Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Do Mormons Have Difficulty Believing . . .

consiglieri

By consiglieri
in Miscellaneous

Recommended Posts

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted
A good question is if God can do anything, why 6 days however defined. Why not in an instant?

Another good question is why do people care? I find it absurd that people create sweeping doctrinal foundations off of one or two verses from a text that is thousands of years old. Although the King James version of the Book of Genesis says days, the word is frequently translated as time or period elsewhere. From the LDS perspective, the story in Genesis cannot be taken literally because we have three official versions of the creation and none of them agree. Each version is teaching a different gospel message.

Link to comment
Cold Steel Mentor

Cold Steel

Posted
Posted

If the scriptures said it was 24-hour days, we would undoubtedly have a different outlook. The word for "days" simply means that: days. Even in our own language, a "day" can be:

1) The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset;

2) The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business;

3) A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime;

4) A period of opportunity; or

5) A period of time.

And in ancient languages, the term also can mean "a period of time."

Actually, if God could just "speak" the Earth into existence, why would it take him Six 24-Hour Days? Why not six milliseconds?

The notion that it would take six 24-hour days is completely unreasonable and arbitrary.

As Latter-day Saints, we also have the additional knowledge that the Earth was not created in this solar system, but was moved here. Some theories even state that our earth is the product of an ancient collision. The Moon isn't believed to be native to this solar system, either. It's just exactly the correct distance from the Earth to balance it and give it a stable equator and climate. If it were any further away, or any closer, it just wouldn't work. Man could not live on the Earth. Likewise, if the Earth were any nearer the sun, or if it were any further away, man also would not be able to live on this planet. In other words, we've got things so well balanced here that there's a darn good argument for intelligent design. All these sci-fi shows that feature other planets show different moons, and some no moons at all. This, in fact, would make life for humans very difficult if not impossible.

Link to comment
kawikadave Experienced

kawikadave

Posted
Posted

Was in the temple today and this sentence struck me:

Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

So to those who suggest that anytime the Lord uses the word "day" in the scriptures he means 24 hours, did Adam die within 24 hours of eating the fruit?

Link to comment
Hoops22 Newbie

Hoops22

Posted
Posted
If true it might say that LDS are more open to scientific truth than some EV's.
And more opposed to Biblical truth.
So to those who suggest that anytime the Lord uses the word "day" in the scriptures he means 24 hours,
I don't know anyone who suggests this. Do you?
Link to comment
kawikadave Experienced

kawikadave

Posted
Posted
I don't know anyone who suggests this. Do you?

Well, I've been told a day means 24 hours, especially as we read of the creation account in Genesis.

Well, in that account God tells Adam that he will die "in the day" that he eats the fruit. So did he die within a day or not? If not, doesn't that mean that a day doesn't always mean a day as we understand it?

Seems pretty easy to understand...

Link to comment
Hoops22 Newbie

Hoops22

Posted
Posted
Well, I've been told a day means 24 hours, especially as we read of the creation account in Genesis.

Well, in that account God tells Adam that he will die "in the day" that he eats the fruit. So did he die within a day or not? If not, doesn't that mean that a day doesn't always mean a day as we understand it?

Seems pretty easy to understand...

Just as in English, day can mean 24 hour day, or greater time period. In Gen 1, the context suggests 24 hours. In the day of Adam, the context suggests a greater time period.

Link to comment
kawikadave Experienced

kawikadave

Posted
Posted
Just as in English, day can mean 24 hour day, or greater time period. In Gen 1, the context suggests 24 hours. In the day of Adam, the context suggests a greater time period.

It's just interesting how in Gen. 1 a day ABSOLUTELY means 24 hours, but in Gen. 2 it can mean any time period. Curious.

Link to comment
kawikadave Experienced

kawikadave

Posted
Posted
As long as it supports Mormonism.

As soon as it goes against Mormonism, well, then science isn't reliable for ANYTHING.

I'd say that's incorrect Scottie.

LDS are allowed a very broad interpretation of things like the creation. I know people personally who believe in a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old earth. I also know people that believe in an old earth along with the fossil record, evolution, etc. The church does not require a belief in either of those things and people are free to pursue science and/or purely spiritual teachings.

Could you please point out where Mormons are taught to disbelieve science?

Link to comment
markwhannig Newbie

markwhannig

Posted
Posted
A good question is if God can do anything, why 6 days however defined. Why not in an instant?

Mormons don't believe "God can do anything."

Mormons believe God is bound by law, laws that God himself did not create and to which He must conform. One such law is agency. Others are justice and mercy.

The natural world has laws, laws that we mortals attempt to learn through the scientific process. God too must conform to these "natural laws." He may know how to operate/live in complete harmony with these natural laws to the extent that His life within these laws seems miraculous to us; nevertheless, conform He must.

