Adam and Eve and Evolution


zlllch
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

There is a very big and glaring problem for those that do not believe in evolution but do believe in a global flood at the time of Noah (5,000 years ago?).  Given the dimensions of the Ark – it would not be big enough to hold just two all the known species of worms.  If evolution is not a part of our history there could not have been a global flood and an Ark to save the vast species that exist currently.

Even if one believes in evolution there is a lot of missing links needed to justify the vast species evolving so rapidly since the flood.  There are some definite problems with evolution but be very careful in criticizing the flaws that can just as easily erode the claim that the Bible is correct and science is wrong.

 

The Traveler

I think this is the entire relevance of the debate.  It is not that we are ever going to be able to fill the holes on either side.  Both choices require accepting a standard full of unknowns, unprovables, and undeniables. Each is rife with exceptions of merit to consider.  However, both are clearly one thing that the other is not.  The creation story as outlined in scriptural and related sources has a faith based requirement for its acceptance.  The theories of science on the other hand are ostensibly predicated on a proof based priority.  So polarizing is the issue that individuals feel compelled to choose one of these perspectives as the dominate acceptable perspective in which they claim confidence. Since neither is truly more validated than the other, the choice we make defines our personal priority.  Some will choose in faith a creation priority and others will slide towards a preference of the evidences of a scientific priority.  While some will disagree, I'm not comfortable with a choice to believe that both are overlapping scenarios.  I suppose it is possible but for me if you choose both there is a leaning for most in that category, not all but most, of a priority of evidence to claim ones allegiance.  

That is what I believe the Lord might be most interested in determining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of no death before Adam.  I will only provide half of the argument by describing “Mitosis”.  Mitosis is a process that when a cell divides – it does so by creating two clone cells of the initial parent cell.  But there is a small replication error even in clone cells such that each cell is slightly different from each other and thus the clones are slightly different from the parent.

The Bible tells us that fruit trees produced fruit and grass produced seeds – this means that even before there were any animal species there was death of parent cells in producing clone children cells.  The process of evolution is testified of in scripture.  That there were seeds means that there was evolution.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I think this is the entire relevance of the debate.  It is not that we are ever going to be able to fill the holes on either side.  Both choices require accepting a standard full of unknowns, unprovables, and undeniables. Each is rife with exceptions of merit to consider.  However, both are clearly one thing that the other is not.  The creation story as outlined in scriptural and related sources has a faith based requirement for its acceptance.  The theories of science on the other hand are ostensibly predicated on a proof based priority.  So polarizing is the issue that individuals feel compelled to choose one of these perspectives as the dominate acceptable perspective in which they claim confidence. Since neither is truly more validated than the other, the choice we make defines our personal priority.  Some will choose in faith a creation priority and others will slide towards a preference of the evidences of a scientific priority.  While some will disagree, I'm not comfortable with a choice to believe that both are overlapping scenarios.  I suppose it is possible but for me if you choose both there is a leaning for most in that category, not all but most, of a priority of evidence to claim ones allegiance.  

That is what I believe the Lord might be most interested in determining.

 

There is also a possibility that in the debates between science and religion that the two are trying to argue about two very different “things”.  Not just different points of view of the same thing but two very different things that have little of anything to do with the other.

I am inclined to think that what science is describing and that which revelation in scripture is dealing with are nowhere near being the same.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

A global flood disproves evolution because evidence for a global flood would be sediment layers all over the earth with fossils mixed in those layers. Strangely, thats actually exactly what we see! Imagine that!

Fossils have been found half a mile and further under the Earth's surface. Many of them are buried further than any flood could ever reach. And for them to get that far below the surface a mere 5000 years after being washed up is simply not possible. A flood on the surface couldn't possibly have that sort of underground reach. In fact, hypothetically speaking, I think the more likely scenario is that those deep fossils would have been buried even deeper pre-flood. Because yes, a flood would probably disrupt several meters worth of surface sediment. But that doesn't account for the many fossils buried hundreds of meters below the surface. I just have a very hard time believing that any surface event short of a comet collision could reach that far into the planet's surface. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

There is also a possibility that in the debates between science and religion that the two are trying to argue about two very different “things”.  Not just different points of view of the same thing but two very different things that have little of anything to do with the other.

