Creation and Garden Story: Instructional Value?


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

(I have also heard that the separate hemispheres theories from years past are turning out to be seriously flawed or flat out wrong.  FYI.  I have no idea as I have no real knowledge on the subject myself beyond what we've all heard.)

Meanwhile, in case it will clarify where I'm coming from in my posts above, I'll use an example.  When I hear / read the word "blue", any number of the following may pop into my brain (or other things, and any combination, depending on the moment):

  • Sky
  • Moon
  • 2.4 years
  • specific shades of the color
  • sad
  • weimaraner
  • Russian Blue cats
  • steel
  • various inks
  • certain clothes
  • denim

The longer I think, the more possibilities there are to associate things with the word "blue".  Similarly, I may hear some element of the creation story and it may trigger a thought that doesn't seem to relate to the planet's creation, and this thought may trigger another thought, stirring those together may cause me to see something I didn't consider before.  So, I'm not really thinking about the creation of the Earth so much as something that the creation story caused me to consider in a new / different way - it may look like trying to interpret the story in a different way, but to me it's more like using the story to understand something different.  FWIW.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It seems that you're really reaching, just so you can force this interpretation to work.  If you want some special interpretation, then I'd say that the separation of the light and darkness are more likely a reference to the outcome of the war in heaven.  The light began because our Father organized our intelligences into spirits.  Thus there was light where there was not before.  He separated the light from the darkness by casting out the 1/3 of heaven into the abyss and gave us (2/3) a chance to progress on earth.

I like that interpretation. However, what meaning do you give to the words "day" and "night" as well as "morning" and "evening" in Gen 1:5, particularly given that Lucifer is known as the "son of the morning" (see HERE) and both he and Christ are referred to as "the morning star" (see HERE and HERE)? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If you look at it as a repeating pattern, then you also have to say that the creation cycle is a repeating pattern.  It isn't.  Sure we have generations of creatures being born again and again.  But they cycles of the earth are not so repetitive....In order to have a credible claim to a valid interpretation there has to be some level of respect for the written word as it is or we are basically saying that the written word means nothing or it is flawed in some way.  To justify the at least partially concurrent interpetation, you have to explain away the statements (like I mentioned above) which clearly show a separation between days.  To justify the cyclical inpterpretation, you have to explain why some parts (such as the creation of the earth itself) doesn't seem to follow this cycle.

Are you sure? Many of us consider the four seasons each year as a cycle  where the earth goes from creation to death, or from morning (spring), to day (summer), to evening (fall), and ti night (winter).

Also, we believe that all things were created spiritually before they were naturally on the earth (Moses 3:5), making at least 2 cycles of earthly creation. In fact, a tight reading of Moses 3:4-5 suggest that the 7 days of creation accounted in Genesis 1 and Moses 2, are actually in reference to the spiritual creation--i.e. when all things were created as spirits, not to be confused with creating things spiritually (the telestial word) of Adam and Eve prior to the fall), making a third cycle.

In fact, the cycle in which things were created as spirits was referred to as "generations" (note the plural) of heaven and earth.. (Gen 2:4 and Moses 3:4)

Then, there is the baptism (rebirth) of the earth through the flood. Add to this also the new heaven and earth to be created following the millennium. 

I am not suggesting that your criticism is necessarily incorrect, but that there may be some basis for not completely ruling out a cyclical interpretation, if not also the prospect of overlapping days., 

Besides, this assumes a literal material creation, with discrete periods of time, rather than a symbolic interpretation (functional or covenant creation) with multiple aspects denoted as "days."

Again, I am not proposing new doctrine. But, as Zil wisely said, "it's more like using the story to understand something different."

Nevertheless, I appreciate you causing me to think things through more thoroughly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

In order to have a credible claim to a valid interpretation there has to be some level of respect for the written word as it is or we are basically saying that the written word means nothing or it is flawed in some way.  To justify the at least partially concurrent interpetation, you have to explain away the statements (like I mentioned above) which clearly show a separation between days.  To justify the cyclical inpterpretation, you have to explain why some parts (such as the creation of the earth itself) doesn't seem to follow this cycle.

