Eden In Missouri?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I am fascinated by the Mormon/Restoration orthodoxy that is taught and believed by the Restoration Branches. It is strange how much the LDS have shifted in their theology where Restorationism is concerned.

I don't agree with you but I'm fascinated nonetheless. If I could financially help the Temple Lot build the temple they had drafted I would. But I would do so only to see that nothing is really going to happen afterward.

What I stated is my personal belief, many, if not most, Restorationists have adopted similar excuses for not believing Eden = Jackson County, MO, that I have observed here.

[Damien the Leper]

What I stated is my personal belief, many, if not most, Restorationists have adopted similar excuses for not believing Eden = Jackson County, MO, that I have observed here.

Do you think this shift many Restorationists made was in part due to JS III?

[Robert F. Smith]

The prophesied grand council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman is not the same thing as the erroneous folklore that the entire Church will be called upon to move en masse to Jackson County driving their covered wagons or pulling handcarts, a notion that I think grew out of the belief of some Church members in pioneer times that the Second Coming of Christ would transpire within their lifetimes.

I hadn't imagined pulling handcarts, but jumbo jets, vans, chartered buses, and the like would be just fine with me. When the time comes. And of course not everybody is going to be willing to go. I accept that.

[Robert F. Smith]

The center Stake is to be in Missouri. Not that every member will be there. I prefer to stay here in southern California and build a Zion community here.

They also serve who watch and wait. Moreover, not every Jew feels moved to gather to the modern State of Israel.

[Scott Lloyd]

I hadn't imagined pulling handcarts, but jumbo jets, vans, chartered buses, and the like would be just fine with me. When the time comes. And of course not everybody is going to be willing to go. I accept that.

You miss the point. There won't be a universal requirement to go. That's Mormon folklore.

Did you read the article I linked to?

[Robert F. Smith]

Who says that there will be a center stake of Zion in Missouri? I think that boat has long passed. The church has not had a "center stake" since Nauvoo, and I can't see the church re-organizing itself according to that model. What made the "center stake" special is that its high council was the Presiding High Council, and by scripture had equal (and technically higher, except in the mission field) authority than the Quorum of the Twelve. I don't see the Twelve ceding their authority back to a stake high council.

That boat may have passed you by, but feature this from the Ensign, June 1979, Janet Brigham, "Saints in Independence," online at http://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/06/saints-in-independence ,

Cooperation between Church members and the Independence-based Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reached new heights of friendliness in the fall of 1978 with the Joseph Smith Symposium, jointly sponsored by the two churches. Scholars from both churches participated, discussing the common origin and some of the teachings of both churches. Some eight hundred townspeople—including members of both churches—attended the sessions, held alternately in the Independence Stake Center, the RLDS Stone Church, and the Kansas City Stake Center. President Melvin Bennion conducted the session held at the Independence Stake Center;

RLDS Center Stake

President Frank Kelly conducted the Stone Church sessions; and President Kay H. Christensen conducted the sessions in the Kansas City Stake Center.

[Robert F. Smith]

You miss the point. There won't be a universal requirement to go. That's Mormon folklore.

Did you read the article I linked to?

Sure did. Did you read the one I linked to? I don't know where you get the false notion of "a universal requirement to go." Mormon folklore perchance?

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know about simple.

In defending science I am not defending scientism. Science must operate on the basis of only what there is to observe. The reality of anything beyond this awaits the time that data constrains us to accept it. Accepting that which is beyond current science falls within the realm of faith/belief. I am comfortable with this or I wouldn't be LDS.

Naturalism has to be assumed by science since it deals with nature and admits of nothing more. So the question becomes how we can coordinate an intervening God into the picture that doesn't lead to contradictions with what we know. We can haphazardly ignore the facts of science and pretend they can be read another way. Or we can look for ways that admit the known evidence and what we believe from our theology.

For example if we obstinately grand stand for a global flood we ignore a boat load of contrary evidence and have to accept that God planted all the false evidence. If we say the flood was local perhaps we can remove the dichotomy. The evidence is overwhelming that the continents did not divide anytime in the recent past and so we are left wondering how it is that Noah could have preached to all the inhabitants of the planet. Or how it is that archaeology shows that civilizations existed post-flood the same as pre-flood without so much as a hiccup.

