Creation and Garden Story: Instructional Value?

[Traveler]

52 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...Im pretty sure the heavens were created either first or at the same time as the earth.

Hum... Where do you think G-d was when (and before) the earth was created?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Hum... Where do you think G-d was when (and before) the earth was created?

 

The Traveler

Somewhere out there.

[Traveler]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Somewhere out there.

But definitely not heaven? (according to your previous post in this thread, that heavens were not created until the earth was created).  I am just wondering if it is just someplace - that is not heaven or heavens – could have it been or was it Hell?  I am thinking if we go back through all your posts – that it is something not up to the glories of heaven – that it is in fact Hell.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 4, 2018 by Traveler

[Chrisberockin]

I always thought that "the heavens" or even sometimes "heaven" means the sky in general, so all of outer space. So obviously God was never outside of the heavens. Unless there is something less obvious going on, like more than three dimensions of space, so God came from another universe and created a new universe (insert a big BANG here), thus the heavens in general were part of his creation. I'm not a big fan of the multiverse interpretation. I'm more a fan of the theory that the milky way galaxy is God's kingdom, and other gods rule other galaxies. But who's to say?

Getting back to the creation story, it is a fairly common interpretation I have heard that when God said "let the heavens appear" it was not the moment that all stars in the night sky were born, but it was the moment that they became visible to the earth, since the earth had hitherto been blanketed by dense clouds of volcanic debris and whatnot.

Sticking to the purpose of this discussion, here's a possible spiritual implication. God our Father has so many wonderful things to show us, if we will have eyes to see. What is obstructing our view? In my experience, when I have trouble making a life decision, I need to lay aside my personal agenda built around prideful and selfish desires in order for God to be able to show me his will. He is the creature of the universe, and he has the power to work wonders in our lives if we can filter out the distractions and humbly seek his direction. A beautifully grand design emerges when we can clear the clouds away.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

But definitely not heaven? (according to your previous post in this thread, that heavens were not created until the earth was created).  I am just wondering if it is just someplace - that is not heaven or heavens – could have it been or was it Hell?  I am thinking if we go back through all your posts – that it is something not up to the glories of heaven – that it is in fact Hell.

 

The Traveler

What are you even talking about? Im confused.

[wenglund]

On 1/4/2018 at 8:17 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...Im pretty sure the heavens were created either first or at the same time as the earth.

The first verse in each account indicates that God(s) created/formed the heaven(s) and earth.

However, it is uncertain whether this is an introduction to the whole story, with the daily details to follow, or whether it is a part of the details for Day One.

If the former, then "heaven" was created the next day after the earth. In this case, the "heaven" spoken of would be the expanse or firmament between the waters, rather than the abode of God and premortal spirits. That heavenly abode already existed prior to "the beginning," since that is when and where the Council was held to make plans for, and to carry out the plans of creating "this heaven and earth upon which you stand." Flimsy support for this proposition is found in Abr. 5:4, which is stated following the account of the creation, and ends up reversing the order by saying: "...in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens"--though this may be a poetic flourish since the first part of the the same verse  speaks of the "...generations of the heavens and earth..."

If the later, then we have at least two "heavens" to account for--the one formed on Day One (absent detials), and the other on Day Two, in which case it would help to know the difference between the two. Could it refer to the spiritual creation as "heaven," and the material creation as "the earth" with its material "heaven"? 

Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 7, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

The first verse in each account indicates that God(s) created/formed the heaven(s) and earth.

However, it is uncertain whether this is an introduction to the whole story, with the daily details to follow, or whether it is a part of the details for Day One.

If the former, then "heaven" was created the next day after the earth. In this case, the "heaven" spoken of would be the expanse or firmament between the waters, rather than the abode of God and premortal spirits. That heavenly abode already existed prior to "the beginning," since that is when and where the Council was held to make plans for, and to carry out the plans of creating "this heaven and earth upon which you stand." Flimsy support for this proposition is found in Abr. 5:4, which is stated following the account of the creation, and ends up reversing the order by saying: "...in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens"--though this may be a poetic flourish since the first part of the the same verse  speaks of the "...generations of the heavens and earth..."

If the later, then we have at least two "heavens" to account for--the one formed on Day One (absent detials), and the other on Day Two, in which case it would help to know the difference between the two. Could it refer to the spiritual creation as "heaven," and the material creation as "the earth" with its material "heaven"? 

Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its kind of confusing because heaven is used in both defining the sky or atmosphere and in defining the universe expanse. In context though I am betting it means our specific galaxy.

[Chrisberockin]

On 1/4/2018 at 6:05 PM, Rob Osborn said:

In context though I am betting it means our specific galaxy.

The galaxy makes sense to me. I mean, sure, a God is all-powerful so I guess it doesn't matter if he lives 50,000 light years away or 1700 billion trillion light years away, but for my mortal mind it makes more sense that his children are in the same galaxy as Him.

His creations are "without number" in the sense that we cannot grasp the number, but they are numbered to God. The Milky Way galaxy has enough worlds to fit this description, in my book. I assume that the universe is endless and that one God can't be the author of all galaxies therein, since there are innumerable gods. So being the creator and ruler of a galaxy is mind-blowingly amazing enough to fit the God I know, and yet it's not so ludicrously limitless that it defies all logic.

The structure of our galaxy shows gradation of glory as you move out from the center, the center being the place where the greatest stars reside, and the outskirts being a place of darkness. In this way the structure of our galaxy seems to fit what God showed Abraham. But I'm not Abraham or God, so I'm a poor judge of what He is capable of. I'm just saying, it makes sense to me. 

[Vort]

7 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

I assume that the universe is endless and that one God can't be the author of all galaxies therein, since there are innumerable gods.

Elder Scott disagreed with your assessment. In the October 2007 General Conference, he said:

"If we were capable of moving outward into space, we would first see our earth as did the astronauts. Farther out, we would have a grandstand view of the sun and its orbiting planets. They would appear as a small circle of objects within an enormous panorama of glittering stars. Were we to continue the outward journey, we would have a celestial view of our Milky Way spiral, with over 100 billion stars rotating in a circular path, their orbits controlled by gravity around a concentrated central region. Beyond that, we could look toward a group of galaxies called the Virgo Cluster, which some feel includes our Milky Way, estimated to be about 50 million light years away. Beyond that, we’d encounter galaxies 10 billion light years away that the Hubble telescope has photographed. The dizzying enormity of that distance is suggested by noting that light travels 700 million miles an hour. Even from this extraordinary perspective there would not be the slightest evidence of approaching any limit to God the Father’s creations."

Clearly, Elder Scott is of the opinion that all these are indeed creations of our Father. I'll stick with Elder Scott on this one.

[Rob Osborn]

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

Elder Scott disagreed with your assessment. In the October 2007 General Conference, he said:

"If we were capable of moving outward into space, we would first see our earth as did the astronauts. Farther out, we would have a grandstand view of the sun and its orbiting planets. They would appear as a small circle of objects within an enormous panorama of glittering stars. Were we to continue the outward journey, we would have a celestial view of our Milky Way spiral, with over 100 billion stars rotating in a circular path, their orbits controlled by gravity around a concentrated central region. Beyond that, we could look toward a group of galaxies called the Virgo Cluster, which some feel includes our Milky Way, estimated to be about 50 million light years away. Beyond that, we’d encounter galaxies 10 billion light years away that the Hubble telescope has photographed. The dizzying enormity of that distance is suggested by noting that light travels 700 million miles an hour. Even from this extraordinary perspective there would not be the slightest evidence of approaching any limit to God the Father’s creations."

Clearly, Elder Scott is of the opinion that all these are indeed creations of our Father. I'll stick with Elder Scott on this one.

So, our one God created the entire universe? Not saying its not possible just highly improbable as we take the notion of President Lorenzo Snow's saying-

"As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be"

If we take this literally then God too was once like you and I contemplating the vast universe and who it was that created all of it. Logic thus points that God has created things in the universe but not the entire universe itself.

[Chrisberockin]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I'll stick with Elder Scott on this one.

Sticking with the prophets is always the right call. The quote you shared is fantastic. I have found a list of other statements like it. Here are just a couple of the good ones.

Joseph Smith: “It has been the design of Jehovah, from the commencement of the world, and is His purpose now, to regulate the affairs of the world in His own time, to stand as a head of the universe, and take the reins of government in His own hand.” (Teachings, p. 250.)