If each of the days of the creation accounts were discretely and sequentially concluded prior to the Fall, and "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (Gen 2:1), then how are we, who were born after the Fall, yet considered as God's creations? (Isaiah 43:1,7, Malachi 2:10 Colossians 1:16, Revelation 4:11,, Jacob 2:21,  Mosiah 2:20-21,23,25,  Ether 3:15-16, Moses 1:8,32-33

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 6:08 AM, Carborendum said:

DARKNESS, ETC.

In the creation story, "darkness" represents nothingness.  It is also the place where God was not.  It could very well be a form of "outer darkness."  I tend to think that the place where we call outer darkness is just the place where God's infinite realm has not yet extended.  There's a reason it is "OUTER" darkness.  There's nothing there. 

 

I am not sure that “nothingness” has definition.   In D&C 88 we are told that there is no space in which there is no kingdom.  In scientific terms, there have been attempts to define nothingness – particularly in quantum mechanics.  However, there are problems because space time forces that there is dimension.  And it is difficult to explain how gravity can cross voids of nothing or otherwise affected (Example: gravitational lensing).  It was thought that singularity can be a kind of nothingness – but the only singularity that has theoretical feasibility is a Black Hole.  The Theory of Black Holes suggest that all singularities are Black Holes and that the Big Bang was initially a singularity.   But the universe is too massive to be contained by a Black Hole and quantum animalities would have triggered hundreds of millions of Big Bang rather than a singular Big Bang.

In short “darkness” spoken of in scripture represents something.  There is a “Kingdom” of darkness.  A kingdom of darkness that opposes light and all kingdoms of light.   I believe we are better served with the notion that darkness is the anti-light or the opposite of light such that as light (light of G-d) exists so does darkness which is the opposite of G-d’s light.  Such darkness is comprised of evil and all things evil.  Evil cannot abide light and there must be space (dimensional space time) that can accommodate darkness – a place that G-d has prepared. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

I like that interpretation. However, what meaning do you give to the words "day" and "night" as well as "morning" and "evening" in Gen 1:5, particularly given that Lucifer is known as the "son of the morning" (see HERE) and both he and Christ are referred to as "the morning star" (see HERE and HERE)? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The meaning of Lucifer has nothing to do with the creation story.  Notice that none of the versions of the creation story use that name.  It is only used in other parts of scripture.  And for obvious reasons, I won't go into the exception you're probably already thinking of.

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Are you sure? Many of us consider the four seasons each year as a cycle  where the earth goes from creation to death, or from morning (spring), to day (summer), to evening (fall), and ti night (winter).

Yes, I'm sure.  The annual seasonal cycles are more akin to our waking and sleeping each day.  And the earth itself does not change during such cycles.  The earth is always warm on half the globe and cold on the other half no matter the time of year.  You're still reaching just to shoe horn in your interpretation.  Give me some statement by an apostle that agrees with what you're saying and that will have more weight.   So far, you've given very tenuous connections to your interpretations.  They're just not convincing.

You want to believe these connections, go ahead.  I really don't see how it changes anything.  I don't see what insights it gives us.

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

If each of the days of the creation accounts were discretely and sequentially concluded prior to the Fall, and "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (Gen 2:1), then how are we, who were born after the Fall, yet considered as God's creations? (Isaiah 43:1,7, Malachi 2:10 Colossians 1:16, Revelation 4:11,, Jacob 2:21,  Mosiah 2:20-21,23,25,  Ether 3:15-16, Moses 1:8,32-33

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Because we ARE God's creations.  But this is more a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The meaning of Lucifer has nothing to do with the creation story.  Notice that none of the versions of the creation story use that name.  It is only used in other parts of scripture.  And for obvious reasons, I won't go into the exception you're probably already thinking of.

Fair enough. the part you chose to comment on was the less weighty part of the question. I was more interested in your understanding of the word "day," particularly given that at that point in the story there were no markers of time, discrete or otherwise.

