Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

consiglieri

Why Do Mormons Have Difficulty Believing . . .

Recommended Posts

This question was posed on another thread, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own, because it raises an interesting issue.

As a general rule, Mormons do not believe in a creation period of six twenty-four hour days.

This is in contrast to Evangelicals who seem in large part to endorse this view.

I suspect there are good reasons for this dichotomy, and that perhaps a discussion might help flesh them out.

What does this say about Mormons and their belief system?

What does this say about Evangelicals and their belief system?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps its because in one of our creation accounts they are explicitely referred to as "the six creative periods" instead of "days".

Share this post


Link to post

I think most LDS are taught that if you consider the creation as 6 "periods", then it can still square with evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
What does this say about Mormons and their belief system?

That God's people at the time Genesis was written didn't have either the vocabulary or necessary understanding of the laws of Nature and God to understand what God was doing. So God gave them a poetic (and accurate in it's own way) story to explain the Creation. The only question left would be why God hasn't inspired a Prophet to expand on the story. My theory: God's people at this time don't have either the vocabulary or necessary understanding of the laws of Nature and God to understand what God was doing.

Share this post


Link to post
I think most LDS are taught that if you consider the creation as 6 "periods", then it can still square with evolution.
I don't think that's the underlying reason, but may be an outgrowth of the practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps its because in one of our creation accounts they are explicitely referred to as "the six creative periods" instead of "days".

Among other things, 6 one thousand year periods makes more sense then 6 24 hour earth days. The new testament does tell us that 1 day to God is 1000 earth years. I still believe that the creative periods were much more than 1,000 years.

Scottie may have a point too. Intersting.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess it is because we don't have much other evidence that God is that fast in accomplishing other things. Scientist now believe the "Big Bang" theory where the Universe was formed in an instant and then time (relative since time did not exist) slowed down and the laws of â??physicsâ? were born.

In short God and mammon (or man) we put trust in both.

Share this post


Link to post

For me, the answer to why I don't believe in the creation being only 6 periods of 24 hours comes from the Bible itself after it's description of the Creation:

Genesis 2:4 - 4

Share this post


Link to post
I think most LDS are taught that if you consider the creation as 6 "periods", then it can still square with evolution.

Evolution wasn't a consideration for decades while literal "days" was being rejected. I always rejected the literal interpretation based on the fact that trees don't sprout, grow, and produce offspring in one 24 hour period.

Share this post


Link to post
This question was posed on another thread, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own, because it raises an interesting issue.

As a general rule, Mormons do not believe in a creation period of six twenty-four hour days.

Interestingly enough at the last Fast and Testmony meeting I went to someone got up and bore his testimony that the creation occurred in 6 literal days. In my own experience generally, however, most members don't really express their view on the matter, especially in Church.

Share this post


Link to post
For me, the answer to why I don't believe in the creation being only 6 periods of 24 hours comes from the Bible itself after it's description of the Creation:Genesis 2:4 - 4

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps its because in one of our creation accounts they are explicitely referred to as "the six creative periods" instead of "days".

I don't recall that. Which one?

Share this post


Link to post

1. Because they're generally well educated;

2. Their religion is premised on a break from millenia-old Christian traditions, so making a break from the traditional Christian point of view is (1) not difficult, and (2) the status quo.

3. Both Brigham Young and B.H. Roberts, among others, believed in an "old world" theory (including a theory that the six days can be interpreted to mean six creative periods).

Share this post


Link to post
This question was posed on another thread, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own, because it raises an interesting issue.

As a general rule, Mormons do not believe in a creation period of six twenty-four hour days.

This is in contrast to Evangelicals who seem in large part to endorse this view.

I suspect there are good reasons for this dichotomy, and that perhaps a discussion might help flesh them out.

What does this say about Mormons and their belief system?

