Eden In Missouri?

[KevinG]

Everyone in the South knows that Georgia is where Eden is currently located. As additional evidence I present pulled pork BBQ as ambrosia.

Ask PaPa he will verify this.

[rodheadlee]

The simple answer is that since no one knows, why worry about it?

All the arguing in the world will never solve a single one of these issues we argue about all the time here. Scholars say this, scholars say that- who cares? My scholar is smarter than your scholar.

What is the purpose of the gospel? To worry about when the second coming is, or to grow closer to Christ and become like him as much as you can? Or worry about where Eden supposedly was? Or if there was one in the first place?

Or how Joseph translated the Book of Abraham or didn't?

To be 100% honest, I don't have a clue and I don't care either way. If it happens, I will be ready. or I won't be. If it doesn't happen, I will be ready or I won't be.

If there was a flood, that's ok with me. If there wasn't one, that's ok with me too. If we evolved, that's ok. If God made us out of nothing in 6 days, that's ok too.

It's all stories no one can prove anyway, so why argue about it?

All I know is that I have a LOT of work to do to become Christlike in my life, and THAT is where my focus should be. I wish I could say that that is where it always IS, but I cannot.

I have a lot of work to do, and I suppose we all do. But what do I know??

I agree we're supposed to be Christ like. I'm just curious. If I see a mountain, I want to climb it, when I see an ocean I want to cross it, when I look up at the night sky I want to travel to the stars. When I hear about Christ I want to meet him, when I read about Adam-ondi -Ahman I want to go there. I don't see any reason to argue about anything, it's all about discussions and learning from other people and their experiences. Thanks for your post.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't going to mention that, but yes, that's another reason why Missouri would not likely be the "center stake" in Zion, although this church has become so stake-oriented that I find it hard to imagine that a stake would not be organized in Jackson County Missouri. There already is an Independence Missouri Stake, and I can't see it being dissolved just to recreate the old Zion-Stakes model.

The revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 57:3) refers to it as "the center place."

Whether you call it the center place or the center stake, I think what is being referred to is a headquarters locale, the "New Jerusalem" from which Christ will reign personally on the earth, as it is phrased in the 10th Article of Faith. I have no doubt that when the time comes, the necessary changes will be made to accommodate that, be they geographical, administrative or whatever.

From Cowan's article I linked to in the post above (I've bolded a sentence for emphasis):

In an era of international growth and temple building worldwide, what were the Saints to think about Missouri? "Let Israel gather to the stakes of Zion in all nations," exclaimed Elder McConkie. "Let temples arise wherein the fullness of the ordinances of the Lord's house may be administered. But still there is a center place, a place where the chief temple shall stand, a place to which the Lord shall come, and that center place is what men now call Independence in Jackson County, Missouri." Hence, despite the Church's broader view of the gathering and of temple building, the Saints have continued to show a keen interest in the land of Missouri, the center place, and the future temple to be built there. Paraphrasing the ninth article of faith, the Saints are grateful for all that God has revealed concerning Zion, they are excited about what he is now revealing about temples and temple service worldwide, but they are eagerly anticipating what he will yet reveal concerning the great temple of the New Jerusalem.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Kiviuq]

While passing through southern Illinois, Joseph finds some old bones. “These are the bones of the white Lamanite Zelph, a warrior under the prophet Onandagus, known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains.”

He obtains some old Egyptian papyri. They “contain the writings of Abraham” and on “another, the writings of Joseph of Egypt”.

He finds a pile of rocks in Missouri and proclaims that “upon this very altar Adam himself offered up sacrifices to Jehovah.”

He is shown the Kinderhook plates and declares that it’s a record of a person that “…was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

[mfbukowski]

goof

Edited October 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

While passing through southern Illinois, Joseph finds some old bones. “These are the bones of the white Lamanite Zelph, a warrior under the prophet Onandagus, known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains.”

He obtains some old Egyptian papyri. They “contain the writings of Abraham” and on “another, the writings of Joseph of Egypt”.

He finds a pile of rocks in Missouri and proclaims that “upon this very altar Adam himself offered up sacrifices to Jehovah.”

He is shown the Kinderhook plates and declares that it’s a record of a person that “…was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

I know! What are the odds?!

[Cobalt-70]

The revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 57:3) refers to it as "the center place."