I am inclined to think that what science is describing and that which revelation in scripture is dealing with are nowhere near being the same.

 

The Traveler

There is certainly a level of participant in these debates that is well informed in both science and theology and they are simply in the process of cataloging the obvious information and indications of both disciplines.  Call it 10%...however, most in this debate are neither truly, genuinely in possession of any degree of expertise in either model...but they think they are. Whatever the actual numbers may be, it is my opinion that the bulk of the discussion is being conducted by armchair scientists and wannabe theologians each declaring their preference for loyalty.

The essence of my perspective is predicted upon the concept of opposition in all things.  As great a vehicle as the Gospel is to bring mankind unto God, I wonder if Satan's rightful claim to opposition was not manifest in the theory of a man who stated of himself that "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." Independent though of his state of mind, those who have championed the theory as a whole do seem to have dubious distinction as men or women of limited worship of God. Not all, but a majority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2017 at 9:47 PM, Jane_Doe said:

have you taken the required biology course yet?

Yes! Good stuff. Of course it was very strongly in favor of evolution. The thing that makes it interesting is that since it's BYU they are allowed to bring religion into the mix. I can't say they were totally accurate with their presentation of the church's history of the evolution issue, but they tried. The teacher said that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's article on evolution was written by the First Presidency, and that's what he hinged everything on in telling us that there is no church doctrine against evolution.

I have also taken an evolution course at BYU-Idaho. That professor started out the course by trying to invalidate any doctrinal argument against evolution. He had us read the standard packet, which isn't really enough to settle the issue one way or the other. Then he used one of the two President McKay's letters as the end-all doctrinal document that there is no church doctrine on evolution. Only after I was done with that class did I find out that a personal letter, even from the prophet, cannot be taken as doctrinally binding.

Basically, there's much more to it than the professors of evolution like to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

There is a very big and glaring problem for those that do not believe in evolution but do believe in a global flood at the time of Noah (5,000 years ago?).  Given the dimensions of the Ark – it would not be big enough to hold just two all the known species of worms.  If evolution is not a part of our history there could not have been a global flood and an Ark to save the vast species that exist currently.

Even if one believes in evolution there is a lot of missing links needed to justify the vast species evolving so rapidly since the flood.  There are some definite problems with evolution but be very careful in criticizing the flaws that can just as easily erode the claim that the Bible is correct and science is wrong.

 

The Traveler

The ark didnt need to carry every species. In fact the vast majority of species didnt even need to he on the ark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Godless said:

Fossils have been found half a mile and further under the Earth's surface. Many of them are buried further than any flood could ever reach. And for them to get that far below the surface a mere 5000 years after being washed up is simply not possible. A flood on the surface couldn't possibly have that sort of underground reach. In fact, hypothetically speaking, I think the more likely scenario is that those deep fossils would have been buried even deeper pre-flood. Because yes, a flood would probably disrupt several meters worth of surface sediment. But that doesn't account for the many fossils buried hundreds of meters below the surface. I just have a very hard time believing that any surface event short of a comet collision could reach that far into the planet's surface. 

You dont realize the power of catastrophic amounts of water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It refers to the age of the earth since time was appointed to man and death has been on the earth.

Not really. The “temporal age” – a non-scriptural term you made up – is not how old the earth is by objective calculation, but the 7,000 year divine “economy” beginning with Adam’s exit from Eden. Archaically, “economy” referred to the management of a household, specifically outlays. These outlays are listed in D&C 77:6 and do not include that which was transacted during the eons that evidently passed between his fall, which brought death and related principles and processes into the fallen world, and his personal exit from Eden into the same fallen world. Once he arrived, the clock started ticking for the salvation of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

A global flood disproves evolution because evidence for a global flood would be sediment layers all over the earth with fossils mixed in those layers. Strangely, thats actually exactly what we see! Imagine that!