Bruce R. McConkie: “Let’s get a concept instilled in our mind that God is omnipotent, that He is above all things, that the very universe itself is his creation and is subject to Him, that He upholds and preserves and governs it. ...that God is Almighty; that there is no power that He does not possess, no wisdom that does not reside in Him, no infinite expanse of space or duration of time where His influence and power is not felt….” (“The Lord God of Joseph Smith,” BYU devotional, Jan 4, 1972.)

Thomas S. Monson, President: “Thou art the great Elohim, Creator and Ruler of the universe.” (Rexburg Temple dedicatory prayer, Feb 10, 2008.)

Henry B. Eyring: “Thou art the great Elohim, the Almighty, the Governor of the universe who rules over all.” (Payson Temple Dedicatory Prayer, June 7, 2015.)

Henry B. Eyring: “We are mindful that Thou art God, the Father of our spirits, the Almighty Governor of the universe.” (Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple dedicatory prayer, Sep 18, 2016.)

M. Russell Ballard: “...I know councils are the Lord’s way and that He created all things in the universe through a heavenly council, as mentioned in the holy scripture.” (“Family Councils,” GC Apr 2016.)

 

Also there is an Ensign article on the subject:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/04/i-have-a-question/is-jesus-the-creator-and-redeemer-of-other-worlds-besides-this-one?lang=eng

 

Even still, I feel like there is some room for the galaxy interpretation. In the instances where it is stated that God is creator of the whole universe, there are multiple definitions of the word universe, one of which is "a particular sphere of activity, interest, or experience." So we can only guess about the boundaries of God's universe. In the instance of Elder Scott's statement that the Virgo supercluster doesn't even begin to approach the limits of "God the Father’s creations," he is still implying that there is a limit. Or maybe in such instances we need to understand the term "God" as a general title applying to all perfected beings, each one working separately in their own universe or sphere of influence, but bound together by a similar cause. Am I straining at gnats? Perhaps. You are definitely justified in not sharing the galaxy view. I myself do not claim to know whether it is true or not, but I view it as a possibility. I also view it as a possibility that the whole observable universe is within our Father's grasp. It's not possible according to science, but that's not necessarily an important factor to consider.

 

[JohnsonJones]

My postulating on it more than anything else, definitely not something from the prophets.

Well, in physics I believe they have the idea of a multi-verse, where there are multiple universes and our universe is just one of many various universes out there.  Perhaps it is possible that each is ruled over and each in many ways is endless and infinite (we have ideas of how large the universe is, but in reality, we have never seen nor known the edge of the universe, it's just a hypothesis that it even exists [and expanding or contracting depending on the theory] and that there is a boundary to the universe).  It could be that the universe itself is infinite and that there are multiple universes out there that are also existing.  I have no problem thinking that the Father of all things rules over this entire universe and it all is his creation.  It may be that this is not just the only thing he has power over, that he has power over other dimensions (so maybe the spirit world is of this universe, but a different dimension thereof, and the same applies to the heavens?).

 

[wenglund]

On 1/4/2018 at 3:25 PM, wenglund said:

The first verse in each account indicates that God(s) created/formed the heaven(s) and earth.

However, it is uncertain whether this is an introduction to the whole story, with the daily details to follow, or whether it is a part of the details for Day One.

 

I just finished reading Jeffrey M Bradshaw's  Interpreter article regarding Moses 1, where I came across this interesting and perhaps relevant statement:

Quote

Prologue (vv. 1-2). The opening verses to the chapter provide what Bible scholar Laurence Turner calls an “announcement of plot”^[5] — a brief summary of the most important events that will take place in the story that follows.  

So, it is possible that the opening verse in each of the scripture accounts of the creation is an "announcement of plot.," which means that, given the plot that followed, the heaven(s) were created after the earth, with the heaven(s) consisting of the expanse or firmament between the waters.

This isn't doctrine, but a point of interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited January 7, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Forgive me for jumping back to Day One for a moment, but my morning scripture study for the last three days has been to re-read Alma 37 multiple time--it take repetition to get some things to take in my think skull. Within that passage are two verses that may or may not have relevance to the creation story, particularly Day One. I will let you decide. Below, I will provide a sequence of scriptures that occurred to my mind. See if the same prospect is illuminated for you as it was for me--particularly the parts I emphasize):

Gen 1 (emphasis mine)

Quote

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswas upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Godmoved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Alma 37 *emphasis mine)

Quote

24 And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying:

25 I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.

D&C 29 (emphasis mine)

Quote

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the ^afirst shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my ^bSpirit.

