Christianity vs. Fundamentalism

[WalkerW]

You think that the idea has taken root because of American saints' fascination with the restoration of the Gospel, literal building of the Kingdom, and acreage that was right near them? Do I understand you properly?

Not necessarily. From what I've read, most of the early brethren thought that Joseph Smith had taught a literal Garden on the American continent. However, the ancient concept of axis mundi often shifted locations. The ancients would adopt scriptural concepts to explain their current situations.

When you place this idea in a culture that is prone to Protestant literalism, then you end up with the Garden of Eden originally being in Missouri. Since I find Joseph's revelations to be highly temple oriented, I'm not inclined to accept a literal view of the Garden of Eden.

I find it to be a cultural interpretation of an ancient worldview. Then again, I might be infected by my own cultural biases and be completely wrong.

[Mars]

I see.

+5 for using a Latin phrase.

[WalkerW]

See Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History (Princeton University Press, 1954).

[consiglieri]

Mormon leaders avoid this battle and wisely so but mormon scriptures make it clear that Adam partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago, that he was the first man, that he was immortal prior to the fall and that the earth was in a paradisaical state prior to the fall. My reading of our scriptures tells me that we have even more reason to be young earth creationists that the people you wrote about in you article.

I think one of the problems moderns have with reading scripture from a numerologically drenched milieu is we are prone to take literally what are purely symbolic descriptions.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Nice work on the article, WalkerW!

[zelder]

Where in the D&C? Considering the D&C contains biblical language and concepts, I'm not sure why I'd have to take 1,000 at face value (it wasn't this way to biblical authors).

The Book of Mormon is an ancient book. The point of my article is to avoid reading modern concepts into ancient works.

I see the story of Adam and Eve largely as a temple ritual. I believe in some kind of primal parents/people doing something to violate their covenant with God, but no, I do not believe that there was a literal garden with a literal tree with a literal snake.

How about D&C 77? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Throughout the scriptures Adam is spoken of as a real person. For example, D&C 166 states that Adam is going to visit his people at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

[zelder]

I find it to be a cultural interpretation of an ancient worldview. Then again, I might be infected by my own cultural biases and be completely wrong.

That's a humble admission that I can wholly respect.

[WalkerW]

How about D&C 77? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Throughout the scriptures Adam is spoken of as a real person. For example, D&C 166 states that Adam is going to visit his people at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

I believe I said that D&C reflects biblical usage of the number.

I never denied that Adam was a real person. I denied the uber-literal reading of Genesis. There is, I'm sure, someone that the biblical character Adam is based on.

[WalkerW]

That's a humble admission that I can wholly respect.

They are few and far in between.

I'm trying to figure it all out just like everyone else.

[Mars]

I'm trying to figure it all out just like everyone else.

Not me, I'm a total know it all.

[WalkerW]

Not me, I'm a total know it all.

I've tried to adopt the following quotes in my own search for knowledge:

In the nearly forty years I have spent studying ancient history and religion, one of the most important truths I've discovered is this: I know fewer answers today than I "knew" when I started studying four decades ago...But I believe I am at last beginning to understand the right questions...My conviction that in this life we can only know in part does not, however, make me a post-modern relativist. Ontologically, I believe there is absolute truth. But epistemologically, I believe that truth about the human past cannot be absolutely understood by humans, for a wide range of reasons. This is not because of the relative nature of truth, but because of the limited nature of the surviving evidence from the past, and the imperfect nature of human reason, knowledge, and understanding. In the tension between intellectual hubris and humility, I think most of us could use a healthy dose of the latter. Although we may seem to be cursed, as Paul says, to be "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7), I do not take this to mean that we should not be "ever learning." When Paul said, "we know in part," I believe he did not mean that absolute truths cannot be known at all, but rather that our knowledge of absolute truth will always be conditioned and imperfect. (William J. Hamblin, "An Enigmatic Mirror: An Introduction," Patheos, Dec. 26, 2010).

For adults, one of the most important lessons to learn in life is the necessity of unlearning. We all think that we know certain things to be true beyond doubt, but these things often turn out to be false and, until we unlearn them, they get in the way of new understanding...How many other false nostrums still infect my brain, unchallenged and unexamined, to obstruct the arrival of fresh thoughts? (Matt Ridley, "A Key Lesson of Adulthood: The Need to Unlearn," The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 5, 2011).