Whether you call it the center place or the center stake, I think what is being referred to is a headquarters locale, the "New Jerusalem" from which Christ will reign personally on the earth, as it is phrased in the 10th Article of Faith. I have no doubt that when the time comes, the necessary changes will be made to accommodate that, be they geographical, administrative or whatever.

But there is a big difference between "center place" and "center stake." Joseph Smith believed that zion was basically a region. Kirtland was a stake on the Eastern edge of the great tent of Zion, and the western stakes would be at least at the Rocky Mountains. Eventually, Smith expanded this to basically all of North America. (And then his 20th century successors like David McKay turned Zion into a metaphor.) The problem is, the tent-stakes model no longer works except metaphorically in the modern church, which is international. Jackson County, Missouri might be more or less the center of North America, but it isn't the center of the world.

That said, it could well be that the LDS Church decides to move its headquarters there. But I doubt it. If they were contemplating doing that, they wouldn't keep building up Salt Lake City and annexing property for church administration and conference buildings. It wouldn't be a very smart move, in any event, to switch headquarters to Missouri. Why would you do that? It would be an administrative nightmare. And now that McKay has turned Zion metaphorical, what's the point? I like the metaphorical Zion idea better, anyway. Why do we need to gather physically, if we can gather on the internet and via satellite link? I see the church's casual interest in Missouri land as mainly being directed at historical preservation sites and park-like areas, not office buildings for actual church governance.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[MiserereNobis]

Being a non-literalist certainly has its benefits.

Somehow I doubt you are a complete non-literalist. You may draw the line differently than others, but somehow I assume that there are some things in the Bible and LDS scriptures that you do take literally. Am I incorrect in saying this about your beliefs? For example, does the Book of Mormon depict a literal history when it goes on and on about wars and battles? Did Nephi really exist, etc?

[MiserereNobis]

The simple answer is that since no one knows, why worry about it?

Too bad we don't have a time machine. I'd love to see mfb and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young sit around and talk about what we can and cannot know and what we should worry about. I'll supply the coffee and beer since it would be pre-word of wisdom as commandment times

All the arguing in the world will never solve a single one of these issues we argue about all the time here.

I'm not as defeatist as you in the value of arguing to come to truth. We may not be able to convince others, but we can help our own understanding by arguing and thinking about other's arguments.

What is the purpose of the gospel? To worry about when the second coming is, or to grow closer to Christ and become like him as much as you can? Or worry about where Eden supposedly was? Or if there was one in the first place?

I'm with you generally here. If discussing this issues doesn't help us grow closer to Christ, which includes growing closer to truth, then there is little point. But I don't see them as being absolutely contradictory, just possibly.

Or how Joseph translated the Book of Abraham or didn't?

Some people find this important because it is one issue that appears to go to the heart of whether or not his claims about himself were true.

All I know is that I have a LOT of work to do to become Christlike in my life, and THAT is where my focus should be. I wish I could say that that is where it always IS, but I cannot.

This is probably true of all of us. It is true of me. Perhaps religious discussion forums are simply distractions from the religious life that parade around as religion. On the other hand, it is enjoyable to have these discussions, even if they go nowhere, and I suppose if we have the right attitude about them there are far worse distractions we could be involved in.

But what do I know??

To coin a phrase, "true knowledge is knowing you know nothing."

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Everyone in the South knows that Georgia is where Eden is currently located. As additional evidence I present pulled pork BBQ as ambrosia.

Ask PaPa he will verify this.

Indeed...here the"Garden" still exists . Good night all, my final posts for a day or two.

Best song...Georgia On My Mind" (Ray Charles)

Also.. .

"Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay"

[mfbukowski]

Somehow I doubt you are a complete non-literalist. You may draw the line differently than others, but somehow I assume that there are some things in the Bible and LDS scriptures that you do take literally. Am I incorrect in saying this about your beliefs? For example, does the Book of Mormon depict a literal history when it goes on and on about wars and battles? Did Nephi really exist, etc?

The truth of the matter is it is all unknowable and in cases like that, there is nothing that we can say "was the case" because what "actually happened" is unknown and unknowable, and whatever we even could know about it would still not represent the whole story because there are so many possible perspectives- each individual would have a different "first person story" of what happened.

So I could believe that every word of the BOM is historically accurate and that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days or not. It honestly doesn't matter to me- I see them as competing, unknowable explanations which one can never fully decide between.