Quote

Yes, I'm sure.  The annual seasonal cycles are more akin to our waking and sleeping each day.  And the earth itself does not change during such cycles.  The earth is always warm on half the globe and cold on the other half no matter the time of year.  You're still reaching just to shoe horn in your interpretation.  Give me some statement by an apostle that agrees with what you're saying and that will have more weight.   So far, you've given very tenuous connections to your interpretations.  They're just not convincing.

Yes, my proposition is tissuey at best. That is why I called it a "glass darkly" view. But, what else would one expect of mysteries of godliness? It is not as if God has set such things out plainly like a thesis paper with ample documentation. And, the fact that no apostles have agreed with me is certainly indicative, at least on one level, that my proposition is not necessary or vital to the current gospel scheme of things. Indeed, it can be ignored without meaningful consequence. It was presented simply as a light brush stoke on an otherwise elaborate and wondrous canvas that is the gospel, to chance reflecting a bit of light that could give richer meaning.

Quote

You want to believe these connections, go ahead.  I really don't see how it changes anything.  I don't see what insights it gives us.

I am struggling with that as well, though not just with my proposition, but also with the whole creation narrative. I have been wondering for some time now what is the point? How will learning of the six days of creation better my life? I don't yet have an answer, though I sense the some level of understanding is just over the next developmental peak as I climb the mountain of faith. I'll see.

Quote

Because we ARE God's creations.  But this is more a rhetorical question, isn't it?

No. It was a genuine investigatory question--which wasn't challenging whether we ARE God's creations or not (we both accept that as a given), but how it is that we are his creations given a rigidly discrete and sequential reading of the text. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I was more interested in your understanding of the word "day," particularly given that at that point in the story there were no markers of time, discrete or otherwise.

Definitions:

Quote

a specified time or period

Any period where some action takes place is considered time according to man's reconing.  "Day" has multiple meanings.  "Back in my day..." "Those were the days."  Day can simply mean a time when something happened.  The periods of creation qualify.  The units of measure according to man were not yet invented.  But God chose to call those periods "days".

I can play semantics all day long.  But at some point it does get boring.

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I am struggling with that as well, though not just with my proposition, but also with the whole creation narrative. I have been wondering for some time now what is the point? How will learning of the six days of creation better my life? I don't yet have an answer, though I sense the some level of understanding is just over the next developmental peak as I climb the mountain of faith. I'll see.

I do have a belief that at some point, we will realize that the creation story is actually historical on some level.  We just don't have enough information to know how that may be.  The primary point is the creation of Adam and Eve.  And the differences and similarities in the different accounts are very telling in that regard.  But you can't just start a story with God creating Adam and Eve.  The precursor must be there (i.e. the creation of the earth).

Today, we already have people saying,"How could plants be there if there were no sun?"  Imagine if the story started with Adam and Eve being placed on the earth.  People would be asking,"How can a man and woman survive on the earth alone without food?"

Another thing is that there is that point about obedience.  And that is very helpful to us today.

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

No. It was a genuine investigatory question--which wasn't challenging whether we ARE God's creations or not (we both accept that as a given), but how it is that we are his creations given a rigidly discrete and sequential reading of the text. ;)

On multiple levels:

1) We are His spirit Children.
2) He also has taught and continues to teach and raise us.
3) By creating the prototype physical body that then creates replications means that He created the replications as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a point of non-doctrinal and relatively inconsequential interest, I came across one more factor of consideration for Day One. It came by way of Margaret Baker, one of the non-LDS favorites of the Interpreter Foundation, in an article she wrote more than a decade ago titled, "Creation Theology."

By way of introduction, she points out (using words similar to our own Carborendum) that:

Quote

Questions have been asked about the creation stories in Genesis, and answered in various ways: Is Genesis true?which for some means Is it historically accurate? Did the snake really speak? is another problem for some. More interesting is the question: Who created the snake? because this immediately draws our attention to the fact that a great deal of the material pre-supposed by the biblical writers, the background to their writing so to speak, is not found in the Bible itself. Genesis 1-3 is profoundly true, but historicity is not a relevant question because it was not written as history. The biblical material must be treated with respect and allowed to speak for itself. It is the literature of a pre-philosophical culture, in which profound issues were debated by means of stories and vivid imagery such as talking snakes. Anyone who has seen pictures of the Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns in the Book of Revelation knows that taking things too literally helps nobody.