In resolving evolution lets look at the model similar to that of bcspace. If death refers to modern humans only, no death before the fall fits nicely as does Moses' statement that Adam was the son of God if this refers to his spirit. A bottleneck does not show up in the DNA data so Adam being the biological father of the human race either can't be true (Adam becomes the father of those who accept the covenant via adoption) or we accept a God that intervenes again in altering DNA. Certainly if long lives of ancient patriarchs is literal this becomes a necessity. Healing the blind, raising the dead, the rearrangement of the land at the death of Christ in the BOM(were horses mentioned in the BOM after this event? What does it do to archeological evidence for the BOM prior to the event?), answers to prayer - all are examples of an intervening God. We can't reasonably reject the notion of altering DNA out of hand. The question becomes whether the evidence and data will allow such a view without raising a self-contradiction as we find with a global flood. Otherwise we are reduced to accepting the view that God creates false data, or that by changing vocabulary the problems go away completely.

I can't think of any reason to argue for a global flood. It need only have been regional or local. Nor is it necessary to imagine that intervention by God abrogates natural law, any more than an LED display abrogates physics, or that a rocket to the Moon abrogates the law of gravitation. If you want to argue science, by all means do so, and stop blathering on about magic and the supernatural -- there is no such thing.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

No need to worry about it, unless you think it important. For those among the Jews who thought it important, they gathered to the promised land. Other Jews stayed home and did just fine -- well, Europe didn't work out so nicely for them, did it? But the USA has thus far been a good place for them. So are the Jews who want to build a temple in Jerusalem deluded? Is the gathering to Palestine just folklore?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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.

Perhaps you would like to name that General Authority. No, can't do it. Thought as much.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Do you think this shift many Restorationists made was in part due to JS III?

No idea.

[shalamabobbi]

I can't think of any reason to argue for a global flood. It need only have been regional or local. Nor is it necessary to imagine that intervention by God abrogates natural law, any more than an LED display abrogates physics, or that a rocket to the Moon abrogates the law of gravitation. If you want to argue science, by all means do so, and stop blathering on about magic and the supernatural -- there is no such thing.

I'm sorry Robert. I was having a conversation with mfbukowski and trying to communicate with him. I am interested in his viewpoints and bounce ideas off him to see what his reply will be to try and understand what he thinks and how he understands the world.

Where did I state that intervention abrogates natural law?

Where am I blathering on about magic and the supernatural?

I use the term natural to refer to our present mortal state/condition and naturalism to refer to that which we can discern by use of the five senses and an extension of the same. In other words the reductionism/materialism of science. I am interested in this conversation that you bring up as well, so please feel free to fire away with what you perceive to be valid critiques of what you believe to be my understanding of God and the cosmos.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Your a priori assumptions about the accuracy of poor translations lead to cognitive dissonance, and that is understandable. Yet ignorance is no excuse.

[Robert F. Smith]

shalamabobbi, on 01 October 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

I don't know about simple.

In defending science I am not defending scientism. Science must operate on the basis of only what there is to observe. The reality of anything beyond this awaits the time that data constrains us to accept it. Accepting that which is beyond current science falls within the realm of faith/belief. I am comfortable with this or I wouldn't be LDS.

Naturalism has to be assumed by science since it deals with nature and admits of nothing more. So the question becomes how we can coordinate an intervening God into the picture that doesn't lead to contradictions with what we know. We can haphazardly ignore the facts of science and pretend they can be read another way. Or we can look for ways that admit the known evidence and what we believe from our theology.

For example if we obstinately grand stand for a global flood we ignore a boat load of contrary evidence and have to accept that God planted all the false evidence. If we say the flood was local perhaps we can remove the dichotomy. The evidence is overwhelming that the continents did not divide anytime in the recent past and so we are left wondering how it is that Noah could have preached to all the inhabitants of the planet. Or how it is that archaeology shows that civilizations existed post-flood the same as pre-flood without so much as a hiccup.

In resolving evolution lets look at the model similar to that of bcspace. If death refers to modern humans only, no death before the fall fits nicely as does Moses' statement that Adam was the son of God if this refers to his spirit. A bottleneck does not show up in the DNA data so Adam being the biological father of the human race either can't be true (Adam becomes the father of those who accept the covenant via adoption) or we accept a God that intervenes again in altering DNA. Certainly if long lives of ancient patriarchs is literal this becomes a necessity. Healing the blind, raising the dead, the rearrangement of the land at the death of Christ in the BOM(were horses mentioned in the BOM after this event? What does it do to archeological evidence for the BOM prior to the event?), answers to prayer - all are examples of an intervening God. We can't reasonably reject the notion of altering DNA out of hand. The question becomes whether the evidence and data will allow such a view without raising a self-contradiction as we find with a global flood. Otherwise we are reduced to accepting the view that God creates false data, or that by changing vocabulary the problems go away completely.

I said:

I can't think of any reason to argue for a global flood. It need only have been regional or local. Nor is it necessary to imagine that intervention by God abrogates natural law, any more than an LED display abrogates physics, or that a rocket to the Moon abrogates the law of gravitation. If you want to argue science, by all means do so, and stop blathering on about magic and the supernatural -- there is no such thing.

