The Garden Of Eden And Missouri

[WalkerW]

Joseph Smith is with some buddies gazing over a bucolic pastoral scene on the American frontier and remarks it "looks like the Garden of Eden".

Brother Orson hears it as "this is the Garden of Eden." At breakfast Bro. Orson tells it to Bro. Richards, who records in his journal "Brother Joseph revealed to use the location of Adam's Garden of Olde." A hundred years later Joseph Fielding Smith (who else?) is calling it revealed doctrine and getting it into lesson manuals.

Nice.

[mfbukowski]

Nice.

And quite plausible, actually.

[HiJolly]

I thought it quite humorous that James E. Talmage, as he looked at the alter there at Adam-ondi-ahman, noted that the rocks it was made of were sedimentary, and thus could actually contain fossils... :-)

HiJolly

[WalkerW]

I thought it quite humorous that James E. Talmage, as he looked at the alter there at Adam-ondi-ahman, noted that the rocks it was made of were sedimentary, and thus could actually contain fossils... :-)

HiJolly

A favorite of mine as well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, where is the "Revelation" that linked the Garden of Eden to a specified location in Missouri?

This seems to be another Zelph incident:

Joseph Smith is with some buddies gazing over a bucolic pastoral scene on the American frontier and remarks it "looks like the Garden of Eden".

Brother Orson hears it as "this is the Garden of Eden." At breakfast Bro. Orson tells it to Bro. Richards, who records in his journal "Brother Joseph revealed to use the location of Adam's Garden of Olde." A hundred years later Joseph Fielding Smith (who else?) is calling it revealed doctrine and getting it into lesson manuals.

I am not big on possibilites but this one is quite interesting.

[zerinus]

FAIR has a nice overview of the claims that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. This is one that I have extreme difficulty with. I'm aware that no primary documentation for Joseph's claims exist, but the amount of contemporaries that say it came from him seem to indicate that it originated with him.

Being one who is not prone to take the Garden of Eden story as historically concrete, I'm kind of wondering what to do with this.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

If you doubt the existence of the garden of Eden altogether, then the question of its "location" becomes a non-issue. Let us suppose that Joseph Smith had said that the garden of Eden had been located in modern Turkey; how would that alter the case from your point of view? If you don't believe it ever existed, what difference does it make to you where Joseph Smith had said it had been or hadn't?

[cinepro]

If you doubt the existence of the garden of Eden altogether, then the question of its "location" becomes a non-issue. Let us suppose that Joseph Smith had said that the garden of Eden had been located in modern Turkey; how would that alter the case from your point of view? If you don't believe it ever existed, what difference does it make to you where Joseph Smith had said it had been or hadn't?

I can't speak for WalkerW, but I think there is a difference between a story being told in ancient scripture using allegorical elements, and the prophet Joseph Smith looking at a spot of ground and declaring via revelation that two people named "Adam" and "Eve" once lived there in a garden called "Eden".

The latter requires a more literal understanding of the former. But if Joseph Smith didn't say it, then there may be more comfortable wiggle room regarding the historicity of the stories about Eden.

[One Clear Voice]

FAIR has a nice overview of the claims that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. This is one that I have extreme difficulty with. I'm aware that no primary documentation for Joseph's claims exist, but the amount of contemporaries that say it came from him seem to indicate that it originated with him.

Being one who is not prone to take the Garden of Eden story as historically concrete, I'm kind of wondering what to do with this.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

I personally believe that the Garden of Eden as well as the Golden Plates are a big stepping stone in the LDS religion. Many many more people would be able to grasp the Religion if both let's say were found in the Middle East? I have heard that the Garden of Eden was actually in what is now called Iraq.

[WalkerW]

If you doubt the existence of the garden of Eden altogether, then the question of its "location" becomes a non-issue. Let us suppose that Joseph Smith had said that the garden of Eden had been located in modern Turkey; how would that alter the case from your point of view? If you don't believe it ever existed, what difference does it make to you where Joseph Smith had said it had been or hadn't?

Because it is the supposed claims of Joseph Smith that give Mormonism a reason to believe in a literal garden. Aside from that, there isn't any good reason.

[WalkerW]

I can't speak for WalkerW, but I think there is a difference between a story being told in ancient scripture using allegorical elements, and the prophet Joseph Smith looking at a spot of ground and declaring via revelation that two people named "Adam" and "Eve" once lived there in a garden called "Eden".