As a prior post mentioned, Mormons don't believe in creation ex nihilo (ie God created the law and matter.)

In my mind, Joseph Smith is either a genius or a prophet for getting us out of the creation ex nihilo conundrum in which Christianity had been hopelessly mired for centuries.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

Link to comment
Hoops22 Newbie

Hoops22

Posted
Posted
It's just interesting how in Gen. 1 a day ABSOLUTELY means 24 hours, but in Gen. 2 it can mean any time period. Curious.

Why would that be curious? Day has the same function in English.

It seems to me, at least in this case, God is being very specific. Words have meaning.

Link to comment
Luigi Apprentice

Luigi

Posted
Posted
Why would that be curious? Day has the same function in English.

It seems to me, at least in this case, God is being very specific. Words have meaning.

You mean the Bible is specific. Whether God is speaking through the Bible, or even exists at all, is highly debatable.

Link to comment
Hoops22 Newbie

Hoops22

Posted
Posted
Is there not some scripural reference that a 1,000 years on earth is as a day in heaven?
That's a literary device. The Bible is history and literature.But let's assume that in Gen 1 a day does mean a thousand years. Your Old Earth scenario doesn't match with that either.
You mean the Bible is specific. Whether God is speaking through the Bible, or even exists at all, is highly debatable.
That's fine. Not really sure it's highly debatable. But debatable for sure. For you. Not for me. Seems pretty clear to me.
Link to comment
Hoops22 Newbie

Hoops22

Posted
Posted
Hoops:

Would we know any differently if it were just happenstance, and how could we tell?

That's a great question!

I think an element to consider is the claim that we are created in God's image. Now I don't want to get into what that means to lds, it's obviously different than what I mean. But I think you will agree that we have some characteristics that God is as well. We can create, in a way. That is, we can make something from another thing and have that first something be entirely different and distinct from the first thing. We are able to know that. We know that a dvd player was created and we know when the elements that makeup a dvd player are still just elements.

And, if that is so, we know when something is still itself. It has not been manipulated by man.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Luigi Apprentice

Luigi

Posted
Posted
Well, in the interest of staying on topic, I find it difficult to believe that the universe - or, specifically, earth, was mere happenstance. It's complexity speaks to an author or creator.

The creation is the perfect example of not speaking to an author or creator. 99% of species that have existed on the planet are now extinct. The overwhelming evidence suggests that earth went from having relatively simple life forms to relatively complex new life forms, with many fossils demonstrating intermediate steps sharing attributes of both the simple life forms that preceded it and the complex forms that followed. This evidence along with the evidence of genetics and morphology all points to an evolutionary process which is incredible in it's output but also very sad and destructive as it means the vast majority of life has been an evolutionary dead end. Such a design seems incredibly sloppy.

But even if evolution did not have overwhelming evidence to support us that would leave us no closer to demonstrating the existence of a creator than before. Creationists often make the false parallel of the complexity of life with the complexity of a building or painting. Yet we know the process by which paintings and buildings are produced as we've seen it over and over again and never seen them produced by anything but humans. In order to make such an assumption about life we would have to either see that process or have inferences from observations about how that process works. Invoking a supernatural cause is not any better than suggesting it was magic or that a mindless blob floats through the universe dispersing life as it goes.

But even if we had somehow established the existence of a creator, which no one has, there is no way of knowing if this Creator is the deist God, the Mayan God, the Greek God, the Muslim God, or some other God that we haven't thought of yet. Consequently you pinning your hopes on your interpretation of the Bible is, in my view, no better than pinning it on any of those or any other potential concept of God.

Link to comment
Cold Steel Mentor

Cold Steel

Posted
Posted
"Day" has the same function in English. It seems to me, at least in this case, God is being very specific. Words have meaning.

Yeah, they have meanings, but the Lord is anything but specific. As we've seen, "day" can refer to a period of time. "Back in my day it wasn't like this!"

In several of the ancient languages, "spirit" and "breath" are the same word, and how it's translated depends on how the translator interprets it.

Given that God is being specific, we don't know that in the day the Earth was created, that it orbited our present sun at this particular position. And, again, if God could just speak the world into creation, I doubt he'd need six 24-hour days.

This is yet another reason why prophets are necessary. The church, the so-called "body of Christ" that includes all the Christian churches on Earth, are completely unable to come to any kind of an agreement. All the "Spirit-led" churches all come up with different answers.

Link to comment
consiglieri Grand Master

consiglieri

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That's a literary device. The Bible is history and literature.

But haven't you just conceded your argument here, Hoops?

If Peter's calling a "day" 1,000 years is a literary device, how can you say with certainty that the use of the word "day" in Genesis 1 is not?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...