Eden In Missouri?

[Scott Lloyd]

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 had already revised my post, probably after you had seen the initial version. I apologize for the oversight, in any case.

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

Bottom line is you can't use it as support for your denial of what Joseph Smith taught; it does not sustain your denial.

Furthermore, you bear the burden of explaining how or why you contradict something that the Prophet is on record as teaching. The "Newsroom" snippet does not support you in bearing that burden.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

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?

I didn't grow up in the 60's, but LSD and mushrooms were the starting steps of a spiritual life to me. Trying to understand psychedelic visions and their connections to mythology, archetypes, and the so-called primordial tradition helped me move away from agnosticism to a belief that there really is something spiritual out there. From there I went to the East (as so many who start with drugs do) and meditation, and then to the mysticism of the West, and then to Catholicism.

I am going to post a page out of Rorty

You love him like I love Plato

Everybody here thinks I am a wacko- which of course I am but there are many like me out there!

All the freaky people make the beauty of the world!

[David T]

I revised my post, probably after you had seen the initial version.

Bottom line is you can't use it as support for your denial of what Joseph Smith taught; it does not sustain your denial.

Just like the Newsroom statement, I agree that Joseph did teach it, but acknowledge that just because Joseph taught it doesn't mean that it's important.

Furthermore, you bear the burden of explaining how or why you contradict something that the Prophet is on record as teaching. The "Newsroom" snippet does not support you in bearing that burden.

Scott, this inevitably goes into the whole Global Flood/Pangea breaking apart in the days of Peleg/etc discussions, which I'm not really interested in diving into again. If an historical Adam and Eve as primal parents of the entire human race started in central North America, and we are required to take all of these related foundational Genesis (and Genesis-inspired) stories as an authentic and reliable history, then one must also affirm one of the other massive, falsifiable global events to explain the rest of how the balance of biblical and anthropological world history ended up actually going forward in the other side of the world.

If a non-essential narrative framework feature can be substantially falsified, especially in the case where it's specifically stated as having no bearing on the end goals of the religion (IE, Salvation), I see absolutely no benefit, personally, in defending it.

Edited October 2, 2012 by David T

[volgadon]

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"

You are wrong about the location of Zion, but especially the last song earned you a rep point.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't grow up in the 60's, but LSD and mushrooms were the starting steps of a spiritual life to me. Trying to understand psychedelic visions and their connections to mythology, archetypes, and the so-called primordial tradition helped me move away from agnosticism to a belief that there really is something spiritual out there. From there I went to the East (as so many who start with drugs do) and meditation, and then to the mysticism of the West, and then to Catholicism.

You love him like I love Plato

All the freaky people make the beauty of the world!

Yeah, I actually followed the same kind of path with a good spell of atheism thrown in, but I didn't want to say that.

Don't tell anybody- ok?

But humanism (through Marxism) got me into Pragmatism and Rorty- and therefore into a belief that man is god- how did you end up in Plato? (I was going to say "stuck in Plato" but I wanted to sound more charitable )

I decided that a system based on making mankind the best it could be was the most that mankind could aspire to- and of course exaltation and the Law of Consecration (roughly- the belief that we all will live together in an ideal Theocracy with all things shared in common during the Millenium) is right around the corner from that.

So when I saw it all in Mormonism- CLICK.

Of course the major turn in my politics was essentially the belief that the individual is not entirely contingent- and that was based on my personal spiritual experiences. It was clear to me that whatever the "I" within me is/was, it has always been- the being who meditates is timeless, and I call that being "I".

So if you have non-contingent elements of the self (Mormon "intelligences") who have agency, (I clearly experience that I have choices in life) suddenly the politics of the hive collapses into traditional Liberalism ala Locke- ie: what we now call "Conservatism".

So I went from dyed in the wool Commie to right- wing conservative as well. We voluntarily give up agency for self-determination and make the sacrifice of obedience so that all may be (Isaiah Berlin) "free" in a positive sense as well as a negative one- free from as well as free to.

That was just a tad compressed, I guess - but it kind of outlines the path I took.

[mfbukowski]

If a non-essential narrative framework feature can be substantially falsified, especially in the case where it's specifically stated as having no bearing on the end goals of the religion (IE, Salvation), I see absolutely no benefit in defending it.

Unless of course salvation has nothing to do with falsifiability.

I mean we don't believe the resurrection based on science- why should science be able to falsify it? I think that is inconsistent.

Spiritual narratives can only be "verified" or falsified- spiritually.

[mfbukowski]

You are wrong about the location of Zion, but especially the last song earned you a rep point.

