Where is the Garden of Eden?

[Rosebud]

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

hey... that's my trademark, too. what's up with you tonight?

[Rosebud]

Oh, I forgot my wink. .

[Rosebud]

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!

I think you've compartmentalized my thoughts on compartmentalization??? Just maybe???

[Rosebud]

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

Sort of. I think the reconciliation thought process can be useful and fun when people are open-minded, but is useless and frustrating when people try to defend their positions through the exclusion of evidence that might contradict them. Maybe that's the same thing you said. Past my bedtime. . .

[LA Ute]

hey... that's my trademark, too. what's up with you tonight?

At the end of a long stressful day one has a certain whimsical perspective on the banter that goes on in this wonderful, wondrous place.

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

OK, I'll fess up. I was simply trying to tweak DDDescartes on what looked like a misspelling. I thought he and I had a friendly contest going on over catching each other's typos and misspellings. Little did I realize that I was simply not reading the board carefully enough.

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.

ER, my friend, you are reacting to UtahDan's abbreviated version of my views. He is essentially right, but he too is guilty of my failing: Just as I have neglected to read widely and carefully enough here to fully understand DDD's argot, UD has only scratched the surface of The Thought of LA Ute.

So, now that I have finished preening, let me share some quick thoughts, which I am admittedly offering without carefully reading all the posts in this thread.

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.

I hereby assure you that I am not saying that. (You miserable vomitous mass, how could you think that of me???) Here's what I really think:

I do not know to what extent Adam and Eve are allegorical. I think their story is allegorical at least to some extent, maybe to a large extent. That seems to me rather obvious, but unlike some here I do not think those to whom it is not obvious are stupid or just not thinking.

I do believe there was a man named Adam and that he was the first human, that he is the head of a dispensation, and everything else creekster said about him. (Whatever other failings I may have, I am a student of creekster's posts.)

I do not know exactly how Adam got here. (Neither do you or anyone else who posts here.) Adam may have evolved. It would not bother me to learn that he did. (Would it bother you to learn that God made Adam and Eve individually and placed them in a garden called Eden? I hope not.)

It is OK with me that a fair amount of that creation story (and of the OT generally, and maybe some, but not all, of the BofM and PofGP) is allegorical. It is also OK with me that I don't know which parts are allegorical and which parts are not. As I've said before, when I finally get to the spirit world and points beyond, I expect to be surprised about a lot of things and to have some of my pet notions exploded. I actually look forward to that, and I think it will happen to just about everyone.

In fact, the Adam and Eve story is one that I expect to be surprised about some day. I hope to say, "Aha! So that's how it was done!" That expected series of discoveries seems like fun to me.

I do think there is myth in true religion. That idea (which I really like) is expressed in this Sunstone article, "Scripture, History and Myth." The author, James Faulconer, a BYU philosophy prof who told me he is one of the few Democrats in Utah County, impressed on me that just because something is a myth does not mean it is not true. Please forgive this long quote from the article:

On the other hand, scripture - the myth, if you will, that is always true - provides a concrete focus for the understanding and contemplation of events from the point of view of the Father rather than from the human point of view. The scriptures, like the myths, collect the fragments of human existence into a unity of beginning and end and unlike myths, provide us with an "instantaneous" perception of the eternal rather than the finite.

This richer understanding of scripture should help us avoid many fruitless and stultifying discussions: Where is Zarahemla? Did the flood cover every inch of the earth? Was Joseph kneeling or standing when he received his first vision? How did an ark the size of that described in Genesis contain so many animals? Did the children of Israel really wander in the desert for 40 years? The scriptures are not simply the stories of Adam and Eve, of Nephi and Laban, of the Saints in Nauvoo. They are accounts given, by the Father, of events which are to be the focal point for an understanding of things within ourselves. They are about each of us; they are about all of US.