She goes on to explain, in so many words, that creation theology is essentially temple theology. The creation story is all about the temple--particularly its structure and rituals--which, if correct, means that we LDS include as an aspect of our temple ceremony instruction on the temple, itself.

The question may rightly be raised as to which temple is referenced in the creation story? Is it the heavenly throne of God and the earthly footstool? Is it the "Garden" temple? Is it the "first heaven and earth," or the "new heaven and earth?" Is it the alter places constructed from Adam to Moses? Is it the mountain of the Lord wherein Moses was six days in the presence of God? Is it the tent of the tabernacle carried about in the wilderness for 40 years? Is it first and or second temples of Solomon, including the one cleansed by Christ? Is it modern temples? Or, on a more personal and salvific level, is it the temple of our bodies? Or, in terms of exaltation, is it the marriage between man and wife, with progenitors and forefathers?

That is for each of us to decide. For my part, I believe it is all of the above.

That having been said,  Barker asserts that Day One of the creation story is about the Holy of Holies, and Day Two is about the veil. Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Definitions:

Any period where some action takes place is considered time according to man's reckoning.  "Day" has multiple meanings.  "Back in my day..." "Those were the days."  Day can simply mean a time when something happened.  The periods of creation qualify.  The units of measure according to man were not yet invented.  But God chose to call those periods "days".

I can play semantics all day long.  But at some point it does get boring.

Actually, as intimated earlier in the thread,  it wasn't a period of "time" that God call "day," but rather the name he gave to the light he had created. The intent here, for me, isn't semantic debate, but clarity of meaning--which, to ancient near Easterners like Moses (who recorded the story in Genesis and Moses) and Abraham, may consist of layers and layers.

However, I get your point. Haggling over such minute points can become tedious and even dis-interesting.  Whatever beauty the story may hold can get quickly lost in the fine dissecting and cold calculating debate. 

So, perhaps it best to leave it at that, and to each their own.

Quote

On multiple levels:

1) We are His spirit Children.
2) He also has taught and continues to teach and raise us.
3) By creating the prototype physical body that then creates replications means that He created the replications as well.

Wonderful! However, don't those levels extend beyond the rigid parameters of a discrete and sequential reading of the story? ;)  No need to answer, of course.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

However, don't those levels extend beyond the rigid parameters of a discrete and sequential reading of the story? ;)  No need to answer, of course.

Yes.  That's why I thought it was a rhetorical question.  It really had nothing to do with the creation narrative.  So, why bother asking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes.  That's why I thought it was a rhetorical question.  It really had nothing to do with the creation narrative.  So, why bother asking?

In my mind the creation narrative, with, as I assume, multiple layers of meaning, entails all of the creations of God. That is why I asked. Evidently, it doesn't in your mind, and thus the disconnect between us. No problem. Forget I asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any relationship between the Creation Story and Christmas --aside from there being half as many days of Creation as the "Twelve Days of Christmas"?

Perhaps there may be some relevance to Christmas with Day One of the creation and the birth of light?

Might several other of the creation days be represented in this scene?

Manger.jpg

 

Could the 7th day be represented in this image?

risen-christ.jpg

 

Or, is this all a figment of my non-doctrinal imagination?

Either way, MERRY CHRISTMAS to one and all!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the creation story in Abraham 4:26 contains the words, "Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness". It struck me one day that they indeed did come down, but perhaps not in the way I had imaged it. I realized that the story of their coming down might be a story I had heard a thousand times. It is the story told to Nephi by the angel. Nephi relates it as follows, "Knowest thou the condescension of God?" Or in other words, "Do you know how God came down?" Deep meaning in those words! Nephi continues, "And I said unto him I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh...and I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me; Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the Son of the Eternal Father!" 