What truly matters to me is what I know in my heart from "evidence" God has given me- the rest is hearsay.

Mormonism, I believe, coheres with this philosophical view- all we can know for sure is what God reveals to us personally, and what we know to be true from personal experience which we have personally witnessed. Everything else is someone else's story.

Some are more rational than others, some have more evidence than others, but it always comes down to evaluating all that before you assume one story is "true" above another. I think probably the way an extremely skeptical lawyer would in a court of law, but I admit the validity of my own spiritual experience since it is as real as any other personal experience is- to me.

But for me, the reason I am a Mormon is that the view coheres with this philosophical position- as well as answers questions other religions did not answer or in many cases even ask the questions. Further the idea that reality is created by the mind of man- and in Mormonism that can mean the mind of God- raising that postmodern platitude to the level of theology was just an amazing connection to me- that just as we create reality so too does God- and that he is our Model and we ourselves are his children and can "grow up" to be like Him- to me that was the clincher. That image just plain "fits" with everything I have ever come to believe in my journey- so for me there is no doubt that Mormonism is the only view that reflects that most profound understanding I have ever seen/experienced in these matters.

I am convinced I was "born" Mormon. It was like coming home when I found it. It just fits perfectly with everything I have ever thought or felt - ever. It's all here.

Except incense But there are a few times I nearly passed out from smoke inhalation from swinging that censer!

[mfbukowski]

To coin a phrase, "true knowledge is knowing you know nothing."

Hey, if that's true, I must be the smartest guy ever because the only thing I really KNOW is that I know nothing.

Oh wait. That's not exactly true, so I am even stupider than I thought.

But that's not much of a surprise!

[Scott Lloyd]

But there is a big difference between "center place" and "center stake."

But that's kind of my point in mentioning the wording in the Doctrine and Covenants. Can you find an instance in scripture where the term "center stake" is used? I can't. It appears to be a non-scriptural colloquialism, like the word "free" in "free agency." You are thus reading too much into a term that's not scriptural anyway.

Joseph Smith believed that zion was basically a region. Kirtland was a stake on the Eastern edge of the great tent of Zion, and the western stakes would be at least at the Rocky Mountains. Eventually, Smith expanded this to basically all of North America. (And then his 20th century successors like David McKay turned Zion into a metaphor.) The problem is, the tent-stakes model no longer works except metaphorically in the modern church, which is international. Jackson County, Missouri might be more or less the center of North America, but it isn't the center of the world.

The term center place is a perfectly fine appellation for a headquarters -- which, according to prophecy, is what it will be when Christ comes to reign personally on the earth.

And "the tent-stakes model" has always been metaphorical. President McKay did not originate that usage. It stems from Isaiah 54:2.

That said, it could well be that the LDS Church decides to move its headquarters there. But I doubt it. If they were contemplating doing that, they wouldn't keep building up Salt Lake City and annexing property for church administration and conference buildings.

Why not? For now, Salt Lake City is the headquarters of the Church, and there's no telling how long there will be a need for it to remain so. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, and under the circumstances, Salt Lake City is as good a place as any for a locale from which to direct that work.

It wouldn't be a very smart move, in any event, to switch headquarters to Missouri. Why would you do that? It would be an administrative nightmare. And now that McKay has turned Zion metaphorical, what's the point?

This strikes me as a rather myopic view. You have no idea of the detailed conditions that will prevail at the time of the Second Coming of Christ. I can conceive of a future scenario where the Kingdom of God is so pervasive on the earth under Christ's direction that whatever improvements and facilities have been erected by the Church in Salt Lake City and elsewhere between now and then would still be useful to the Lord, even as He establishes the seat of government in present-day Missouri and directs the building of the temple there.

"Is anything too hard for the Lord?"

I like the metaphorical Zion idea better, anyway

Good. Because that's first and foremost what it was intended to be..

Why do we need to gather physically, if we can gather on the internet and via satellite link?

Why indeed? The necessity of a physical gathering is always only temporary, necessitated by such conditions as prevailed in the 19th Cenutry, when the covenant people of God were hounded and oppressed. We can be thankful those days are in the past.

But there will always be a need for God's people to gather spiritually, as they are doing today. It has always been so.