D&C 130:6–9 (emphasis mine)

Quote

This earth will become a great Urim and Thummim in its sanctified and immortal state 

It is more than a bit of a stretch, I know, but still something of interest to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, in physics I believe they have the idea of a multi-verse, where there are multiple universes and our universe is just one of many various universes out there.

That's more a Marvel Comics idea. The concept exists as a part of metaphysics, but it's hardly mainstream physics. Mostly it exists as the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum actions. I don't think any physicist actually believes that each quantum event spawns a new reality where the possibilities exist as actual universes that each exist in proportion to the probability of the quantum interaction.

[MrShorty]

On 1/4/2018 at 11:04 AM, Chrisberockin said:

I'm more a fan of the theory that the milky way galaxy is God's kingdom, and other gods rule other galaxies.

The only other time that I have seen the Kolob Theorem brought up on this forum, it was not enthusiastically received: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/61190-what-is-the-scope-of-gods-creation/ As long as I don't have to accept all of the details of the Kolob Theorem (like Galactic core=celestial, inner arms=terrestrial, outer arms=telestial and many of the other creation details), I find the idea of a galaxy as a "family unit of creation", intriguing, but not convincing. I am inclined towards something more like Vort describes Elder Scott where our Father is the Creator of the entirety of our universe -- not just a single galaxy.

[MrShorty]

One idea that I would interject into this, if I may (and if not, just ignore me as I babble on). It's kind of along the lines of "literal" vs. "allegorical" scripture, but more of a "chicken and the egg" question. Which came first -- the cosmology or the revelation/scripture?

When we try to explain why scripture does not seem to describe the universe that we in the 21st century see, we explain that God spoke to Moses (or had Moses explain to the people) in language and concepts that they would understand -- almost as if the cosmology came first, and the revelation/scripture was adapted to fit the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews. This cosmology is described as a flat disc earth at the center of a the universe dividing the waters of heaven above from the waters of the underworld beneath. When day two says that God created the earth to divide the firmament above (heaven) from the firmament beneath (underworld) -- could that just be a simple, straightforward way to say that God created the universe -- in language and concepts that people with that kind of geocentric cosmology could understand.

I recently learned that some have said that Abraham's cosmology in the book of Abraham seems built on an Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology. It has been too long, so I don't recall the details of Aristotle's and Ptolemy's universes, but the basic idea was one where the earth is at the center with the sky/1st heaven immediately surrounding the earth, and the sun in another sphere/heaven above that, and the moon in another sphere/heaven above that, and so on out to the outermost sphere with the fixed stars. In this kind of universe, it is a relatively simple addition to say that, above the sphere with the fixed stars, is a higher heaven/sphere where God dwells and oversees the entire universe. In this universe, inner spheres rotate faster (sun in a day, the moon in a month, the fixed stars in a year), and the outermost sphere would rotate the slowest. Stating that Kolob's sphere takes 1000 years is a way of saying that it is way above the outermost sphere that Abraham's Egyptian milieu would have known.

If the cosmology comes before the revelation/scripture, and God/prophets explain the creation in terms and concepts that the ancient people would understand, then it makes sense to understand what the ancient people believed about the universe, and place the scripture revelation in that context. Perhaps what this does for me more than anything is that I don't feel a need to try to shoehorn my 21st century cosmology into revelation/scripture that was never intended to reflect a 21st century cosmology.

[wenglund]

For those of us into reading prodigiously, here is another relevant book available for free online: In God's Image and Likeness: Creation, Fall, And The Story of Adam and Eve, by Jeffrey M Bradshaw.

His commentary on Day One underscores and illuminates and adds to much of what has been said on this thread thus far.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

One idea that I would interject into this, if I may (and if not, just ignore me as I babble on). It's kind of along the lines of "literal" vs. "allegorical" scripture, but more of a "chicken and the egg" question. Which came first -- the cosmology or the revelation/scripture?