The global flood occurred within the 7,000-year period of the Lord's economy on this earth, long after the evolutionary processes in question, so it reality really has nothing to do with either proving or disproving the theory of evolution. Evolution could have occurred well before the flood over a period much longer than 7,000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Not really. The “temporal age” – a non-scriptural term you made up – is not how old the earth is by objective calculation, but the 7,000 year divine “economy” beginning with Adam’s exit from Eden. Archaically, “economy” referred to the management of a household, specifically outlays. These outlays are listed in D&C 77:6 and do not include that which was transacted during the eons that evidently passed between his fall, which brought death and related principles and processes into the fallen world, and his personal exit from Eden into the same fallen world. Once he arrived, the clock started ticking for the salvation of mankind.

Lets read what the scripture actually says-

"A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence".

The scripture speaks of the earths "continuance" or "its temporal existence". Its speaking of all of its actions during which Gods work, his creations continued and had their existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The global flood occurred within the 7,000-year period of the Lord's economy on this earth, long after the evolutionary processes in question, so it reality really has nothing to do with either proving or disproving the theory of evolution. Evolution could have occurred well before the flood over a period much longer than 7,000 years.

The reality of things are that a global flood is going to leave mountains of sedimentary layers and is going to kill and quickly bury billions of animals. Even evolutionist scientists agree that a global flood would leave massive sedimentary layers.

So, why then do we see massive sedimentary layers all over the earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Lets read what the scripture actually says-

"A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence".

The scripture speaks of the earths "continuance" or "its temporal existence". Its speaking of all of its actions during which Gods work, his creations continued and had their existence.

The earth's actions? Okay.... But the scripture is actually speaking of God's actions concerning the earth through the 7,000 year period, and not any of His actions before, and not any of His actions after. The first seal begins with Adam's entrance into the fallen world, and not with anything that God did or that otherwise happened before that time, or reckoning, or opening of that first seal.

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The reality of things are that a global flood is going to leave mountains of sedimentary layers and is going to kill and quickly bury billions of animals. Even evolutionist scientists agree that a global flood would leave massive sedimentary layers.

So, why then do we see massive sedimentary layers all over the earth?

The reality of things is that a global flood occurring around 2300 BC has nothing to do with proving or disproving the theory of evolution. They are two distinct and unrelated phenomena. The science of the Great Flood has nothing to bear on the science of the theories of evolution. If you want to use science to argue against evolution, there are more direct ways to do it than an appeal to the science of the Great Flood.

The heritable characteristics of biological populations could have been changing for innumerable generations long before the Flood occurred, and long before Adam left Eden. The various processes of mortal life and death could have simply begun with the Fall of Adam and continued for billions of years until he finally left Eden to assume his mortal probation and stewardship during the first of the seven seals. The Flood came in the latter half of the second seal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

The problem of no death before Adam.  I will only provide half of the argument by describing “Mitosis”.  Mitosis is a process that when a cell divides – it does so by creating two clone cells of the initial parent cell.  But there is a small replication error even in clone cells such that each cell is slightly different from each other and thus the clones are slightly different from the parent.

The Bible tells us that fruit trees produced fruit and grass produced seeds – this means that even before there were any animal species there was death of parent cells in producing clone children cells.  The process of evolution is testified of in scripture.  That there were seeds means that there was evolution.

 

The Traveler

I suspect that you are referencing the loss of telomere data with each replication, which is a contributing factor of aging which is a by product of fallen man in a state of dying.  I wonder if it is a reasonable comparison to compare a known state of dying with a presumed eternal state.  Perhaps I need the other half of the argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The ark didnt need to carry every species. In fact the vast majority of species didnt even need to he on the ark.