The latter requires a more literal understanding of the former. But if Joseph Smith didn't say it, then there may be more comfortable wiggle room regarding the historicity of the stories about Eden.

What he said.

[zerinus]

Because it is the supposed claims of Joseph Smith that give Mormonism a reason to believe in a literal garden.

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. What "gives Mormonism a reason to believe in a literal garden" is the fact that it is so stated in scripture. It has nothing to do with the "supposed claims of Joseph Smith" at all. Lots of people in fact believe in a literal garden, who are not even Mormons.

[mfbukowski]

I can't speak for WalkerW, but I think there is a difference between a story being told in ancient scripture using allegorical elements, and the prophet Joseph Smith looking at a spot of ground and declaring via revelation that two people named "Adam" and "Eve" once lived there in a garden called "Eden".

The latter requires a more literal understanding of the former. But if Joseph Smith didn't say it, then there may be more comfortable wiggle room regarding the historicity of the stories about Eden.

Just to maybe clarify what I am saying- I am NOT saying that it "wasn't" in what is now Missouri- it could have been. My real point is that it is all unknowable and doesn't matter anyway.

So I have no gripe with anyone who says it positively "WAS" in Missouri- they might be right. It's just to me, it doesn't matter "where" it was or "when" it was, or if it is allegory or not, because all these things are irrelevant.

What is important to me is the effects of these beliefs in my life- the meaning and significance which the temple ceremony gives me, the richness of the spirit I feel which lets me "know" that somehow this is all "true" I feel that that statement has what is called "warranted assertability" by John Dewey. It leads me to act in a certain way- it leads me to "faith" which is a "principle of action". Both John Dewey and Joseph Smith would agree on that one. Faith is about action.

I am just saying we can't know these things in a scientific, "factual" way- (upon a certain definition of what constitutes a "fact").

But it is just as "real" as anything else in this world we can know about- that is the way we know everything- not better, not worse.

These principles will never be objectively known and provable in a scientific way, unless perhaps we are talking about a world-context highly different from the one in which we live now, like perhaps the millenium, which I also accept on faith: I act as if it will happen someday.

I hope that clarifies, at least for someone.

[WalkerW]

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. What "gives Mormonism a reason to believe in a literal garden" is the fact that it is so stated in scripture. It has nothing to do with the "supposed claims of Joseph Smith" at all. Lots of people in fact believe in a literal garden, who are not even Mormons.

I'm aware that "lots of people" believe in a literal garden. But just because the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, or anything else makes mention of the Garden of Eden doesn't make it a concrete historical reality. The creation stories were temple rituals, not detailed historical accounts.

[WalkerW]

As I wrote elsewhere:

Emerging from the Business Building a couple of weeks ago, my attention was captured by a relatively large gathering of students.

Upon closer inspection, I came across what I would describe as a campus mini-revival (without the tent). At the center of it all was Pastor Tom Short, a traveling evangelist who spouted Bible verses and young earth creationism.

I casually observed both him and the various groups of students engaged in their separate theological discussions. Debates ranged from the messianic nature of Jesus to the validity of prayer to the age of the earth. Then, of course, the cavalry arrived, labeling Short a racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc.

All in all, the spectacle was fascinating.

The most fascinating aspect, however, was Pastor Tom himself.

He was the epitome of Christian fundamentalism: a Christianity reacting to the current secular age that has little to do with the original Jewish sect of the first century. Ironically, fundamentalist biblical interpretations (particularly of the creation stories) are heavily influenced by the secular paradigms they seem to despise.

Ignoring the allegorical interpretations of Genesis by the early Church Fathers, fundamentalists instead embrace a creationism that is spawned from movements of the early 20th century.

Presupposing the biblical literalism born out of the Protestant Reformation and the secularized nature of science, fundamentalism was the product of the panicked reactions to Darwinism, the Social Gospel and German higher biblical criticism.

Former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute Francis Collins points out that if the claims of Young Earth Creationists were actually true, “it would lead to a complete and irreversible collapse of the sciences of physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology and biology … The YEC perspective is the equivalent of insisting two plus two is not really equal to four.”

What then are we to make of the biblical creation story?

Old Testament scholar John Walton recognizes that Genesis 1, “as in the rest of the Ancient Near East, … is understood as an account of functional origins — creation as [the ancients] perceive it is not a material process.”

“Existence” was not defined in terms of material ontology, but rather in regards of function and purpose. Chaos and disorder were deemed non-existent, despite potentially being physically present. To lay modern scientific understandings on top of the ancient texts is presentism at its finest.

