA, it is probably worthwhile for us as members to explore the issue beyond a simple, "oh, well...." Again, just my take.

I understand you to mean that you think it is a weak response for a person to have, I think you are agreeing that the description is correct. Again, I just don't think there are that many choices. Embrace something odd, compartmentalize it, don't worry about it, decide its not important. I think the LA Ute principle probably applies: unless it strikes at how I should be living and treating my fellow man, how important can it be? I concede there is a paradox buried in there, but I'm just not sure how else it can be faithfully dealt with. So for that reason I don't see it as weak, I just see it as people pushing up against the limits of what they know and can explain.

[Babs]

I'm not sure this is fair, I actually think most people I know would readily admit that they don't know.

Do you feel that your friends are representative?