 

Pending on what one believes concerning the creation in Genesis – the Ark did not need to carry anything.  All life forms could have been replenished (recreated) in less than a week.  For land species that would have been affected by a global flood the Ark was not near sufficient by factors of 1,000 or more.  Also, even aquatic life forms require certain levels of salinity that would have caused mass extinctions in shallow seas and fresh water organisms in a global flood of the duration and magnitude testified to in scripture.    

Even with evolution the genetic diversity of humans since the flood cannot be explained nor demonstrated.  Without evolution, not even hair and eye color diversity has no possible explanation.  If evolution is a false – then every individual human alive today would be an exact clone of the 8 human souls that survived the flood.

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I suspect that you are referencing the loss of telomere data with each replication, which is a contributing factor of aging which is a by product of fallen man in a state of dying.  I wonder if it is a reasonable comparison to compare a known state of dying with a presumed eternal state.  Perhaps I need the other half of the argument. 

 

I believe it has more to what we "think" death is; as defined as the end of individual life - and "birth" as the beginning of individual life.  I believe that this concept of individual life is another area where religion and science are talking about two very different "things" that for fallen man have related coincidence.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, why then do we see massive sedimentary layers all over the earth?

I assume you mean other than the commonly accepted "billions of years of plate tectonics and uplifts and subsidence and erosion and deposition and climate changes and ...". If so, I don't have another explanation, but then I am only an amateur hobbyist when it comes to geology.

The challenge I see to the "sedimentary layers around the globe are the result of Noah's global flood" explanation used by young-earth creationists is that the time frame is just too compressed. Figure that Noah lived 950 years total, 350 years after the flood, so the flood takes place over no more than 600 years (assuming the Biblical chronology is accurate). In that 600 years, it deposits massive amounts of sediment. My own familiarity with Utah's geology will show through here, but examples abound like the Oquirrh formation with up to (if memory serves) 10,000 feet of marine limestonish deposits (for those of you in Utah Valley, consider than Mt. Timpanogos reaches a mile above the valley floor and it is mostly Oquirrh formation), the Morrison formation which, in Utah, exhibits elements of a fluvial/river system deposition, and the Navajo/Nugget sandstone that appears to have been an aeolian deposit of vast desert sand dunes (during a global flood?) up to 1000 (or is it 2000) feet thick (Angel's landing of Zion NP). After the flood waters receded, you have only a few thousand years for the rest of the geology (the uplifts and thrusts along numerous faults, erosion to shape the land, etc.) to take place. I have a really hard time believing that the Grand Canyon was carved in a few thousand years or that the Snake River plain was filled with various lavas (rhyolites and basalts) then, after the vulcanism, for the Snake River to carve its canyon (even helped by the Bonneville flood).

Admittedly, I am far too heavily influenced by godless science, but I just cannot wrap my little brain around that kind of YEC explanation for all of the geology seen just in and around the state of Utah.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I assume you mean other than the commonly accepted "billions of years of plate tectonics and uplifts and subsidence and erosion and deposition and climate changes and ...". If so, I don't have another explanation, but then I am only an amateur hobbyist when it comes to geology.

The challenge I see to the "sedimentary layers around the globe are the result of Noah's global flood" explanation used by young-earth creationists is that the time frame is just too compressed. Figure that Noah lived 950 years total, 350 years after the flood, so the flood takes place over no more than 600 years (assuming the Biblical chronology is accurate). In that 600 years, it deposits massive amounts of sediment. My own familiarity with Utah's geology will show through here, but examples abound like the Oquirrh formation with up to (if memory serves) 10,000 feet of marine limestonish deposits (for those of you in Utah Valley, consider than Mt. Timpanogos reaches a mile above the valley floor and it is mostly Oquirrh formation), the Morrison formation which, in Utah, exhibits elements of a fluvial/river system deposition, and the Navajo/Nugget sandstone that appears to have been an aeolian deposit of vast desert sand dunes up to 1000 (or is it 2000) feet thick (Angel's  (during a global flood?). After the flood waters receded, you have only a few thousand years for the rest of the geology (the uplifts and thrusts along numerous faults, erosion to shape the land, etc.) to take place. I have a really hard time believing that the Grand Canyon was carved in a few thousand years or that the Snake River plain was filled with various lavas (rhyolites and basalts) then, after the vulcanism, for the Snake River to carve its canyon (even helped by the Bonneville flood).