When we try to explain why scripture does not seem to describe the universe that we in the 21st century see, we explain that God spoke to Moses (or had Moses explain to the people) in language and concepts that they would understand -- almost as if the cosmology came first, and the revelation/scripture was adapted to fit the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews. This cosmology is described as a flat disc earth at the center of a the universe dividing the waters of heaven above from the waters of the underworld beneath. When day two says that God created the earth to divide the firmament above (heaven) from the firmament beneath (underworld) -- could that just be a simple, straightforward way to say that God created the universe -- in language and concepts that people with that kind of geocentric cosmology could understand.

I recently learned that some have said that Abraham's cosmology in the book of Abraham seems built on an Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology. It has been too long, so I don't recall the details of Aristotle's and Ptolemy's universes, but the basic idea was one where the earth is at the center with the sky/1st heaven immediately surrounding the earth, and the sun in another sphere/heaven above that, and the moon in another sphere/heaven above that, and so on out to the outermost sphere with the fixed stars. In this kind of universe, it is a relatively simple addition to say that, above the sphere with the fixed stars, is a higher heaven/sphere where God dwells and oversees the entire universe. In this universe, inner spheres rotate faster (sun in a day, the moon in a month, the fixed stars in a year), and the outermost sphere would rotate the slowest. Stating that Kolob's sphere takes 1000 years is a way of saying that it is way above the outermost sphere that Abraham's Egyptian milieu would have known.

If the cosmology comes before the revelation/scripture, and God/prophets explain the creation in terms and concepts that the ancient people would understand, then it makes sense to understand what the ancient people believed about the universe, and place the scripture revelation in that context. Perhaps what this does for me more than anything is that I don't feel a need to try to shoehorn my 21st century cosmology into revelation/scripture that was never intended to reflect a 21st century cosmology.

One other way of looking at is that, as explained earlier, scriptures, particularly those of ancient origins, were written to make a moral point rather than to describe material reality, They were written for religious purposes (i.e. to teach mankind how to behave and what is expected of them) , rather than historical or scientific purposes (i.e. to teach us what has been and now is). As such, when it comes to accuracy, there are quite different focuses. With scripture, the focus of accuracy is on the point being made and not so much on the physical context, whereas with history and science, the focus of accuracy is on what has been and now is, and not so much on moral or ethical outcomes. I think we make a mistake in requiring scriptures to conform to the scientific focus on accuracy, and vice-versa.

Nevertheless, with that in mind, my objective for this thread is to discover what it is about the Creation and Garden Stories that we are supposed to learn to bring us closer to Christ. I am not sure how well that objective can be achieved by attempts to reconcile the stories with science, or as a means of criticizing or rejecting science, though people are certainly free to pursue those angles or interests..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, wenglund said:

For those of us into reading prodigiously, here is another relevant book available for free online: In God's Image and Likeness: Creation, Fall, And The Story of Adam and Eve, by Jeffrey M Bradshaw.

His commentary on Day One underscores and illuminates and adds to much of what has been said on this thread thus far.

 

There is a quote from Bradshaw's book that provides an excellent recap of Day one--particularly the part in bold:

Quote

The Hebrew expression means “Day One,” differing from subsequent periods of Creation that are described using cardinal numbers (e.g., second, third). According to Barker, some Jewish sages “remembered this as the Day (or the State) in which the Holy One was one with his universe. Day One was thus the state of unity underlying (rather than preceding) all the visible creation… Those who entered the Holy of Holies[, the place in the temple representing both the state before Creation and the state of oneness that would eventually prevail again,205] understood how that original unity had become the diversity of the visible creation… [where] everything was created distinct, according to its kind.”206

Genesis Rabbah explains the meaning of Day One: “…for the Holy One, blessed be he, gave him one day, and what is that day? It is the Day of Atonement.”207

Now, back to talking about the second day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnsonJones]

Okay, some of what was written in this thread is a little confusing, but I am wondering about some items which seem to have been brought up.  People have mentioned science in the context of the Creation story, or the idea that the Creation story is symbolic, or that scientific ideas of the creation of the universe and the earth co-exist in confliction at times with the Creation story which makes me wonder if people are suggesting the following?

If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law), would that mean that there were men already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created?  If that is so, what does that mean.  Does it mean that Adam and Eve and their children were the children of God (as Adam was the Son of God) and that there were other men on the Earth?

In that light, would that mean that Adam's children, when it says they went off with the children of men, it is talking about his children marrying, instead of those related to the descendants of Adam, those who were from the evolutionary scale on this planet?