Hey man, we need all the Zionists we can get even if they argue about where it is!

[David T]

Unless of course salvation has nothing to do with falsifiability.

I mean we don't believe the resurrection based on science- why should science be able to falsify it? I think that is inconsistent.

Spiritual narratives can only be "verified" or falsified- spiritually.

If one's belief requires a Resurrected and ascended Jesus of Nazareth, and some way becomes available to prove that the crucified remains of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, brother of James and Jude are extant, in a state of decay, and still on the earth, this definitely should at least cause one to reassess or rethink the meaning of a key aspect of their faith.

Of course, at this time, no such thing is possible. The physical Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth 2000+ years ago is not presently falsifiable.

Massive geological, archaeological, and anthropological assertions, however, are. I view dissonance in these records with the form of the Sacred Stories of old also as revelations of truth that can be helpful in refining the way we tell and understand the Sacred Story in our day.

Spiritual experiences are a major element of my faith. But there are very, very few specific doctrinal tenets that such spiritual testimony has required of me. There is plenty of room for me to faithfully work through. And that's what I constantly try to do.

Edited October 2, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

You are wrong about the location of Zion, but especially the last song earned you a rep point.

Except that "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay" has only one reference to Georgia; the rest of the song is about San Francisco. (See my prior post.)

But I don't want to add fuel to the fire, especially when you are extending an olive leaf -- or a rep point.

[mfbukowski]

If one's belief requires a Resurrected and ascended Jesus of Nazareth, and some way becomes available to prove that the crucified remains of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, brother of James and Jude are extant, in a state of decay, and still on the earth, this definitely should at least cause one to reassess or rethink the meaning of a key aspect of their faith.

Of course, at this time, no such thing is possible. The physical Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth 2000+ years ago is not presently falsifiable.

Massive geological, archaeological, and anthropological assertions, however, are. I view dissonance in these records with the form of the Sacred Stories of old also as revelations of truth that can be helpful in refining the way we tell and understand the Sacred Story in our day.

Spiritual experiences are a major element of my faith. But there are very, very few specific doctrinal tenets that such spiritual testimony has required of me. There is plenty of room for me to faithfully work through. And that's what I constantly try to do.

What possible evidence- in your wildest science fiction imaginings- could falsify it?

With all the nuances we discuss here every day in the Book of Abraham threads and the evolution threads and the BOM archaeology threads- do you really think there could possibly be two THOUSAND year old "evidence" which would destroy any "true believer's" faith?

I don't for one minute. I cannot think of anything that would even were I a literalist- which I am not.

I mean imagine all the "Lehi's DNA" discussions carried over to "Jesus' DNA" and you will begin to see the tremendous impossibility of any of this being even remotely falsifiable.

The only thing I can think of would be a movie from a time machine- and with all who disputed the moon landings- even that would not make it "falsifiable" to someone who did not want it to be labeled false.

And we still have creationists- do you really think that the evidence for evolution matters to them??

Edited October 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Except that "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay" has only one reference to Georgia; the rest of the song is about San Francisco. (See my prior post.)

But I don't want to add fuel to the fire, especially when you are extending an olive leaf -- or a rep point.

I know, I happen to like the song.

[Damien the Leper]

It provides two locations - the promised land of the Americas and the promised land of Israel. Why must all the emphasis be on Israel? Doesn't God love all his children?

Considering God's relationship with Israel and their past, the U.S. is of little relevance. If I were to be a believer, I would recommend a belief in the prophecy of Jeremiah. I chose this because I think the exile and return to the Holy Land is symbolic for something on a much larger scale. IOW, all God's children would turn to Israel as their spiritual home.

God's love for all His children has nothing to do with choosing the U.S. Heck, God could have chosen Canada (which I'm absolutely sure Duncan would be giddy over) or any other place for that matter. But there is a huge difference in the significance of Jackson County (the "Centerplace") and the true Zion. There is no reason to suggest or believe that there will be a big meeting in Adam-ondi-Ahman either before or after the events foretold in Revelation.

[Damien the Leper]

I do, and he was brilliant for doing so. By claiming the garden of Eden for America, he was plugging into the cultural currents that made Mormonism so appealing to Americans and American-wannabes of the 19th century, and wrapping up the whole world into an America-centered narrative.

That makes sense. Create an appealing product and sell it to a mass audience that is willing to buy.

However, the Judeo-Christian history, faith, tradition is not American. It's Middle Eastern and should therefore stay within that context.

[MiserereNobis]

What possible evidence- in your wildest science fiction imaginings- could falsify it?