Admittedly, I am far too heavily influenced by godless science, but I just cannot wrap my little brain around that kind of YEC explanation for all of the geology seen just in and around the state of Utah.

In these discussions we find ourselves dancing all around, what I consider the most obvious issue. The issue is time. We use radiometric dating modalities to give values to the periods of time passed for certain events which are heavily impacted by cosmic influences. We see a pattern in scripture of a transitionary process from a state of eternal to a state of mortality. You references the age of Noah at 950, which transitions to around 550 for the next generation and then to 220 or so down to the age of current man at around the Exodus. However, life span seems related to when you were conceived as if the materials of creation of a body were of a higher quality the closer to the beginning of the fall than over periods of a downward spiral to current mortal standards.

As to date we have no means of noting how the laws of physics would operate in an eternal sphere and how they would change in a transitional process to our current applications I wonder how misleading applying the current laws of physics might be when applied to a period of existence very, very near to the beginning of the fall. When this planet was nigh unto Kolob, where the greater levels of cosmic influence (i.e. God living in eternal burnings) exponentially higher which appears to be better tolerated by eternal beings.  As matter began to corrupt was the impact of cosmic radiation of far greater intensity thus producing scales of change that when measured against current expectations show the passage of great lengths of time in a period of time of far less duration than can be achieved in the current model?

What ever else might be involved surely the change in accounting of time bears some sway on these matters.

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I assume you mean other than the commonly accepted "billions of years of plate tectonics and uplifts and subsidence and erosion and deposition and climate changes and ...". If so, I don't have another explanation, but then I am only an amateur hobbyist when it comes to geology.

The challenge I see to the "sedimentary layers around the globe are the result of Noah's global flood" explanation used by young-earth creationists is that the time frame is just too compressed. Figure that Noah lived 950 years total, 350 years after the flood, so the flood takes place over no more than 600 years (assuming the Biblical chronology is accurate). In that 600 years, it deposits massive amounts of sediment. My own familiarity with Utah's geology will show through here, but examples abound like the Oquirrh formation with up to (if memory serves) 10,000 feet of marine limestonish deposits (for those of you in Utah Valley, consider than Mt. Timpanogos reaches a mile above the valley floor and it is mostly Oquirrh formation), the Morrison formation which, in Utah, exhibits elements of a fluvial/river system deposition, and the Navajo/Nugget sandstone that appears to have been an aeolian deposit of vast desert sand dunes (during a global flood?) up to 1000 (or is it 2000) feet thick (Angel's landing of Zion NP). After the flood waters receded, you have only a few thousand years for the rest of the geology (the uplifts and thrusts along numerous faults, erosion to shape the land, etc.) to take place. I have a really hard time believing that the Grand Canyon was carved in a few thousand years or that the Snake River plain was filled with various lavas (rhyolites and basalts) then, after the vulcanism, for the Snake River to carve its canyon (even helped by the Bonneville flood).

Admittedly, I am far too heavily influenced by godless science, but I just cannot wrap my little brain around that kind of YEC explanation for all of the geology seen just in and around the state of Utah.