The story of Adam and Eve, for example, is not simply an interesting event of long ago. It is also the creation of our world and of each of us. The existence of four different versions of this story, that of Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple, emphasizes the meaning of this story as an essential part of our lives. In Genesis 1:26,27, for example, the creation of man is set off from the rest of creation in several ways: First, man's creation is preceded by a preamble, a special introduction, and the rest of creation is not. Second, Adamic man is given dominion over the rest of creation. Third, man's creation is mentioned repeatedly (three times in verse 27). Finally, man is created in the image of God. Thus, though there was a creation and there was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve, the scriptures show themselves to be concerned about something other than getting the historical facts straight for us. They are instead interested in getting our existence straight for us. The story helps us see our place in the creation-our special position and our special responsibilities....

The scriptures are not merely symbolic, for it is a fact that they are generally about real people and actual events: Adam and Eve are the founding, primordial parents of humankind and part of what we must learn is our relation to them. It is a fact that Abraham lived, that Jesus rose from the dead, that Joseph Smith saw and spoke with the living God. Neither is it that the scriptures are merely history, an "objective" account - whatever that might be - of a temporal sequence of events. Neither is it that these stories are enigmatic riddles to be deciphered and then understood, for the prophets have told us the scriptures are plain and simple. Rather, if we are to understand the scriptures, we must understand them as they demand to be understood, as an explanation of God's dealing with certain people and as a revelation of his dealing with each of us as well. We must understand them as a revelation of who and how we are.

Good stuff. Faulconer's had an influence on me ever since I took Philosophy 101 (or was it 110?) from him. I recommend the entire article. After all, it appears in Sunstone. That gives the article non-mullah cred right away, doesn't it?

Anyway, it's late and I am out of here. I hope you find this interesting, ER, I do. I don't know if Faulconer is right but I love the way he thinks.

[SeattleUte]

This contest is too close to call!

[Tim]

North Carolina.

[CardiacCoug]

I like the Faulconer article, too. But I don't understand why he feels compelled to describe Adam and Eve, Abraham, the resurrection, etc. as "facts."

The only "fact" is that nobody knows whether or not any of these events happened and it seems extremely likely that none of them happened -- these events are to be understood as myths and allegories first and foremost, in my opinion.

[SeattleUte]

I like the Faulconer article, too. But I don't understand why he feels compelled to describe Adam and Eve, Abraham, the resurrection, etc. as "facts."

The only "fact" is that nobody knows whether or not any of these events happened and it seems extremely likely that none of them happened -- these events are to be understood as myths and allegories first and foremost, in my opinion.

He's speaking to believers, people who believe these OT events are facts. I guess this is why he thinks that myths can be faithful, factual recitations of real events. This of course is meaningless to someone like you or me but it's a predicate with his audience. (Of course he states this baldly as predicate, and then says to LA, "I'm one of the only democrates in Utah County"; we've all heard this many times before and some of us recognize it as, "wink wink, I don't really believe this stuff I'm feeding the masses, I'm a closet apostate." Apparently he mistook LA as a fellow traveler. lol)

I don't really understand what he means in equating myth and history unless he's saying that history itself provides allegorical truth. But this as well offends my sense of aesthetics. True enough, history provides lessons. But technically speaking allegory is carefully constructed fiction where the author embeds meanings by design.

[LA Ute]

I like the Faulconer article, too. But I don't understand why he feels compelled to describe Adam and Eve, Abraham, the resurrection, etc. as "facts."

The only "fact" is that nobody knows whether or not any of these events happened and it seems extremely likely that none of them happened -- these events are to be understood as myths and allegories first and foremost, in my opinion.

I noticed that too. I am not sure why he used that word, but I suppose it was to distinguish fact from myth. By saying, "It is a fact that Abraham lived, that Jesus rose from the dead, that Joseph Smith saw and spoke with the living God," I think he is simply stating the things he believes are actual persons or events (or, in Mormon parlance, that he "knows" are true and of which he has a testimony).