And as you correctly observe, the development of technology such as the Internet and satellite links has facilitated this gathering. If such miracles can be put in place in our day, why do you think the locating of the center place of Zion outside of Salt Lake City at the time of the Lord's coming would be such a difficult thing?

I see the church's casual interest in Missouri land as mainly being directed at historical preservation sites and park-like areas, not office buildings for actual church governance.

Though it's largely unheralded, the Church's interest in Missouri lands is not nearly as casual as you think, I suspect.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

But that's kind of my point in mentioning the wording in the Doctrine and Covenants. Can you find an instance in scripture where the term "center stake" is used? I can't. It appears to be a non-scriptural colloquialism, like the word "free" in "free agency." You are thus reading too much into a term that's not scriptural anyway.

The term was not in the scriptures, but such a stake nevertheless existed in Kirtland, Far West, and then Nauvoo. It was effectively mandated by scripture because it was the stake of the Presiding High Council (when its formation was not possible in Zion itself). You could also call it the "presiding stake." It was in Kirtland, Far West, and then Nauvoo. But after the Saint left Nauvoo, it was discontinued, because its continued existence would have undermined the supremacy of the Quorum of the Twelve. I can't see it being resurrected. Could you actually imagine the Twelve going back to the scriptural model? They would have to basically give up all their authority anywhere a stake has been formed. Not gonna happen.

And "the tent-stakes model" has always been metaphorical. President McKay did not originate it. It stems from Isaiah 54:2.

No, I was referring to Zion becoming metaphorical during McKay's administration. Zion was once a physical place of gathering and refuge. Now it is a metaphorical gathering in spirit, and people are discouraged from any physical gathering. Why would that now change? There is no logical reason why all Mormons need to live in one place. So what purpose would it serve, now, for the church to move its headquarters to Missouri? The LDS Church is now a franchise. Nobody cares whether McDonalds headquarters is in Illinois or Timbuktu. All they care about is whether they can get a Big Mac within easy driving distance.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

The term was not in the scriptures, but such a stake nevertheless existed in Kirtland, Far West, and then Nauvoo. It was effectively mandated by scripture because it was the stake of the Presiding High Council (when its formation was not possible in Zion itself). You could also call it the "presiding stake." It was in Kirtland, Far West, and then Nauvoo. But after the Saint left Nauvoo, it was discontinued, because its continued existence would have undermined the supremacy of the Quorum of the Twelve. I can't see it being resurrected. Could you actually imagine the Twelve going back to the scriptural model? They would have to basically give up all their authority anywhere a stake has been formed. Not gonna happen.

No, I was referring to Zion becoming metaphorical during McKay's administration. Zion was once a physical place of gathering and refuge. Now it is a metaphorical gathering in spirit, and people are discouraged from any physical gathering. Why would that now change? There is no logical reason why all Mormons need to live in one place. So what purpose would it serve, now, for the church to move its headquarters to Missouri? The LDS Church is now a franchise. Nobody cares whether McDonalds headquarters is in Illinois or Timbuktu. All they care about is whether they can get a Big Mac within easy driving distance.

I've had trouble with the board software, and have had to save and edit my post several times before I could complete it. I suspect you responded before I was finished with it, because what you are saying here I have already addressed in my post; i.e. the gathering to Zion is always first and foremost a spiritual concept, and any physical aspect to it is always temporary, necessitated by conditions such as the 19th Century oppression of the Lord's people.

[David T]

I thought the Missouri rhetoric was being adjusted at the end of Joseph's life, when he announced a revelation that Zion was the entirety of North and South America, and that Temples were to be places around which Stakes would be built. (later presidents of the Church expanded Zion to be the entire world)

Because the Eden, Zion, and Temple concepts were so intertwined in the Sacred Story of the gathering of the early saints, I feel confident in feeling that, just as we 'become' the archetypal Adam and Eve in the Temple, the only Eden with which we have to do is also found wherever a Temple site is constructed and located.

So yes, the Garden was/is in Missouri. But it's also in Salt Lake, Washington State, Georgia, Kiev Ukraine, Hong Kong, etc. I do find it likely that Joseph initially understood the Eden/Adam-Ondi-Ahman/Spring Hill a literal primeval biblical site, and, perhaps enhanced by creative visions, was quick to point out supporting landmarks, evidences, etc that made the story and identification more 'real'. You might say he was crafting or revealing a Temple Drama outside of the Temple. He turned the county into a living temple. He saw around him what we now see in the props of a film. Serving to enwrap the saints as participants in the Sacred Story.