I'm sorry Robert. I was having a conversation with mfbukowski and trying to communicate with him. I am interested in his viewpoints and bounce ideas off him to see what his reply will be to try and understand what he thinks and how he understands the world.

Where did I state that intervention abrogates natural law?

Where am I blathering on about magic and the supernatural?

I use the term natural to refer to our present mortal state/condition and naturalism to refer to that which we can discern by use of the five senses and an extension of the same. In other words the reductionism/materialism of science. I am interested in this conversation that you bring up as well, so please feel free to fire away with what you perceive to be valid critiques of what you believe to be my understanding of God and the cosmos.

God and the cosmos are part of a monistic natural universe. The dichotomies you perceive don't exist.

[Rob Osborn]

I found this interesting, it is from a 101 questions as answered by the church-

"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."

[shalamabobbi]

Let me respond to your bolded portions first to be sure you are understanding them in the manner that I intended. Then I would like to explore the implications of your latter assertion.

Science must operate on the basis of only what there is to observe. The reality of anything beyond this awaits the time that data constrains us to accept it. Accepting that which is beyond current science falls within the realm of faith/belief

Let's take galaxy rotations as a specific example. At some point in time, T1, it was observed that galaxy rotations didn't behave as expected. So dark matter is indirectly discovered (and currently is "seen" through gravitational lensing).

If I were to assert the existence of dark matter and fast galaxy rotation prior to this discovery it would have been in the realm of belief, because it would have been beyond current science.

The reality of dark matter awaited the time T1 that data constrained us to accept it.

flood stuff

I was using the idea of a global flood (still held by some members if you haven't noticed) as an example of how data can constrain us to accept a corrected model (unless we are OK with a God that fabricates false evidence as some EVs are OK with a young earth created with the appearance of age). So I am not stating that this disproves a God. I accept a local flood as a reasonable reconciliation between my faith and the facts of science. I believe we are on the same page here.

I use the flood and compare it with a different topic to illustrate how that topic might be decided and a corrected model arrived at in a similar fashion.

An intervening God

You do accept, I assume, the miracles recorded in the standard works as being the result of God acting/intervening in some manner, yes?

I realize that your objection is the discussion of where He intervenes from. So lets's go there now.

Moses 1:11 and Enos 1:10 (google is your friend)

It is my view that when we look into the night sky we see all that is telestial/mortal. The Terestrial and Celestial are hidden from our view the same as a resurrected personage would be hidden from our view unless they were to remove the veil from before our spiritual eyes.

If someone can see a resurrected personage while another beside him does not(as in the pentacost at the Kirtland temple), then that sight is taking place by something other than photons for photons do not behave in such a fashion.

And if the voice Enos hears goes directly to his mind without going through his ears well there is no known medium or physics in existence to allow that to occur. So it to points to something beyond the reach of science, no? (hint: such an answer to Enos' prayer violates FTL restrictions, the very fabric of the cosmos of which we are a part)

Science is confined to an exploration of the telestial. If you disagree, and apparently you do, upon what exactly do you base that assertion? And another question if I might. How does the model of God you propose escape the heat death of the universe? Please avoid magic in your reply.

[Cobalt-70]

Except for number 4, that is what I said. You are not changing truth, just the description of it.

Your beef is apparently with number 2: "the only things that may be true or false are sentences." So, tell my why you think this is false. What, other than sentences, may be true or false?

[Cobalt-70]

That boat may have passed you by, but feature this from the Ensign, June 1979, Janet Brigham, "Saints in Independence," online at http://www.lds.org/e...in-independence ,

Cooperation between Church members and the Independence-based Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reached new heights of friendliness in the fall of 1978 with the Joseph Smith Symposium, jointly sponsored by the two churches. Scholars from both churches participated, discussing the common origin and some of the teachings of both churches. Some eight hundred townspeople—including members of both churches—attended the sessions, held alternately in the Independence Stake Center, the RLDS Stone Church, and the Kansas City Stake Center. President Melvin Bennion conducted the session held at the Independence Stake Center;

RLDS Center Stake

President Frank Kelly conducted the Stone Church sessions; and President Kay H. Christensen conducted the sessions in the Kansas City Stake Center.

And this is proof that...what? How does this have anything to do with whether or not the Quorum of the Twelve is likely to eventually cede their authority back to a Presiding High Council established in Missouri?

[thesometimesaint]

You can't. It was a silly talk given at General Conference.

Immaterial.

See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[rodheadlee]

Your beef is apparently with number 2: "the only things that may be true or false are sentences." So, tell my why you think this is false. What, other than sentences, may be true or false?

