Where is the Garden of Eden?

[Rosebud]

I think reconciliations can be fun to think about, but I also kind of get frustrated by them. I think my frustration comes from growing up talking to an incredibly intelligent, logical, open-minded father whose foundational premises were that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that all his inspired words definitely represented truth from God. While it's fun to discuss possible reconciliations with my dad 'cause he can tick them off quickly for entertainment, it's also frustrating 'cause his open-mindedness ends at the possibility that, for example, JS wasn't inspired about the garden being in Jackson County. He knows where the garden was because he knows where Joseph Smith said it was. If he were taking part in this discussion, that would be the known fact from which all other reasoning would have to begin.

IOW, I'm pretty uncomfortable with almost all reconciliations because they seem closed-minded. I don't think we need to be afraid of what science demonstrates or ought to feel like we need to choose between proof and God. It's more fun to "reconcile" when every piece of evidence is allowed on the table.

[Babs]

I think reconciliations can be fun to think about, but I also kind of get frustrated by them. I think my frustration comes from growing up talking to an incredibly intelligent, logical, open-minded father whose foundational premises were that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that all his inspired words definitely represented truth from God. While it's fun to discuss possible reconciliations with my dad 'cause he can tick them off quickly for entertainment, it's also frustrating 'cause his open-mindedness ends at the possibility that, for example, JS wasn't inspired about the garden being in Jackson County. He knows where the garden was because he knows where Joseph Smith said it was. If he were taking part in this discussion, that would be the known fact from which all other reasoning would have to begin.

IOW, I'm pretty uncomfortable with almost all reconciliations because they seem closed-minded. I don't think we need to be afraid of what science demonstrates or ought to feel like we need to choose between proof and God. It's more fun to "reconcile" when every piece of evidence is allowed on the table.

iow: You like reconciliation in theory, but not in practice, because in your experience most reconciliation is contrived?

[SeattleUte]

I'm guessing you meant "voilà?"

LA's funniest post ever.

[LA Ute]

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.

Ah, well, it's clear now - I don't spend enough time here or on cougarboard to understand. I'm guessing that won't change . . . .

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.

Now here is a wise man.

[Babs]

Ah, well, it's clear now - I don't spend enough time here or on cougarboard to understand. I'm guessing that won't change . . . .

Oh, the humanity! First we're double-spacing between sentences, now we're adding spaces in ellipses. What's next??

[LA Ute]

Oh, the humanity! First we're double-spacing between sentences, now we're adding spaces in ellipses. What's next??

I can't imagine . . . maybe triple question marks???

[UtahDan]

Do you feel that your friends are representative?

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that face to face most LDS would reach an "I don't know answer" after about three or four questions. IOW, when really forced to consider it I think they would admit it. Clearly, there are some who would give a strange quasi-scientific-don't think to hard about it answer.

[TripletDaddy]

Ah, well, it's clear now - I don't spend enough time here or on cougarboard to understand. I'm guessing that won't change . . . .

No additional time is necessary, just read more closely. Although I, too, am guessing that won't change . . . .

[ERCougar]

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.

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.

Blech.
I'm actually a little disappointed at LA's response (or lack thereof) here. LA's a thinking person, an intelligent person, and he just raises his hands and says "meh?" Lame. That's something I expect from DDD's FIL (I guess), but not LA.
I'm not asking for doctrine here. I'm just asking for a thought, a hint of an attempt at putting some order to things. To blow it off as "it doesn't impact how I treat my fellow man" is a cop-out, and really, dismisses everything that's unique about Mormonism. I can save myself 3+ hours a week and still treat people well.

[LA Ute]

No additional time is necessary, just read more closely. Although I, too, am guessing that won't change . . . .

Yes, to understand you I simply must be a more careful student of your posts, and of the entire board. I get that.

[LA Ute]

Blech.
I'm actually a little disappointed at LA's response (or lack thereof) here. LA's a thinking person, an intelligent person, and he just raises his hands and says "meh?" Lame. That's something I expect from DDD's FIL (I guess), but not LA.
I'm not asking for doctrine here. I'm just asking for a thought, a hint of an attempt at putting some order to things. To blow it off as "it doesn't impact how I treat my fellow man" is a cop-out, and really, dismisses everything that's unique about Mormonism. I can save myself 3+ hours a week and still treat people well.

Hey, doc, I haven't said much on this thread at all except to fret about my insufficient pondering of DDD's posts! Give me a chance to read the thread. I've been posting on the fly from my Droid. I have other things to do, you know! Don't you need to be stitching someone up or something?

[SeattleUte]

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

It's not in the D&C? Just reject it.

[SeattleUte]

fair point. "Wahlah" it is.

you are in shape.

3D, take heart. It's in the Urban Dictionary, although you and RB misspelled it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=walla

[creekster]

3D, take heart. It's in the Urban Dictionary, although you and RB misspelled it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=walla

How can you misspell a misspelling? I have come to dislike the urban dictionary.

[Rosebud]

3D, take heart. It's in the Urban Dictionary, although you and RB misspelled it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=walla

you just called me retarded. at least LA didn't mean to insult. (it was his funniest post ever.)