Is that what people are stating?

That could have some interesting ramifications in regards to what we think and understand.  It paints things in an entirely different context.  I think I'll post this in my personal thread.  I'm not sure I'd believe something like this, but it could have some fascinating ideas stemming from it.  Things like the spiritual man descended from Adam verses the animalistic man that comes from evolution.  It would explain one scientific difficulty with the creation story.  We generally think that in order for a species to actually continue to propogate, you need at least 50 individuals so that you have enough genetic variation.  That is a minimum, and without that, your species stands a high chance of dying without some extraordinary measures.  Less than that and you stand an even greater chance of genetics simply causing the entire species to die off.

If you have only TWO of a species, in theory it would be impossible to resurrect the species on it's own (If I recall the biology from many decades ago).  Adam and Eve being only two, would in theory mean the entire species should have died off rather quickly.  If there were other men around for their children to marry, it could explain many things.  For starters, genetic variation that is needed to continue a species.  Perhaps that is also where we get our animalistic tendencies which we have to suppress and overcome...that while the Adamic man was enlightened in those temptations, those who have mixed with the evolutionary man have those animal tendencies in their genetics.

In that same light, one could extrapolate a similar story to the Book of Mormon.  We typically think of Lehi's family, and we do not know the exact numbers.  By extrapolation we could postulate that there were Four Brothers and their wives, Zoram and his wife, and then two Daughters and the Sons of Ishamael for a genetic pool of 14, not including Joseph and Jacob.  Of course that pool is lessened because it is almost strictly from 3 families, with a majority from two of the families. 

What if there was a large population here in the Americas to a degree already which they met and married into?  We know that Nephi states that they had already had wars before the end of his life...however with the numbers that appeared to be in the Book of Mormon at first, those would be more like skirmishes than wars.  War indicates a LARGE number of individuals, or at least larger than a dozen on each side.  Could it be that they also intermarried?

In regards to Genetics and temptation by our animal instincts, it could also explain why the Lord could be perfect.  He still inherited the downfall of the evolved man, but since he had a father that did NOT have those genetic defects, he inherited the perfected genes of man before that interbreeding?  Hence he had more of a perfect man than the fallen man we had become.

As I said, I don't really believe any of this, but when it came up, it brought some very interesting thoughts to mind.  It's pure nonsense, sure, but an interesting exercise to think about.  What puzzles me though, are those who profess the belief in science and faith who also say evolution is something they adhere to.  How exactly does that work when related to the Creation story.  A LOT of biology these days is based upon the principles of evolution (which, though just a theory had a huge revolution in regards to biology and it's theorums), as I understand it from a colleague who also is a professor in Biology.  If we are bringing in the ideas of science in regards to the Creationist story...how does that play out.  Is it like what I describe above?  How does one correlate evolution with the Creation story?

I for one do NOT adhere that the idea of macro evolution (is that the term for it, where man descended from Apes) is something that actually occurred, being more of a Bible literalist and thus I suppose a Creationist...though I do accept the ideas of micro evolution (I think biologist have shown that beyond any doubt at this point), but how does someone who is a Biologist and accepts the current ideas of biology correlate that with the Creation story. 

I hardly think one could say it was purely symbolic, for if it were, a LOT of the scriptures get tossed out along with that idea if we accept that take.  What exactly are people saying when they say science should be accepted in how we view things and the Bible is more symbolic.  Like something above?  I find this idea puzzling, though intriguing.

[wenglund]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Okay, some of what was written in this thread is a little confusing, but I am wondering about some items which seem to have been brought up.  People have mentioned science in the context of the Creation story, or the idea that the Creation story is symbolic, or that scientific ideas of the creation of the universe and the earth co-exist in confliction at times with the Creation story which makes me wonder if people are suggesting the following?

If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law), would that mean that there were men already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created?  If that is so, what does that mean.  Does it mean that Adam and Eve and their children were the children of God (as Adam was the Son of God) and that there were other men on the Earth?

In that light, would that mean that Adam's children, when it says they went off with the children of men, it is talking about his children marrying, instead of those related to the descendants of Adam, those who were from the evolutionary scale on this planet?

Is that what people are stating?