What does this say about Evangelicals and their belief system?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri:

When you say "hour", what to you mean? Also, when you say "day," do you mean the amount of time to complete one 360-degree rotation on it's axis of the planetary sphere we call "earth?"

Basically, the scriptures are mythology -- in the terms of mythos. Mythology uses mythological language. So a "day" in mythological language, does not equal a "day" in logical language.

The way we (those of us steeped in the classical western learning/thinking) practice science is that we use logic, as in the terms of logos. Science employs logos. Religion employs mythos.

If you attempt to use mythos to refute or explain logos, you are in for a frustrating and pointless experience. It would be the same has using religion to refute the physiological explanation my dentist gives to explain my tooth decay. And basically when I have a toothache, I don't care what religion my dentist practices, or if he practices religion at all -- I just want him to fix my tooth. Or using another analogy, it would be attempting to argue that French is a more authentic language than Mandarin.

BTW -- there is one more language, ethos. Ethos is ethics, or social organization.

When I was the ward young men's president, I would give an annual class in the spring to the priests who were finishing HS before they went off to college. I would teach them how to recognize the three types of languages (ethos, mythos, and logos) the importance and value of each type of language, and counsel them to not buy into the notion that one language is more authentic, more valuable, or more valid than another. Furthermore, I counseled them to avoid disputes where a person uses one of the languages to attempt to discredit another person who is using another language.

Ethos, mythos, logos -- we need them all. We should be able to thrive in each linguistic paradigm.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

Share this post


Link to post
Generations means what became of the heavens and the earth. It is a device to let us know what we are reading.

That is not what is says in the Bible, it says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,"

That is your interpretation of what it says, but if you read the whole sentence you can see it is describing the whole description of the Creation from Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 2:3, and no where in the Bible does it say that each of these periods is 24 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
This is in contrast to Evangelicals who seem in large part to endorse this view.

--Consiglieri

I'm not sure that's the case. As I understand it Young Earth Creationism is a relatively small movement among evangelicals.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't recall that. Which one?

Well Abraham refers to the days as "times." I think they are referred to as the creative periods in the temple, can't remember the wording exactly right now and that's only introductory.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure that's the case. As I understand it Young Earth Creationism is a relatively small movement among evangelicals.

I've not known a single evangelical who held a point of view other than young earth creationism (and my three best friends are evangelical Christian).

Share this post


Link to post
Well Abraham refers to the days as "times." I think they are referred to as the creative periods in the temple, can't remember the wording exactly right now and that's only introductory.

The Book of Abraham does refer to each period as time but also seems to emphasize it's length as essentially one day by prefacing each 'time' by: "And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day". I do recall the other intro you mentioned, I'd forgotten about that.

Share this post


Link to post

Each account of the Creation in the scriptures is from a third-hand account, i.e. Moses, Abraham, etc, were given these account in visions - they didn't see them first-hand. And these visions were given in a way that they could understand, so they saw each generation as a day, as one generation ended they saw the dawning of the next one.

Share this post


Link to post
I think most LDS are taught that if you consider the creation as 6 "periods", then it can still square with evolution.

I've never been taught that. In fact, your post is the first I've heard of that philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post

Two good answers.

1. We have Scripture that says says "creative periods".

2. 6 "days" is unsupportable by the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
I've never been taught that. In fact, your post is the first I've heard of that philosophy.

That seemed to be the theme of my whopping THREE science classes at BYU, so it has at least gained traction among some faculty at BYU.

Share this post


Link to post
2. 6 "days" is unsupportable by the facts.

I would disagree. a literal Gen 1 is fully supported by the evidence we have.

Share this post


Link to post
The Book of Abraham does refer to each period as time but also seems to emphasize it's length as essentially one day by prefacing each 'time' by: "And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day". I do recall the other intro you mentioned, I'd forgotten about that.

The other thing is though...how long is a night to a day and a day to night in God's reckoning? I would say they were judging off of something other than this earths reckoning, as they weren't specifically residing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...