So no, I do not believe that the first children of God in the history of earth awoke in Missouri. But I will affirm the Garden's sacred location wherever a Temple is envisioned.

Edited October 2, 2012 by David T

[Rivers]

I agree with mfbukowski that the location of Eden and other scientific matters are irrelevant. My concern is with people who create an either/or dichotomy with such matters. I don't feel that it is necessary to have to choose either science or faith.

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought the Missouri rhetoric was being adjusted at the end of Joseph's life, when he announced a revelation that Zion was the entirety of North and South America, and that Temples were to be places around which Stakes would be built. (later presidents of the Church expanded Zion to be the entire world)

The word Zion has several definitions. One definition does not preclude others. And more expansive later definitions would not necessarily rule out Joseph Smith having in mind a particular locale when he used the word.

And I don't believe any Church president ever said Zion is the entire world; rather, you probably have in mind them saying that Zion is the "pure in heart" wherever they may be found in the world.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

With all of the impromptu revisionism that is going on in this thread, I think a reminder is in order of the wording of the 10th Article of Faith:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

Emphasis mine.

The Articles of Faith, contained as they are in the Pearl of Great Price, are part of the scriptural canon.

Add-on: It is noteworthy that the wording of the 10th Article of Faith has been changed from how it was when I learned it in Primary. For one thing, the parenthetical phrase "the New Jerusalem" was inserted after the word Zion. It is as though the Brethren wanted to clarify that what is being referred to here is not the expansive definition of Zion, but rather the specific locale, the "New Jerusalem," the "center place" if you will, from which Christ will govern the world.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed...here the"Garden" still exists . Good night all, my final posts for a day or two.

Best song...Georgia On My Mind" (Ray Charles)

Also.. .

"Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay"

I know that Otis Redding sang "I left my home in Georgia ..." but isn't the bulk of "Sittiin' on the Dock of the Bay" about San Francisco?

Don't want to be a killjoy, PaPa. Just sayin'.

[David T]

With all of the impromptu revisionism that is going on in this thread, I think a reminder is in order of the wording of the 10th Article of Faith:

Emphasis mine.

The Articles of Faith, contained as they are in the Pearl of Great Price, are part of the scriptural canon.

Add-on: It is noteworthy that the wording of the 10th Article of Faith has been changed from how it was when I learned it in Primary. For one thing, the parenthetical phrase "the New Jerusalem" was inserted after the word Zion. It is as though the Brethren wanted to clarify that what is being referred to here is not the expansive definition of Zion, but rather the specific locale, the "New Jerusalem, the "center place" if you will, from which Christ will govern the world.

Well, speaking of revisionism, at least whatever GA is in charge of approving doctrinal answers through Public Affairs 30 years after the latest edition of the scriptures was published doesn't believe that situating Eden in Missouri is "an important" doctrine. http://www.mormonnew...e/mormonism-101

Do Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri?

We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Interesting points:

1. The article does not affirm as truth that the original Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

2. The article presents that the concept is not an "important doctrine" or a "foundational doctrine"

3. The article does acknowledge that Joseph did at least historically teach the general concept.

4. The article ends with an expression that we shouldn't worry about it, and that one's salvation isn't in the balance whether or not they believe it.

Each of those 4 points I quite agree with, and leads strongly to the thought that it's quite institutionally okay to not believe that the beginning of the Book of Genesis takes place in North America.

Edited October 2, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, speaking of revisionism, at least whatever GA is in charge of approving doctrinal answers through Public Affairs 30 years after the latest edition of the scriptures was published doesn't believe that situating Eden in Missouri is "an important" doctrine. http://www.mormonnew...e/mormonism-101

Interesting points:

1. The article does not affirm as truth that the original Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

2. The article presents that the concept is not an "important doctrine" or a "foundational doctrine"

3. The article does acknowledge that Joseph did at least historically teach the general concept.

4. The article ends with an expression that we shouldn't worry about it, and that one's salvation isn't in the balance whether or not they believe it.

Each of those 4 points I quite agree with, and leads strongly to the thought that it's quite institutionally okay to not believe that the beginning of the Book of Genesis takes place in North America.