With all the nuances we discuss here every day in the Book of Abraham threads and the evolution threads and the BOM archaeology threads- do you really think there could possibly be two THOUSAND year old "evidence" which would destroy any "true believer's" faith?

I don't for one minute. I cannot think of anything that would even were I a literalist- which I am not.

I mean imagine all the "Lehi's DNA" discussions carried over to "Jesus' DNA" and you will begin to see the tremendous impossibility of any of this being even remotely falsifiable.

The only thing I can think of would be a movie from a time machine- and with all who disputed the moon landings- even that would not make it "falsifiable" to someone who did not want it to be labeled false.

And we still have creationists- do you really think that the evidence for evolution matters to them??

You highlight the overall problem with falsifiability well. No matter, we can always come up with an ad hoc solution that keeps our theory going even in the face of evidence that appears to falsify it. If one doesn't want to give up one's belief, there is no evidence in the world that can do so, even if one is claiming to be reasonable. Ad hoc solutions destroyed Popper's dream of a perfectly deductively valid falsifiable science.

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps it was because the Lord unfolded to him a glimpse of the eternities and he was thus not limited to the traditions and dogmatism of a world beset with the darkness of apostasy.

And he didn't take the focus off anything, but rather, expanded the vista.

Interesting theory but it is a very big stretch of the imagination. Scripture does nothing to promote such an idea. The LDS lean to heavily on this fictional "apostasy". No one apostatized. All that happened was continuing reinterpretation of the faith traditions. The LDS church is a 19th century example of this. The LDS church isn't a correction of all things lost but a reinterpretation of all things that were and are and may be.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting theory but it is a very big stretch of the imagination. Scripture does nothing to promote such an idea.

It's neither a theory nor a stretch. It is doctrine.

Scripture does nothing to promote such an idea.

I don't know what you mean by "scripture," but I don't accept the notion that the Bible is the exclusive repository of all of God's words. The very notion is unbiblical.

I don't even think that about latter-day scripture, or what outsiders would call Mormon scripture.

Ongoing revelation is what makes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a living faith.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

It's neither a theory nor a stretch. It is doctrine.

Too bad the LDS church doesn't use the word "dogma." It carries a much greater weight behind it than just "doctrine."

Besides, then you could say of all those who believe opposite of the dogma: "let him be anathema."

That's powerful, too

[Scott Lloyd]

I know, I happen to like the song.

Yes. The world lost a musical treasure with the untimely passing of Otis Redding.

Of course, were he alive today, he would probably be an old man by now.

[thesometimesaint]

Too bad the LDS church doesn't use the word "dogma." It carries a much greater weight behind it than just "doctrine."

Besides, then you could say of all those who believe opposite of the dogma: "let him be anathema."

That's powerful, too

Of course a synonym for Dogma is Doctrine. However in LDS thought Dogma implies that such and such can not be passed even it God says so. We are a church of Continuing Revelation something the rest of the Christian world gave up on a long time ago.

[Damien the Leper]

It's neither a theory nor a stretch. It is doctrine.

I don't know what you mean by "scripture," but I don't accept the notion that the Bible is the exclusive repository of all of God's words. The very notion is unbiblical.

I don't even think that about latter-day scripture, or what outsiders would call Mormon scripture.

Ongoing revelation is what makes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a living faith.

You're right. It is doctrine for LDS but not for the entire Judeo-Christian worldview. Just because the LDS church says so does not mean it is binding on the entire world. That is presumptuous.

I'm good with your thoughts on the Bible not being the final say. It's very progressive. However, revelation does not have the authority to contradict what God has already decreed according to the past prophets.

There is absolutely zero rational or logical reason to believe that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaac or Jacob are looking to Jackson County as part of their spiritual future. It's baseless to argue otherwise. Simply using old reliable "Well modern revelation tells us this..." doesn't hold substantial merit. If anything, we should be looking beyond the terms of 3 dimensionality as it is traditionally proposed.

We need to look at why Israel is of significance. Why that land? Why those people? Why all the events scripture claims to have happened? What is the ultimate point that God is trying to get across to us through spiritual means? Scripture leads me to believe that this goes beyond family, celestial marriage, celestial glory, getting as many possible to convert to Restorationism. If anything, I believe that scripture is ultimately trying to tell us something about God. What is God, through his prophets of old, trying to tell us about existence, about reality, about the cosmos.

Perhaps it is something that the ancient and modern Judeo-Christian world has overlooked. Perhaps we're missing the point.