That could have some interesting ramifications in regards to what we think and understand.  It paints things in an entirely different context.  I think I'll post this in my personal thread.  I'm not sure I'd believe something like this, but it could have some fascinating ideas stemming from it.  Things like the spiritual man descended from Adam verses the animalistic man that comes from evolution.  It would explain one scientific difficulty with the creation story.  We generally think that in order for a species to actually continue to propogate, you need at least 50 individuals so that you have enough genetic variation.  That is a minimum, and without that, your species stands a high chance of dying without some extraordinary measures.  Less than that and you stand an even greater chance of genetics simply causing the entire species to die off.

If you have only TWO of a species, in theory it would be impossible to resurrect the species on it's own (If I recall the biology from many decades ago).  Adam and Eve being only two, would in theory mean the entire species should have died off rather quickly.  If there were other men around for their children to marry, it could explain many things.  For starters, genetic variation that is needed to continue a species.  Perhaps that is also where we get our animalistic tendencies which we have to suppress and overcome...that while the Adamic man was enlightened in those temptations, those who have mixed with the evolutionary man have those animal tendencies in their genetics.

In that same light, one could extrapolate a similar story to the Book of Mormon.  We typically think of Lehi's family, and we do not know the exact numbers.  By extrapolation we could postulate that there were Four Brothers and their wives, Zoram and his wife, and then two Daughters and the Sons of Ishamael for a genetic pool of 14, not including Joseph and Jacob.  Of course that pool is lessened because it is almost strictly from 3 families, with a majority from two of the families. 

What if there was a large population here in the Americas to a degree already which they met and married into?  We know that Nephi states that they had already had wars before the end of his life...however with the numbers that appeared to be in the Book of Mormon at first, those would be more like skirmishes than wars.  War indicates a LARGE number of individuals, or at least larger than a dozen on each side.  Could it be that they also intermarried?

In regards to Genetics and temptation by our animal instincts, it could also explain why the Lord could be perfect.  He still inherited the downfall of the evolved man, but since he had a father that did NOT have those genetic defects, he inherited the perfected genes of man before that interbreeding?  Hence he had more of a perfect man than the fallen man we had become.

As I said, I don't really believe any of this, but when it came up, it brought some very interesting thoughts to mind.  It's pure nonsense, sure, but an interesting exercise to think about.  What puzzles me though, are those who profess the belief in science and faith who also say evolution is something they adhere to.  How exactly does that work when related to the Creation story.  A LOT of biology these days is based upon the principles of evolution (which, though just a theory had a huge revolution in regards to biology and it's theorums), as I understand it from a colleague who also is a professor in Biology.  If we are bringing in the ideas of science in regards to the Creationist story...how does that play out.  Is it like what I describe above?  How does one correlate evolution with the Creation story?

I for one do NOT adhere that the idea of macro evolution (is that the term for it, where man descended from Apes) is something that actually occurred, being more of a Bible literalist and thus I suppose a Creationist...though I do accept the ideas of micro evolution (I think biologist have shown that beyond any doubt at this point), but how does someone who is a Biologist and accepts the current ideas of biology correlate that with the Creation story. 

I hardly think one could say it was purely symbolic, for if it were, a LOT of the scriptures get tossed out along with that idea if we accept that take.  What exactly are people saying when they say science should be accepted in how we view things and the Bible is more symbolic.  Like something above?  I find this idea puzzling, though intriguing.

I can't speak for others on this thread, nor am I in a position to respond to your interesting question--I will leave that to other threads that deal more directly with those issues.

The point that I have been making, though, is that given the purpose of the scriptures (i.e. bring us to Christ), which is a different purpose than that of history and science, then the scriptures need not conform to scientific rigor, but may rightly be allowed some literary and poetic license. 

For example, the good folks at the Interpreter Foundation just published a relevant article on, "What Can The Architecture of Israelite Temples Teach Us About the Creation and the Garden of Eden?  Here is the summary, which somewhat bears out my point (emphasis mine):

Quote

Summary: The descriptions of the days of creation in Genesis and the book of Moses differ from those found in the book of Abraham and in modern temples. In contrast to the latter accounts, the narratives in Genesis and the book of Moses seem to have been deliberately shaped to highlight resemblances between the creation of the universe and the architecture of the Tabernacle and later Israelite temples. Understanding these parallels helps explain why, for example, in seeming contradiction to scientific understanding,^[2] the description of the creation of the sun and moon appears after, rather than before, the creation of light and of the earth. Careful study also reveals that not only the Creation, but also the Garden of Eden provided a model for the architecture of the temple.