I don't see here a repudiation of what Joseph Smith taught, nor do I see a justification for denying it. What I see, as pertaining to the location of the Garden of Eden, is a quite correct acknowledgment that it is not an important or foundational doctrine.

I also note that it is silent as pertaining to the location of the New Jerusalem. Latter-day Saints have long been taught and are still being taught that the location will be in present-day Missouri.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I don't know about simple.

I really would like to resolve this with you- you don't have to agree, I don't expect that, but I know it is hard to understand for someone who has accepted another linguistic paradigm for their entire adult lives to see another. I grew up in the '60's when after all people were actually using drugs to gain "wisdom" through drug experience. Peyote and LSD were the path to truth, seeking 'visions'. I mean how weird is that? But I think that once you understand that that drug thing is a twisted form of a very valid paradigm all else just sort of "clicks". I mean communism is a twisted form of the paradigm of the Law of Consecration in the same way.

I am going to post a page out of Rorty and see if that helps- this is the first page or two of the book "Contingency Irony and Solidarity" which I am now going through for the umpteenth time diagramming his arguments- actually so I can show where he ultimately goes wrong- but he explains it better than I can I think, and he really drives home the historical importance of thinking this way and how wide spread the notions I bring up here are. Included also are nuances of our discussion on the nature of art which is related. Everybody here thinks I am a wacko- which of course I am but there are many like me out there!

About two hundred years ago, the idea that truth was made rather than

found began to take hold of the imagination of Europe. The French

Revolution had shown that the whole vocabulary of social relations, and

the whole spectrum of social institutions, could be replaced almost overnight.

This precedent made utopian politics the rule rather than the

exception among intellectuals. Utopian politics sets aside questions

about both the will of God and the nature of man and dreams of creating

a hitherto unknown form of society.

At about the same time, the Romantic poets were showing what happens

when art is thought of no longer as imitation but, rather, as the

artist's self-creation. The poets claimed for art the place in culture traditionally

held by religion and philosophy, the place which the Enlightenment

had claimed for science. The precedent the Romantics set lent

initial plausibility to their claim. The actual role of novels, poems, plays,

paintings, statues, and buildings in the social movements of the last

century and a half has given it still greater plausibility.

By now these two tendencies have joined forces and have achieved

cultural hegemony. For most contemporary intellectuals, questions of

ends as opposed to means - questions about how to give a sense to one's

own life or that of one's community - are questions for art or politics, or

both, rather than for religion, philosophy, or science. This development

has led to a split within philosophy. Some philosophers have remained

faithful to the Enlightenment and have continued to identify themselves

with the cause of science. They see the old struggle between science and

religion, reason and unreason, as still going on, having now taken the

form of a struggle between reason and all those forces within culture

which think of truth as made rather than found. These philosophers take

science as the paradigmatic human activity, and they insist that natural

science discovers truth rather than makes it. They regard "making truth"

as a merely metaphorical, and thoroughly misleading, phrase. They think

of politics and art as spheres in which the notion of "truth" is out of

place. Other philosophers, realizing that the world as it is described by

the physical sciences teaches no moral lesson, offers no spiritual comfort,

have concluded that science is no more than the handmaiden of tech-

nology. These philosophers have ranged themselves alongside the political

utopian and the innovative artist.

Whereas the first kind of philosopher contrasts "hard scientific fact"

with the "subjective" or with "metaphor," the second kind sees science

as one more human activity, rather as the place at which human beings

encounter a "hard," nonhuman reality. On this view, great scientists

invent descriptions of the world which are useful for purposes of predicting

and controlling what happens, just as poets and political thinkers

invent other descriptions of it for other purposes. But there is no sense

in which any of these descriptions is an accurate representation of the

way the world is in itself. These philosophers regard the very idea of such

a representation as pointless.

And it goes on from there. You can read it for yourself here or buy a copy here

[David T]

You might well have quoted what was actually stated on that website.

I did, Scott. What you quoted was my re-stating what I took from it. Remember that hitting 'quote' does not reproduce the things I quoted in your new response. Look above.

I don't see here a repudiation of what Joseph Smith taught, nor do I see a justification for denying it.

No, it doesn't repudiate. But, importantly, it does not support, affirm, or defend it, either.

It allows those who want to believe that Eden was in Missouri to still do so, and also allows those who don't believe it to comfortably do so as well. I think it is a very wise - and diplomatic - statement.

Edited October 2, 2012 by David T