I appreciate your reply. And I’m certain that most people do have more nuanced views. Nevertheless, my exposure to the unique dynamic of the so-called “bloggernacle” over the course of the past two years or so has too often left me with a hollow sense of mourning for the fact that far too many LDS are reaching the point where their God seems no longer capable of authentic miracles. That said, I certainly don’t mean to cast a blanket condemnation. It is not entirely warranted, but unfortunately it covers more people than I wish it did. We’ve all become a little too jaded by the world in which we live.

In any event, I feel motivated to add my comment to the many that have been made.

I’m a little chagrined by some of the comments that tended to denigrate those who continue to believe in literalist interpretations of the scriptures; those who cling to a seemingly unsophisticated belief in such things as a real Adam and Eve, a real Noah who built an ark, a real worldwide flood, a real garden of Eden that was actually located in Jackson County, a real altar allegedly built by Adam at Adam-ondi-Ahman, etc., etc.

I can’t say that I know that these things should be viewed as literal. I can appreciate why many have come to view them as merely figurative, or as byproducts of an era that did not have the knowledge necessary to distinguish the literal from the mythic. I can understand how and why many otherwise faithful members of the Church have found ways to reconcile the precepts of organic evolution with LDS doctrine.

Nick Literski is probably correct, however, in suggesting that an overwhelming majority of LDS still views these things from a literalist stance. Uncorrupted by the rationalizations of the “bloggernacle,” they continue on their path quite comfortable with their traditional liturgy; confident that its precepts provide the definitive answers to their questions.

Are they foolish in believing such things? I wouldn’t be so quick to say so. Despite my own recognition of how the consensus beliefs of our scientific culture can be reconciled with my own understanding of LDS doctrines, I am not always convinced that it is all so cut and dried. I accept that science is probably correct in terms of its explanations for the earth, its creation, common descent, etc. But I also have some cause to entertain a sliver of doubt about many of these things that are supposedly “proven beyond doubt.”

Most of all, I detect a disturbing trend among the so-called “intellectuals” among us: a tendency to automatically dismiss anything in the way of traditional LDS doctrine that would require some fabulous manifestation of supernatural power. Everything must necessarily be explained within the parameters of 21st century scientific knowledge. There can be no parting of the Red Sea, no mountains moved or rivers turned by Enoch, no City of Zion physically removed from the earth, no Jordan River miraculously dammed upstream from the children of Israel as they crossed over.

We’ve become so obsessed with appearing “normal” and “rational” to the rest of the world that we have painted ourselves into a corner where not only are there no more miracles, but there never were any.

Well, perhaps so. But even as I find ways to reconcile my faith to what appears to be scientific fact, I also am quite confident that the day will come when we will discover that God did indeed have great power, that He granted it to prophets, that He used it in bringing to pass bona fide miraculous events, and that many things that we have come to dismiss as scientifically impossible did in fact occur precisely as the scriptures describe them.

I, for one, am still inclined to believe that if God has ceased to be a God of miracles, it is because we have dwindled in disbelief and know not the God in whom we should trust.

As a child, all I remember seeing was a pile of stones, presumably the altar described in your articles. Later a motel was built to accommodate the Mormans who took a yearly pilgrimage to this site. Today I am told the city of Jameson is populated mostly by Mormans who want to be close to the site of the Garden of Eden because they believe this is where Christ will return.

I don’t know if this is the site of Adam’s burial or if Missouri (Daviess County) was the biblical Garden of Eden, and frankly, I don’t care. What is important is that Christ WILL return in glory to claim his own. Where or when this will happen is a mystery that only God knows.

Thank you again for clarifying my questions.

boredinvernal,
I would think that issues like this are even more spoken about than not now. maybe it is because of my young (30) age, but I hear A LOT more now w/ the web than I ever did before.

Personally, I find much to admire in the story when viewed symbolically than I do when viewed literally. With the former point of view, I can spend more time thinking about, for instance, what it might mean that Eve was created from Adam’s rib rather then (I believe) missing the point and trying to explain how such an operation could have occurred.

Brigham Young, in referring to the creation as generally understood among Christians, as “Baby Stories.” That comment gives us precendent to reconsider the entire story in a new light, setting aside the limited literalistism for its more engaging symbolism. (A problem we also have when we read or write books about the geography of the Book of Mormon: aren’t we missing the point of the whole book?