[Cobalt-70]

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

I don't think there is any evidence that the Zion concept was ever a metaphorical "gathering in spirit" prior to the administration of David McKay. Originally, Zion was a fort. Then it was the hill on which the fort stood. Then it was the city built upon the hill on which the fort stood. Then it was a temple built upon the site of the fort. Then it was Israel as a whole. Isaiah 54:2 reflects this usage, and is indeed metaphorical, but Zion itself was not a metaphor. Zion, according to Deutero-Isaiah, was the kingdom of Israel, which would expand its tent and strengthen its tent-stakes under the Second David (the Messiah), meaning that the physical Israel would expand its borders. Later, Zion also came to mean God's eschatological kingdom, but this was still a literal, physical kingdom with a king and sovereignty.

When Joseph Smith came along, he used the term Zion in all the previous senses, but also used it to describe the city of Enoch. Then Zion also became a city, modeled after Enoch's city, to come at some unknown location (later defined as Jackson County) in Indian territory. Then it was both that city and a multi-city kingdom in the middle of the North American continent, Jackson County being the center place, and Kirtland being the eastern "stake." After the Saints were kicked out of Jackson County, Smith said that Zion was the "pure in heart" (D&C 97:21), but it is clear that he meant that it is the communistic kingdom of the pure in heart, which had a definite "place" even if its inhabitants were exiled (D&C 97:19; 101:17-18). Zion was still to be a physical kingdom centered in Jackson County.

Eventually, it became clear that Zion would not be permanently established in Jackson County. The model of D&C 101:20-23 was effectively a failed prophecy. But "gathering" was still, always, a literal and physical activity. D&C 101:20-23 said that the Saints were to gather in Zion (Jackson County) and then when Zion was full, to gather in her stakes. But when everybody gave up on Jackson County, Smith essentially re-defined Zion as a broad region of Missouri, so that Far West (part of the "plains of Olaha Shinehah") was Zion, but Kirtland was not. (D&C 117:8-9; 119:5.)

Even after the Mormon War, when they got kicked out of Missouri entirely, the Smith still understood that Zion was a place. Nauvoo, for example, was the "cornerstone" in the foundation of Zion (D&C 124:2, 23, 118, 131.) Given that Missouri was no longer an option, Smith began teaching that the whole New World was Zion (Sermon dated July 19, 1840; Article of Faith 10). Therefore, the idea of the Saints returning to establish Zion as a single city in Missouri was pretty much dead at this point. (That didn't stop some of Smith's successors, up until David McKay, from adopting the older "limited geography model" of Zion. See, e.g., D&C 136:18.)

At this point, we should understand all the plans and prophecies of Joseph Smith relating to Jackson County in their context. The establishment of Zion as a city in Jackson County was always (at least since 1833) contingent on the faithfulness of the Saints in their ability to live under the communistic United Order of Enoch. But this Order was a complete and utter failure. So the plans and prophecies for Missouri have lapsed. The early Saints lost their chance. Moreover, in the 21st century, it would be a pointless exercise for the LDS Church to move its headquarters to Missouri. What would change after such a move, other than the expenditure of billions upon billions of dollars, and the crippling of the Utah economy?

[thesometimesaint]

Since when did a dead prophet take priority over a living one?

[MiserereNobis]

Since when did a dead prophet take priority over a living one?

Can truth change?

[Damien the Leper]

Since when did a dead prophet take priority over a living one?

Since the 14 fundamentals of the church were recognized as a hoax to safeguard the authority that is claimed by the LDS church.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're right. It is doctrine for LDS but not for the entire Judeo-Christian worldview. Just because the LDS church says so does not mean it is binding on the entire world. That is presumptuous.

By the same token, rejection by unbelievers does not automatically invalidate it. That's every bit as presumptuous as you say I'm being.

I'm good with your thoughts on the Bible not being the final say. It's very progressive. However, revelation does not have the authority to contradict what God has already decreed according to the past prophets.

I don't concede that latter-day revelation, as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has contradicted or overturned God. Indeed, I assert that God is the author of latter-day revelation, just as in ancient days.

There is absolutely zero rational or logical reason to believe that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaac or Jacob are looking to Jackson County as part of their spiritual future. It's baseless to argue otherwise. Simply using old reliable "Well modern revelation tells us this..." doesn't hold substantial merit. If anything, we should be looking beyond the terms of 3 dimensionality as it is traditionally proposed.

Whether or not latter-day revelation holds substantial merit is a matter of faith. Matters of faith cannot be falsified merely by declaring that they don't hold merit.

Perhaps it is something that the ancient and modern Judeo-Christian world has overlooked. Perhaps we're missing the point.

The concept of a general apostasy presupposes that there is much truth that over the ages has lost from the view of the ancient and modern Judeo-Christian world.