So they indeed did come down and are in the midst of forming man in their image after their likeness. But the process is not yet complete and their coming was not just to Adam and Eve but to all of us that Christmas morning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, james12 said:

Part of the creation story in Abraham 4:26 contains the words, "Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness". It struck me one day that they indeed did come down, but perhaps not in the way I had imaged it. I realized that the story of their coming down might be a story I had heard a thousand times. It is the story told to Nephi by the angel. Nephi relates it as follows, "Knowest thou the condescension of God?" Or in other words, "Do you know how God came down?" Deep meaning in those words! Nephi continues, "And I said unto him I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh...and I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me; Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the Son of the Eternal Father!" 

So they indeed did come down and are in the midst of forming man in their image after their likeness. But the process is not yet complete and their coming was not just to Adam and Eve but to all of us that Christmas morning. 

Powerful. It made my Christmas Eve that much more blessed.

If I may add yet one more layer to what you said, They will go down once more to form man in their image and likeness:

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man cam death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive....And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, and the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; and the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Cor 15:19-21,45-49)

And thus Christmas and Easter, if not also the creation story, have become one eternal round through the birth and rebirth (resurrection) of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this stuff. So many people have provided insightful contractions.

I just thought I would share this important tidbit from Joseph Smith: "In the translation 'without form and void' it should read, 'empty and desolate.' " (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,pg. 181.)

To me, the word empty makes me picture outer space. Space is never truly empty, but matter can be so disorganized and spread apart that it becomes what we would call empty space or without form. But we will assume that God is able to manipulate the universe counter to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and is able to cause the universe to become more organized. The word "desolate" suggests to me that "void" is referring to "void of life." God used his powers to form a place where he could live which could not have been possible without his divine intervention.

It is not hard to see personal, everyday application of this concept. We are born without blemish but left to our own power we slowly become more wicked unless we turn to that divine power which is able to create order in our lives. Brigham Young taught that life means organization. Eternal life is enjoying complete organization, while spiritual death means becoming relatively less organized.

The other concept that I am keenly interested in is Christ being called the Word. This always struck me as unnecessarily confusing for those who don't understand that Christ is a separate individual from the Father. But for those of us who do know the correct nature of the Godhead, I think it is very instructive to know that Jesus is referred to as the word of God or the power of God's word. We know that what made Christ stand out from the rest of us in the preexistence as well as in mortality was his perfect obedience. Because of this aptitude for obedience, he is able to be one with his father. They are one in mind, one in purpose, etc. Other great ones also showed this trait (Adam, for example, had a natural desire to keep all of God's commandments) but aside from Jesus we all need to work on obedience. With obedience comes oneness with God, and this brings power and knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I enjoy the symbolism of the creation and garden stories, I believe it is wise to keep one foot firmly planted in the literal interpretation . Whether you come down on the side of young or old earth, or otherwise, there is something deeply reassuring in believing that  the Father, through His Son, is the builder and captain of the physical cosmic ship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There  is also this relevant podcast from Ben Spackman. It is titled: "Misunderstanding the Bible."

Here is a brief description:

Quote

From the New Testament, we learn that Jesus’s favorite mode of teaching was through fiction; he taught parables. Although the characters and events may not be historical, few Christians question the truth in the messages.

Despite comfort with parables, some Christians become unsettled thinking about elements of the Bible as being non-historical. Biblical scholar Ben Spackman points out that this hesitancy is inherited from Enlightenment thinking, which regarded revelation as truth and truth as scientific or historical fact. This thinking, Ben points out, causes many readers to jettison common sense and plain readings of scriptural text.

Often times when reading scripture, the assumption is made that the text is either literal or figurative, but these two categories are insufficient to describe the different genres of scriptures.

It would be more helpful to approach the Bible as if it were a library that contained books of many different genre instead of being all the 

same type of writing. No Christian would presume to label all scripture as parable. Likewise all scripture should not be labeled as history. The Bible contains books of satire, law codes, poetry, parables, myth, conquest narratives, and prophetic revelation among other things.

The type of “thing” or genre of a given book is indicated by genre markers. For instance, Americans can tell a book is a fairy tale if it begins with “Once upon a time.” Genre 

markers in the Bible can be identified similarly by biblical scholars familiar with the culture.

