Jump to content

Archived

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

elguanteloko

How literally do you take the creation story?

Recommended Posts

What did you say? The reason why I asked you was because that was how I understood you.

I said, "Simply stating a simple fact, that *all* physical evidence doesn't say the earth is old. More than anything that blanket statement is as much as statement of faith than anything else."

Which is what I meant.

A fact of science is quite different than an absolute proclamation (Such as all physical evidences says the earth is very old) that are often made, which is what I was referring to. Proclamations such as these are evidence of one's faith.

Share this post


Link to post

Hughes:

Very simple. Put up, or leave the field to those who know what they are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

Hughes:

Very simple. Put up, or leave the field to those who know what they are talking about.

Nothing I've said has been refuted. Your specific point of contention?

Share this post


Link to post

That quote you referenced from McConkie was a perfect one to illustrate that. The most on-point portion of the article:

The phrase "He was the first man of all men in the day of his creation" is fascinating.

As you say, McConkie might not agree, but why did he throw in the qualifier "of all men in the day of his creation"?

Is the implication that that he was NOT "first flesh" of other flesh created BEFORE "the day of his creation"?

Why didn't he say "He was the first man." and leave it at that?

No, that's not the implication. It's more likely a rhetorical flourish, which as with so many other rhetorical flourishes gets interpreted by apologists as a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.

Luckily, Elder McConkie was explicit about what he meant in the rest of the article:

Thus we learn that the initial creation was paradisiacal; death and mortality had not yet entered the world. There was no mortal flesh upon the earth for any form of life. The Creation was past, but mortality as we know it lay ahead. All things had been created in a state of immortality. It was of this day that Lehi said:

Share this post


Link to post

So the fall was passing through the veil - a transition from the spiritual realm to a physical realm?

Not according to Elder McConkie:

The Mosaic and the temple accounts set forth the physical creation, the actual organization of matter into tangible form. They are not accounts of the spirit creation. Abraham gives a blueprint of the Creation. He tells the plans of the holy beings who wrought the creative work. After reciting the events of the

Share this post


Link to post

Hughes:

I reject your reality and substitute my own. :P

Not new information.

Share this post


Link to post

Folks, in the last thread I oppened, some people (quite more than I expected, actually) expressed that they took the creation story not as a hard historical fact but as a symbol. The obvious question now is, how literally do you take the genesis as accounted in LDS scripture to be? In particular, how much of the "Adam and Eve" story do you take as actually having occured?

This is an old and very long thread which I never read, and never answered; but which asks some good questions. Here are my answers:

I believe that part of the creation story is literal, and parts of it are not.

I believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, but the part about God making Eve out of Adam's rib is allegorical. I don't believe Adam and Eve came by evolution, but by creation.

I believe that the Fall was literal, and came by physically taking some kind of fruit into their bodies; but it had spiritual as well as physical consequences.

I believe that the Bible chronology tracing the origin of man on earth to something around 4,000 BC is about right; but that is not meant to tell us the age of the earth itself. The chronology begins from the fall of Adam, not before that time. It is not revealed how long it actually took God to create the earth, nor how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they fell. "Day" in the creation story does not mean a "24 hour day". But the chronology as recorded in Genesis tracing the origin of man to the fall of Adam in approximately 4 Millennia BC, at which point they started having children, I believe is right.

Also, how much of what goes on in the temple do you take as actually having occured and how much just as a symbol that didn't necessarily happen? ...obviously, without getting too specific.

The answer is more or less the same as above. The variations are not that great that the above explanation should need to be revised.

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.

×