Speaking about biblical imagery, particularly in the creation stories, Methodist scholar Margaret Barker writes, “These [images] are specific to one culture, that of Israel and Judaism, and until they are fully understood in their original setting, little of what is done with the writings and ideas that came from that particular setting can be understood. Once we lose touch with the meaning of biblical imagery, we lose any way into the real meaning of the Bible. This has already begun to happen and a diluted ‘instant’ Christianity has been offered as junk food for the mass market. The resultant malnutrition, even in churches, is all too obvious.”

Our fundamentalist friends seem a bit malnourished.

See:

John H. Walton, “Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the Ancient Near East: Order Out of Disorder after Chaoskampf,” Calvin Theological Journal 43 (2008).

Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief (Free Press, 2006).

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003).

Ronald L. Numbers, “The Creationists” in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, eds. Numbers, David C. Lindberg (University of California Press, 1986).

For Barker’s work, see http://www.margaretbarker.com/.

[zerinus]

I'm aware that "lots of people" believe in a literal garden. But just because the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, or anything else makes mention of the Garden of Eden doesn't make it a concrete historical reality. The creation stories were temple rituals, not detailed historical accounts.

You are now digressing from your comments in post #1, to which I was replying. The point being made was, if you don't believe the garden of Eden ever existed at all, what difference does it make to you where Joseph Smith said it might or might not have been?

[WalkerW]

You are now digressing from your comments in post #1, to which I was replying. The point being made was, if you don't believe the garden of Eden ever existed at all, what difference does it make to you where Joseph Smith said it might or might not have been?

I thought cinepro cleared that up quite well.

[zerinus]

I thought cinepro cleared that up quite well.

He did?

[mfbukowski]

As I wrote elsewhere:

North Texas, huh ?

Dude you are a brave man- you better be packin' some heat!

[WalkerW]

He did?

I thought so. I don't understand what you don't get.

[WalkerW]

North Texas, huh ?

Dude you are a brave man- you better be packin' some heat!

I received more hostility from my articles on science and subjectivity and morality and markets.

[oMtonic]

I thought it quite humorous that James E. Talmage, as he looked at the alter there at Adam-ondi-ahman, noted that the rocks it was made of were sedimentary, and thus could actually contain fossils... :-)

HiJolly

Pardon me for not getting it.

Some elaboration on the implications of the rocks being sedimentary and possibly containing fossils?

[WalkerW]

Pardon me for not getting it.

Some elaboration on the implications of the rocks being sedimentary and possibly containing fossils?

Moreover, [Talmage] “was bold enough to point out that according to a tradition in the Church based on good authority as having risen from a declaration made by the Prophet Joseph Smith, a certain pile of stones at Adam-ondi-Ahman, Spring Hill, Mo., is really part of the altar on which Adam offered sacrifices, and that I had personally examined those stones and found them to be fossiliferous, so that if those stones be part of the first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam’s times.” Finally, Talmage made it clear to his assembled brethren that all reputable geologists recognized the existence both of death and “pre-Adamites” prior to 6,000 years ago, the presumed date of the fall of Adam. (Richard Sherlock, Jeffrey E. Keller, "The B.H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair," in The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, eds. Gene Sessions, Craig Oberg, Signature Books, 1993)

[oMtonic]

Moreover, [Talmage] “was bold enough to point out that according to a tradition in the Church based on good authority as having risen from a declaration made by the Prophet Joseph Smith, a certain pile of stones at Adam-ondi-Ahman, Spring Hill, Mo., is really part of the altar on which Adam offered sacrifices, and that I had personally examined those stones and found them to be fossiliferous, so that if those stones be part of the first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam’s times.” Finally, Talmage made it clear to his assembled brethren that all reputable geologists recognized the existence both of death and “pre-Adamites” prior to 6,000 years ago, the presumed date of the fall of Adam. (Richard Sherlock, Jeffrey E. Keller, "The B.H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair," in The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, eds. Gene Sessions, Craig Oberg, Signature Books, 1993)

Nice, Elder Talmage.

Thanks for taking the time to post that, Walker!

[WalkerW]

Nice, Elder Talmage.

Thanks for taking the time to post that, Walker!

No problem. Check out the link. That collection of essays is fantastic.

[Maidservant]

Where ever it was, it isn't there now.

I think you may actually get it.

In any case, the Garden of Eden corresponds (ritually) with our pre-mortal life and partaking of the fruit corresponds with electing to be born in mortal life and participate in the covenant of birth.