Readers should also keep in mind that ancient Israelites approached the use of history in scripture differently than modern authors. Historical accuracy is actually a modern concept. Biblical writers often fashioned history to teach a higher purpose. If some of the historical details were fudged, then that was regarded as acceptable if done to make a point.

 I look forward to Ben's forthcoming book on Genesis 1.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am seeing a trend of LDS scholars paving a road of modern Mormon interpretations over the prophets. Ben Spackman, Jeffery, Peck, amongst others are, or have been, the lead pavers forging a road on their own and surprisingly many are following relying on the trust and arm of the flesh. Frankly, I find it deeply troubling.

Slowly but surely we are replacing biblical understanding with secularism and in that process the bible, its stories and its writers are now thought of in more mythical senses, especially whenever there is a conflict with secular teachings. 

The more I read and hear the less inclined am I to believe them just because of their secular credentials. I dont care if they have spent half their lives studying secular understandings at prestigious schools, my 10 year old daughter knows more revealed truth about the creation than they do! Why is it that it appears tgat the longer one spends in secular schooling they become less inclined to literally believe the scriptures? Why is that? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I am seeing a trend of LDS scholars paving a road of modern Mormon interpretations over the prophets

Rob, I sincerely don't understand this. As one who openly encourages doctrinal interpretations of Section 76 that run in direct opposition to the teachings of all latter-day prophets, you (one would think) should be the last person to get upset about people having heterodox positions. What gives? Why is it okay to reinterpret Section 76 to suit one's fancy, but not okay to say the organic evolution is not a doctrinal issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

Rob, I sincerely don't understand this. As one who openly encourages doctrinal interpretations of Section 76 that run in direct opposition to the teachings of all latter-day prophets, you (one would think) should be the last person to get upset about people having heterodox positions. What gives? Why is it okay to reinterpret Section 76 to suit one's fancy, but not okay to say the organic evolution is not a doctrinal issue?

Im not using a secular reasoning to interpret section 76. Thats a separte distinct issue.

My point is that the more one is involved with secular schooling the more likely they are to discount the literalness of the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im not using a secular reasoning to interpret section 76. Thats a separte distinct issue.

My point is that the more one is involved with secular schooling the more likely they are to discount the literalness of the scriptures.

So it's okay to discount the teachings of the prophets so long as your reasoning isn't secular? The problem with evolution isn't that it defies prophetic teachings, but that it defies prophetic teachings using secular reasoning? Do I understand you correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Vort said:

So it's okay to discount the teachings of the prophets so long as your reasoning isn't secular? The problem with evolution isn't that it defies prophetic teachings, but that it defies prophetic teachings using secular reasoning? Do I understand you correctly?

Evolution theory, taught by secularly taught LDS is becoming a problem. Its shaping the new generations of LDS students to automatically discount scripture in favor of secular understanding.

I believe you are introducing apples into a discussion about oranges. Distinctly different concepts. If you would like, we can start another thread to discuss prophetic errancy/ clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I am seeing a trend of LDS scholars paving a road of modern Mormon interpretations over the prophets. Ben Spackman, Jeffery, Peck, amongst others are, or have been, the lead pavers forging a road on their own and surprisingly many are following relying on the trust and arm of the flesh. Frankly, I find it deeply troubling.

Slowly but surely we are replacing biblical understanding with secularism and in that process the bible, its stories and its writers are now thought of in more mythical senses, especially whenever there is a conflict with secular teachings. 

The more I read and hear the less inclined am I to believe them just because of their secular credentials. I dont care if they have spent half their lives studying secular understandings at prestigious schools, my 10 year old daughter knows more revealed truth about the creation than they do! Why is it that it appears tgat the longer one spends in secular schooling they become less inclined to literally believe the scriptures? Why is that? 

 

You have inadvertently and mistakenly imposed a binary mindset on what is happening on this thread. Here, certainly with me, the secular (oft the product of religious scientists) isn't replacing the prophetic. Rather, it is adding to it, along the lines of the 13th Article of Faith and Joseph Smith's comments about the best books and truth as one eternal round. . 

What I intend here isn't for everyone, least of all the dogmatic, binary minded, and the symbolically and imaginative challenged.;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share