The Garden of Eden Story

[_ludwigm]

I disagree. Other faithful Mormons, such as myself, note that since the rib story is figurative and SWK did not specify other parts as necessarily literal, other parts may be figurative as well.

An easy and unattackable viewpoint.

The prophet did not specify.
All other cases it was his private opinion.

All member have the right to define what is doctrine and what is not.

Especially You have Your own definition.
(Warning: saying "where is to found the doctrine" is not equal "this is the doctrine, read and be satisfied with it")

[_bcspace]

An easy and unattackable viewpoint.

Yep.

The prophet did not specify.
All other cases it was his private opinion.

All member have the right to define what is doctrine and what is not.

A member cannot define what doctrine is for the LDS Church. However, a member is certainly free to decide what is truth where it is not specified without being in danger of unbelief or censure.

Especially You have Your own definition.
(Warning: saying "where is to found the doctrine" is not equal "this is the doctrine, read and be satisfied with it")

The doctrine of the Church is systematic, easily found in official publications.

[_Bazooka]

That quote from Kimball can (and is) used by faithful Mormons to suggest that the rest of the Adam-and-Eve story is literal. Why point out that the rib portion of the story was figurative if the rest of the story were not literal? By explicitly excepting the rib portion of the story from the literal, Kimball implies that the rest of the story is not figurative, but literal. If he wanted to contest the 4,000 B.C. date for the event, he could have easily said that "The story of the rib, and the chronology in Genesis, is figurative." That he did not do so is evidence that Kimball believed the Genesis account, with the exception of the rib, was literal.

I disagree. Other faithful Mormons, such as myself, note that since the rib story is figurative and SWK did not specify other parts as necessarily literal, other parts may be figurative as well. This is why neither creationism or evolution can be said to be LDS doctrine. It is not specified or implied and therefore, one can safely adopt whatever stance one wants on some of the details.

Why publish within an official chronology a specific date if the story is meant to be figurative?
Especially without adding some kind of caveat stating that the date published is not meant to be taken literally.

Also, here is a link to the Gospel Principles manual chapter covering the fall of Adam within which it teaches about the Garden of Eden etc.
Can you show me where it's made clear that this is not a literal story but meant Old Testament be taken figuratively?
http://www.LDS.org/manual/gospel-princi ... e?lang=eng

Here is Mark E Peterson (as published by the Church, thereby making it an official position) not only making it clear that Adam & Eve were real, but that the Garden of eden is an actual place.

On a warm summer day I visited the land of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the state of Missouri. I had looked forward to this visit with keen anticipation, for I had never been there before.

The place was beautiful: The fields were green, the hills were rolling, the entire landscape was something to remember.

But more impressive than the landscape was the significance of the place, for here Adam lived—and Eve—and their family. The stupendous importance of it all weighed heavily upon me.

Here is where the human race began. This we are told by revelation. (See Moses 1:34; D&C 107:53; D&C 84:16.)

[_ludwigm]

Especially You have Your own definition.
(Warning: saying "where is to found the doctrine" is not equal "this is the doctrine, read and be satisfied with it")

The doctrine of the Church is systematic, easily found in official publications.

Please enlighten us, neglectable entities, what part of the official publications are, and what part of them are not describe the doctrine? What sieve or sifter should we use, beyond Your words?

I daren't ask, what is the status of certain publications, which were - but no more are - official. (for example predecessors of Ensign, for example the Journal of Discourses, for example many papers which are mere personal opinions of seers and revelators today)

Wouldn't it be more easy an existing book (on paper or in electronic form...) called "Mormon Doctrine" - or with whatever title - consisting the truth and only the truth and nothing but the truth? Do I demand too much?

by the way the great and abominable church - in other words the great whore of all the earth - has that feature. Here to found.
They call it catechism ( pron.: /ˈkætəkɪzəm/; Ancient Greek: κατηχισμός from kata = "down" + echein = "to sound", literally "to sound down" into the ears, is a summary or exposition of doctrine )

(damn that spell checker!!! pron is a short for pronounciation!!! and nothing to do with porn...)

[_bcspace]

Why publish within an official chronology a specific date if the story is meant to be figurative?
Especially without adding some kind of caveat stating that the date published is not meant to be taken literally.

I have said nothing about the date. Imho, the Church, if it does use the 4004 BC date for the Fall at all (notice that the Bible Dictionary is not doctrine according to it's own introduction), is merely adopting standard christian doctrine in lieu of any specific revelation which I don't think is an unreasonable thing to do at all.

Also, here is a link to the Gospel Principles manual chapter covering the fall of Adam within which it teaches about the Garden of Eden etc.
Can you show me where it's made clear that this is not a literal story but meant Old Testament be taken figuratively?
http://www.LDS.org/manual/gospel-princi ... e?lang=eng

I don't understand what the problem is. I do notice that it essentially confirms what I've said about 2 Nephi 2 (no application of the state of no death to the creative state prior to the finished creation and the Garden) but what do you think should be figurative and how does it conflict?