He's speaking to believers, people who believe these OT events are facts. I guess this is why he thinks that myths can be faithful, factual recitations of real events. This of course is meaningless to someone like you or me but it's a predicate with his audience. (Of course he states this baldly as predicate, and then says to LA, "I'm one of the only democrates in Utah County"; we've all heard this many times before and some of us recognize it as, "wink wink, I don't really believe this stuff I'm feeding the masses, I'm a closet apostate." Apparently he mistook LA as a fellow traveler." lol)

Oh, come now. That was a joke he made in the hallway one day, and I was joking too. Surely you could see that. Anyway, you can try all you want but you can't make Jim Faulconer a mullah.

[SeattleUte]

Faulconer borrowed from CS Lewis:

The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.

Lewis' "reasoning" likewise begins with the predicate of Christ being God or the Son of God.

I don't really understand the point of either of these comments. It shouldn't convince anybody to believe absurdities instead of evidence and what reason tells them. All they really seem to be saying is that just because people call these stories myths doesn't mean they aren't history as well.

[LA Ute]

Faulconer borrowed from CS Lewis:

Lewis' "reasoning" likewise begins with the predicate of Christ being God or the Son of God.

I don't really understand the point of either of these comments. It shouldn't convince anybody to believe absurdities instead of evidence and what reason tells them. All they really seem to be saying is that just because people call these stories myths doesn't mean they aren't history as well.

I thought your policy was not to quarrel with others' religious beliefs.

[SeattleUte]

I thought your policy was not to quarrel with others' religious beliefs.

I'm not quarreling with them. I have no quarrel with them. There's nothing to discuss, really. I'm just explaining to Cardiac that they're addressing believers, so there's no point in asking why they call these stories facts. They're just expressing belief.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I do think there is myth in true religion. That idea (which I really like) is expressed in this Sunstone article, "Scripture, History and Myth." The author, James Faulconer, a BYU philosophy prof who told me he is one of the few Democrats in Utah County, impressed on me that just because something is a myth does not mean it is not true. Please forgive this long quote from the article:

Linky no worky. Can you fix it? Sounds interesting.

[ERCougar]

At the end of a long stressful day one has a certain whimsical perspective on the banter that goes on in this wonderful, wondrous place.
.
.
.
Anyway, it's late and I am out of here. I hope you find this interesting, ER, I do. I don't know if Faulconer is right but I love the way he thinks.

That's better, although I still think you're copping out of answering the question. I realize you don't *know*. I want to hear your model--your guess as to how things happened. When I meet you in the CK (assuming *you* get there...and that it literally exists ), I'm not going to hold it against you. I'm not going to be super-analytical here I agree that God can do whatever He wants, except make things look one way when they are not. So I won't accepting that the continents split apart after the G of E when the fossil record clearly indicates this happened long before man (or mammals) were even in the picture, but I'll accept Eddie's version of God transporting A&E from Jackson, MO to Palestine. So what do you think happened? Was the G of E literally in Jackson County? Or was this more of a Kinderhook-style revelation? Neither answer's wrong, IMO--I'm more interested in the thought behind it.

Now to your Faulconer quote...yeah, I would like to read the entire article. I think you would enjoy the podcast I referred to that Babs linked. Here's a NYT book review of her book: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/bo...ewanted=1&_r=1
I think it's interesting to see the different levels where people draw the myth-fact line--Cardiac makes it nearly completely mythical, JFS/BRM nearly completely factual, the rest of us somewhere in between. Until my introduction to CG/CUF, I had no idea that believing, active Mormons thought any of this was symbolic/mythic. I like that there's such a diversity of opinion within Mormonism, even if we don't talk about it on Sunday. I think it's great that we're split 50-50 on this poll; three years ago, I would have considered "A" the shoe-in winner.

There's a great passage in the NYT review pointing out that Catholicism has survived for 2000 years on the backs of the Flannery O'Connors and not the Karen Armstrongs. You could say the same thing (on a much smaller scale) about Mormonism--take away the literalism and we turn into the Community of Christ.