 

Though I agree like 99.99% with the just of what you are saying – I have a slightly different theory concerning the Grand Canyon.  My theory is that the major part of the Grand Canyon was created in perhaps a day or two (maybe a week) by cavitation when an ice dam broke and emptied lake Bonneville through narrow landscape causing cavitation in solid stone.  I consider myself somewhat expert in that I have spent over 30 years white water rafting and am somewhat expert in the force of rapids at various flow levels.  Because of the particular way the current river flows and that most of the Grand Canyon is “U” shaped rather than “V” shape.  Plus, the Colorado River has no delta where it reaches the ocean.

The problem is that may YEC theorists see certain catastrophic changes that occur over short periods of time and assume it is what happened everywhere else – regardless of the empirical evidence.  My point is that if someone is going to site empirical evidence to support their particular theory – they better be sure they understand what empirical evidences applies to what circumstances.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:42 PM, zlllch said:

I think you're basing your argument more on the assumption that Bruce R. McConkie was right, and less on the scriptures themselves. If we analyze all the scriptures where the terms "great and abominable church" and "the church of the devil" are used, his definition cannot logically be accurate. I will attempt to refute his statement using only the scriptures themselves.
 

...


In summary, I believe Bruce R. McConkie's statement was replaced not because of the public backlash against it, and not so we could proselytize Catholics (although that was a nice bonus), but because it didn't accurately reflect what is contained in the scriptures.

I have determined that this is a wicked, wicked website...twice now I have lost a lengthy post.  I think it might relate to just having an open window for an excessive period of time or perhaps it is my browser but I have not had this issue with other sites.

But it is probably to your advantage as my recovery will have to be more brief and concise that I was going for before.

Observing your process is very instructional as to why we are miles apart in certain respects.  On one hand it is a moot point as we both are in agreement that the best quote for public dissemination made it into the second addition.  However for you to get there you had to pick a fight with Elder McConkie and toss him off the cliff of your self-determined more erudite analysis.  So since you’re the bully here, I am going to take courage and pronounce in Elder McConkies defense that you are in error. Yet if we ultimately agree in the end product then how can you be so wrong, you ask? Alas, keeping pace with your palpitating heart, I’ll provide insight.

I have mentioned that I have spent over 20 years trying to grasp the "manner of the Jews" in how they understand scripture since I first read Elder McConkie implicate that understanding as required to truly possess the insight necessary to interpret Isaiah:

One of the reasons many of the Nephites did not understand the words of Isaiah was that they did not know “concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.” (2 Ne. 25:1.) And so it is with all Christendom, plus many Latter-day Saints.

Nephi chose to couch his prophetic utterances in plain and simple declarations. But among his fellow Hebrew prophets it was not always appropriate so to do. Because of the wickedness of the people, Isaiah and others often spoke in figures, using types and shadows to illustrate their points. Their messages were, in effect, hidden in parables. (2 Ne. 25:1–8.) (McConkie, Bruce R., Ten Keys to Understanding Isaiah)

It is interesting to me that you found yourself a superior judge of scripture interpretation over the individual who is arguable the greatest theologian of this dispensation, second only to Joseph Smith. To claim that Elder McConkie did not “accurately reflect what is contained in the scriptures” is actually enough to render your entire response of limited objective value. That you consider yourself a better judge of scriptural accuracy than Elder McConkie - I can’t even fathom such a comparison.

However, your analysis also shows much lacking understanding of the great significance of types and shadows as means of illustrating their points.  It is best to let them be what they are as opposed to whittling them down to a single standard of interpretation.  This is not so much your fault as it is the indoctrination of how to think established by Western Academia which eschews multiple right answers of dependent value preferring to determine the answer that is of superlative value. Scripture simply does not open up for this type of approach.  The concept of PRDS is the Jewish equivalent of line upon line precept upon precept but the added insight, if one will genuinely apply it, is invaluable to altering the paradigm of how we tend to look at scripture. 

Is it not the strength of scripture that its very use of said symbols gives it life and allows for expanding understandings that can change anytime the spirit would have you see nuanced or extremes in meaning.  There are times when Elder McConkies expectations of the church of the devil being the Roman Catholic Church would be the clear proper interpretation for certain insights that the spirit might provide.