Ok, I'll try. Let's use Pluto for an example. Whatever Heavenly Father intended Pluto to be, it is. What we know about Pluto changes as we gain more knowledge but whatever God intended for Pluto doesn't change, only our awareness of it. No matter how many true or false sentences we construct about Pluto it still is what God intended it to be. The only way to know the complete truth about Pluto is to know the mind of God concerning Pluto, then it becomes a revealed truth. But even then Pluto hasn't changed, it still is what God intended it to be.

[MiserereNobis]

Every day.

Is Pluto a planet? How many planets ARE there today anyway?

Really? This is the example that truth changes? C'mon, your mind is more subtle than that. The changing definitions of words/language doesn't change truth. To resolve your apparent contradiction involving Pluto all we need to do is add some more info, such as a time-stamp and an understanding of who defines the word planet. How about: "Twenty years ago the definition of planet as accepted by the astronomical community included 9 celestial bodies. Today, after changing the definition, it includes 8." Clearly truth did not change, but just the definition of the word planet as agreed upon by the majority of astronomers in a society.

Ever said hello to a Higgs boson particle?

Ever said hello to Joseph Smith?

And where is that dark matter stuff anyway? I just can't see it anywhere!

What does "seeing" have to do with truth?

And thank God slaves are no longer less than fully human.

Slaves were always fully human. Wouldn't you agree?

In fact they no longer exist. Where did they go?

Oh, there are plenty of slaves still in the world, my friend. You've got some documentaries to watch.

I guess the same place Limbo did.

tsk, tsk. You know the issue is more complex than this.

Just re-define something, and you change truth.

No, you simply change a description. Redefining truth as description doesn't make it so. In fact, it is rather circular, wouldn't you say? I know you love Rorty and all but dear me, do you not believe in truth? What do you mean when you bear your testimony and say, "I know the church is true"?

[MiserereNobis]

1. Truth is by definition anything that is true, and not false.
   
2. The only things that may be true or false are sentences.
   
3. All sentences can change.
   
4. Therefore, truth can change. QED
   

I explicitly reject #2 (yes, goodbye linguistic constructivism). #2 should read: The only things that can communicate a description of truth or falsehood are sentences. Then we get the correct #4: Therefore, the communication of the description of truth can change. QED.

[Arbiter]

What are your thoughts? The story is, that Joseph Smith and others went exploring the area shortly after arriving in Missouri and came upon an altar (pile of rocks) that Joseph said was the one Adam and Eve used and he renamed an area nearby, called Spring Hill, Adam-ondi-Ahman. And this is where Adam & Eve, as mortals, started their family.

My feeling is that Joseph may have made it up to excite and keep the people interested in this new religion or he felt that he was inspired to say this.

I read the apologist side on Fairmormon.com and they don't deny that Joseph did this. It just seems incomprehensible to me that it could be true. Of course some believing LDS don't even believe in the Garden of Eden and believe it to be an allegory. So this to them is probably a non issue.

It may be true that some believing Mormons don't believe in the Garden of Eden and believe it to be an allegory. That wouldn't be the official Church position I don't think, but don't forget that plenty of believing non-Mormon Christians believe the same thing. So I wonder why that would trouble you.

And if the idea that Joseph Smith made a claim that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri troubles you, yet the account of the Garden of Eden in the Bible doesn't, you may have to look inward to discover why. Since they are both pretty fabulous stories.

[Tacenda]

It may be true that some believing Mormons don't believe in the Garden of Eden and believe it to be an allegory. That wouldn't be the official Church position I don't think, but don't forget that plenty of believing non-Mormon Christians believe the same thing. So I wonder why that would trouble you.

And if the idea that Joseph Smith made a claim that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri troubles you, yet the account of the Garden of Eden in the Bible doesn't, you may have to look inward to discover why. Since they are both pretty fabulous stories.

Growing up I don't think the GoE in Missouri was taught much. Therefore in my mind's eye I only think of the one the bible purports. Does that answer your question? Did you have teacher's teach that that the GoE was in Missouri, ever? Maybe I tuned alot out and was a brat, very well could have happened. But even in Primary teaching manuals that I've taught from I don't remember it being taught. Therefore do you understand where I'm coming from? Especially if I've believed and been taught that the GoE is true and in the last couple of years it was taught in Gospel Doctrine but with no mention of it actually being in Missouri. Sorry for the long answer. P.S. I'm now wondering if any of it is true. Help!

[David T]

Your a priori assumptions about the accuracy of poor translations lead to cognitive dissonance, and that is understandable. Yet ignorance is no excuse.

What 'poor translations' are you assuming I'm relying on for anything you are replying to?

Edited October 3, 2012 by David T