Since we just moved on from Day One to the second day of creation, it should be noted that, according to the Interpreter article,  day two signifies the creation of the veil in the temple (symbolized by the expanse or firmament ), which separates the waters above (the Holy of Holies--this was figuratively brought into existence on Day One when God said, "Let there be light".) from the waters below (the Holy Place).

Such isn't pertinent to science. So, something to think about. 

What this teaches me in terms of the stated purpose of the gospel and scriptures (i.e to better enable us to seek Christ), is that the Creation and Garden stories, for all their plausible interpretations, provide a covenant and temple context that testify that Jesus is the Christ (the temple veil), that leads us back to the Father (Holy of Holies), and that there is no other way but through him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

....

If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law),

....

 

There is a little misunderstanding of science - evolution is a demonstrable fact.  It is the limitations of evolution that is just theory.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

There is a little misunderstanding of science - evolution is a demonstrable fact.  It is the limitations of evolution that is just theory.

 

The Traveler

We've seen provable micro evolution from what I know, but never the entire macro evolution where man is descended from Apes.  From what I see, it is merely conjecture similar to finding similar shaped rocks and saying that all those rocks are connected or related in some way. 

Mind of course, though I talk to Biologists (and others at the university in other departments) I am by no means a scientist in that arena.  Those Biologist DO treat evolution more as a LAW rather than a theory (nevertheless it IS a theory) in regards to not just micro evolution, but also macro evolution.  I am a historian and as such normally deal with things AFTER the advent of mankind, and even moreso after the advent of writing and record keeping that we are aware of.

If one does feel that this form of evolution is FACT though, how do they correlate it with the story of Adam and Eve.  Some say it is symbolic, but if you take it that Adam and Eve were literal individuals, how do you recompense that between the story of Adam and Eve and the ideas behind evolution.  You'd have to have two separate groups there, which eventually would have to intermix in some way (and perhaps if that were the case, those who are the children of Abraham are the TRUE descendants of heaven, whereas those who are not are those that are counted as the children of the apes...or something like that)?

How does one correlate the two together if they believe both?  (and obviously I'm an ape>human skeptic, but I'm interested in what ideas people would postulate who do think in that manner).

Edited January 9, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[wenglund]

On 12/1/2017 at 3:21 PM, wenglund said:

Any other thoughts on the opening phrase of Genesis: "In the beginning?"

 

I went on to ask, "Beginning of what?"

Well, I just reread Moses 2:1, and found this interesting insight within the introductory passage to the creation story: "And it came to pass that the Lord Spake unto Moses, saying: . . .I am the Beginning..." (Emphasis mine)  

So, is the creation story essentially about Christ--not just regarding his role as Creator, but also as a key element or key elements of the "creation? "

In other words, in relation to Day One, when God said, "let there be light, and....divided the light from the darkness (ibid vs 3-4), was that referring to Christ?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned Jn 1:1-5,, and how it stated "In the beginning," thus inferring Christ, and went on to denote that the Word, which is Christ, was the life and the light of the world (v. 4) and, not coincidentally, that the light shinneth in  darkness, though the darkness cant comprehend the light (v. 5),  signifying a separation between the two.

With this scriptural connection in mind, we learn from Day One that one of Christ's divine roles was to give life and to be a light unto the word, and to be n exemplar showing and providing the way.

What about the Second Day of creation? Well, I mentioned earlier that the expanse or firmament that divided the "waters" symbolized the temple veil that separated the Holy of Holies (heaven) from the Holy Place (earth). Now, if we look at Matt 27:51 we learn that the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom upon the death of Christ, thereby symbolically allowing access between heaven and earth. And, in Heb 10:20 we learn that the veil is symbolic of Christ's flesh.

Thus, we learn from the Second day about Christ's divine role as mediator and intercessor and interface between God the Father and  mankind, the bridge between heaven and earth, and ultimately, through the death/renting and resurrection of Christ's body,  we are provided access back to the Father.

It will be interesting to see if the Third Day has something to teach us about Christ, if not also about covenant relationships with God and the temple, and this assuming we already grasp what it suggests about the material creation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Edited January 15, 2018 by wenglund