Especially if we add one verse you neglected to reference as you were developing your definition of Great and abominable and church of the devil.  Let’s take a look at that source:

1 Nephi 13:34

34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb.

I’m not even going to develop this as it is too clear too miss for the Roman Catholic Churches role in the apostasy and the subsequent birth of the harlots born of the great harlot. If this is not the Roman Catholic Church then please explain who it is. When you can provide no other reasonable explanation, perhaps you can explain why you might boldly proclaim that interpreting this verse as the Roman Catholic Church would be found as not “accurately reflect[ing] what is contained in the Scriptures.”

These ideologies are called types and as it is developed in these chapters that touch specifically on the great and abominable church specifically as it relates to the Roman Catholic church this is part of the breakdown of the type.  However, that is only one aspect of the type of an abominable institution established by the devil.  There are other aspects as well, aspects that we do not want to prejudice our perception of by pre-calculating expectations.  There are times it is speaking of any institution not the church of God, we want to retain that understanding as well as it is part of the type that is being spoken too.  Additionally, it can embrace a concepts of Governments co-opted by Satan’s manipulation of evil men, this is another aspect of the type that is exceptionally important be preserved. Depending on the question any one of these elements comprising the type may be the only suitable answer.

Another aspect of the type of these verses is they give insight to how the Lord views the great and abominable church and the harlots.  Contrary to your earlier comments, they are abominations.  There is no need to water this down as “not all churches are evil” simply because that is the current social paradigm.  They are abominations and will be destroyed in time. 

Fundamentally one might see the process of evaluation that you have selected as a good, better, best model.  I’m sure that though you discounted the various provisions of the type you can see them.  However, each one was discounted in favor of the generic one that replaced it in the revision – you claim doctrinal inaccuracy - opinion.  I claim in search of a more tactful presentation. Let’s observe a quote:

"There were about fifty items that Elder Kimball wanted Elder McConkie to revisit... They dealt with tone and with the wisdom of including particular things.... Elder Kimball was a wise mentor who taught [Elder McConkie] the difference between being right and being appropriate.... Elder Kimball's list of things that needed changing [was] much less extensive than the changes that were made in the second edition....

"The report submitted to the First Presidency by Elder Spencer W. Kimball indicates that he checked changes made on fifty-six pages, all of which he approved. He did not indicate a single instance of doctrinal disagreement with what was written."(Horne, Dennis, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings,  pp.65-66.)

Now, I will take a moment to mention what I consider the most egregious issue. It has become popular in recent decades to undermine apostles and prophets, the modern day “stoning” of those chosen of the Lord.  The good, better, best way we tend to look at things placed you in a position of judge to evaluate scriptural accuracy when it wasn’t even necessary. The nature of scripture with its types and shadows and profound symbolic implications should never be constrained by a Western style paradigm but as we are not truly taught the manner of the Jews in scripture study, we draw upon more self-determined means of evaluation. In a nut shell, the Jewish mentality is that each level of understanding builds on the previous and though an understanding may be higher on the spiritual plane it still preserves the integrity of the earlier levels and never supplants it.  Your approach was to render impotent particular interpretations opting that one was better than all the rest.

However, that process placed you as a judge and jury when there was no cause for such.  That is the fundamental difference in how you and I view the comments of apostles and prophets.  In my mind they are all correct, I simply have to get the spirit of the moment which caused them to speak in the manner they did and then I take that bit of insight and begin creating a spectrum of contributing insights until I have a much more complete grasp of the topic than if I had simply selected the one that appealed to me the most.  To borrow insight from each of them allows me to grow and expand in understanding.  To tend to the selection of one that appeals to me means I am simply maintaining the status quo and wasting the opportunity to expand in knowledge.