Here is Mark E Peterson (as published by the Church, thereby making it an official position) not only making it clear that Adam & Eve were real, but that the Garden of eden is an actual place.

I think those are a couple of good examples of what must be historical about the account. I believe Adam and Eve were real people and that the Garden was a real place and that the reality of neither is in conflict with evolution. The human race DID begin there because it was there that either an uplift took place, or spirit children of God began to be born, or whatever is your hypothesis as to how modern big brained homo sapiens, after many hundreds of thousands of years, suddenly began to make civilizations and worship and have knowledge of the true God etc.

Perhaps even the ancient Greeks knew it as the Garden of the Hesperides. Where did they say it was located? In the "far west". Not that the Greeks are a source of doctrine but it is interesting that they would say that and how the stories of that garden seem to revolve around the actual Biblical tale but from the perspective of Satan and Cain's descendents.


.........................

Please enlighten us, neglectable entities, what part of the official publications are, and what part of them are not describe the doctrine? What sieve or sifter should we use, beyond Your words?

Everything published (and not merely sponsored) by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of latest date is official doctrine unless stated otherwise. So, for example, the LDS Bible Dictionary is published by the Church but it's introduction says it's not to be used for doctrine. Therefore, the doctrine is that the LDS Bible Dictionary isn't doctrine.

I daren't ask, what is the status of certain publications, which were - but no more are - official. (for example predecessors of Ensign, for example the Journal of Discourses, for example many papers which are mere personal opinions of seers and revelators today)

Never were doctrine in the first place.

Wouldn't it be more easy an existing book (on paper or in electronic form...) called "Mormon Doctrine" - or with whatever title - consisting the truth and only the truth and nothing but the truth? Do I demand too much?

BRM's work came closest to that but was rejected for too much personal opinion. But there is much good doctrine in it so it is quoted from time to time in official doctrinal works. Therefore those particular specific quotes are doctrine.

However, the Church does have a curriculum and magazines that it does publish every year.

by the way the great and abominable church - in other words the great whore of all the earth - has that feature. Here to found.
They call it catechism ( pron.: /ˈkætəkɪzəm/; Ancient Greek: κατηχισμός from kata = "down" + echein = "to sound", literally "to sound down" into the ears, is a summary or exposition of doctrine )

Many churches have systematic doctrines. No big deal.

[Jersey Girl]

Perhaps even the ancient Greeks knew it as the Garden of the Hesperides.

Perhaps they knew it as Atlantis or Beleriand.


With a compass and a square you could even estimate where X marks the spot.

[_bcspace]

Perhaps so Moksha. Was there a serpent? A tree of knowledge? A plan to steal that knowledge in opposition to the Gods? Salvation by water? Those and other elements are present in Greek mythology. I think I can find those elements in the Silmarillion as well.

And what of it? Tolkien was very religious and obviously had those things on his mind when he wrote. He was also instrumental in converting C.S. Lewis to Christianity.

The point being that the truth is often wrapped up in our stories and mythologies.

[_Bazooka]

I think those are a couple of good examples of what must be historical about the account. I believe Adam and Eve were real people and that the Garden was a real place and that the reality of neither is in conflict with evolution.

This isn't about what you believe was or was not historical.
This is about which parts of the tale the Church portrays as historical and which as purely figurative.

The only element of the Adam/Eve/Garden of Eden story that the Church teaches is only meant to be taken figuratively is the "Eve being made from Adam's rib" part.
Therefore, unless you can point out specifically and officially where the Church contradicts this view, within Mormonism the Garden of Eden narrative is meant to be taken literally. Mormonism also allocates a specific place in Missouri as being where the Garden of eden actually was.

[_moksha]

The point being that the truth is often wrapped up in our stories and mythologies.

Excellent point and those powerful symbols are there to help us when we seek them.

[_Bazooka]

Why publish within an official chronology a specific date if the story is meant to be figurative?
Especially without adding some kind of caveat stating that the date published is not meant to be taken literally.

I have said nothing about the date. Imho, the Church, if it does use the 4004 BC date for the Fall at all (notice that the Bible Dictionary is not doctrine according to it's own introduction), is merely adopting standard christian doctrine in lieu of any specific revelation which I don't think is an unreasonable thing to do at all.

So, the Church publishes the date in its official Bible Chronology but you're saying that's not official?
The Church uses the date in its Seminary course, reiterates the date on any/all timeline graphics, bookmarks etc but that's not the official Church stance on when it took place?

Ask a long term Mormon when the fall took place and they'll tell you 4,000 bc because that's what the Church has taught them, and taught them to take it literally, not figuratively.