As Nephi points out there is great value in trying to see things as the Jews:

2 Nephi 25:5 Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The earth's actions? Okay.... But the scripture is actually speaking of God's actions concerning the earth through the 7,000 year period, and not any of His actions before, and not any of His actions after. The first seal begins with Adam's entrance into the fallen world, and not with anything that God did or that otherwise happened before that time, or reckoning, or opening of that first seal.

The reality of things is that a global flood occurring around 2300 BC has nothing to do with proving or disproving the theory of evolution. They are two distinct and unrelated phenomena. The science of the Great Flood has nothing to bear on the science of the theories of evolution. If you want to use science to argue against evolution, there are more direct ways to do it than an appeal to the science of the Great Flood.

The heritable characteristics of biological populations could have been changing for innumerable generations long before the Flood occurred, and long before Adam left Eden. The various processes of mortal life and death could have simply begun with the Fall of Adam and continued for billions of years until he finally left Eden to assume his mortal probation and stewardship during the first of the seven seals. The Flood came in the latter half of the second seal.

The earth itself has a 7,000 year of its existence as itself relates to time. Not sure where you are getting this billions of years shoved into a 7,000 year period. Its definitely not fitting into the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Pending on what one believes concerning the creation in Genesis – the Ark did not need to carry anything.  All life forms could have been replenished (recreated) in less than a week.  For land species that would have been affected by a global flood the Ark was not near sufficient by factors of 1,000 or more.  Also, even aquatic life forms require certain levels of salinity that would have caused mass extinctions in shallow seas and fresh water organisms in a global flood of the duration and magnitude testified to in scripture.    

Even with evolution the genetic diversity of humans since the flood cannot be explained nor demonstrated.  Without evolution, not even hair and eye color diversity has no possible explanation.  If evolution is a false – then every individual human alive today would be an exact clone of the 8 human souls that survived the flood.

 

The Traveler

 

Wow, where you getting that information? Thats silly. Under your theory all of my children should look just like me in every exact detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I assume you mean other than the commonly accepted "billions of years of plate tectonics and uplifts and subsidence and erosion and deposition and climate changes and ...". If so, I don't have another explanation, but then I am only an amateur hobbyist when it comes to geology.

The challenge I see to the "sedimentary layers around the globe are the result of Noah's global flood" explanation used by young-earth creationists is that the time frame is just too compressed. Figure that Noah lived 950 years total, 350 years after the flood, so the flood takes place over no more than 600 years (assuming the Biblical chronology is accurate). In that 600 years, it deposits massive amounts of sediment. My own familiarity with Utah's geology will show through here, but examples abound like the Oquirrh formation with up to (if memory serves) 10,000 feet of marine limestonish deposits (for those of you in Utah Valley, consider than Mt. Timpanogos reaches a mile above the valley floor and it is mostly Oquirrh formation), the Morrison formation which, in Utah, exhibits elements of a fluvial/river system deposition, and the Navajo/Nugget sandstone that appears to have been an aeolian deposit of vast desert sand dunes (during a global flood?) up to 1000 (or is it 2000) feet thick (Angel's landing of Zion NP). After the flood waters receded, you have only a few thousand years for the rest of the geology (the uplifts and thrusts along numerous faults, erosion to shape the land, etc.) to take place. I have a really hard time believing that the Grand Canyon was carved in a few thousand years or that the Snake River plain was filled with various lavas (rhyolites and basalts) then, after the vulcanism, for the Snake River to carve its canyon (even helped by the Bonneville flood).

Admittedly, I am far too heavily influenced by godless science, but I just cannot wrap my little brain around that kind of YEC explanation for all of the geology seen just in and around the state of Utah.

Thats interesting because I have spent a lot of time in Utah looking in awe at the geology and cannot get over the facts and testimony I see everywhere of a catastrophic flood. There is nothing on this earth right now that is duplicating the type and extent of the sedimentary layers we see in geologic column. Its so obvious that there was a global flood and then a massive series of uplifts, earthquakes and volcanic activity that now litters the continents. 

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