Help me understand how you reconcile these conflicts in your mind.
Easy. Just redefine "temporal existence" to mean something other than how long in time something has existed.
You can use this method for all sorts of things. Just ask BCSpace. For example, "no death in the world before the fall" can be taken to mean "no death inside the little area called the garden and for some small interval of time some time before the fall"
Of course, once you allow yourself to play such word games it is like playing tennis without a net. Any desired conclusion can be reached.
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
HOWEVER...I have always been taught that canonized scripture was rock solid, could be taken to the bank, was the material testimonies are built upon and the test by which all modern prophets are measured.
I stand corrected...in the 14 fundamental talk given by Ezra T. Bensen and reiterated last conference on two occations...it was again taught that "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works"...so I guess I can extrapolate that a living prophet can pretty much contradict scripture and pretty much say what he wants to say...he is is own measurement and is above the scripture...but knowing this does not help resolve sec 77
So I'm surprized that you are ready to jetison Section 77 as scripture...when it is in fact LDS scripture and IS the ruler from which everything else in Mormoism is measured. If the ruler is not correct...why assume that all of the measurements taken with the scripture ruler are correct.
I stand corrected...in the 14 fundamental talk given by Ezra T. Bensen and reiterated last conference on two occations...it was again taught that "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works"...so I guess I can extrapolate that a living prophet can pretty much contradict scripture and pretty much say what he wants to say...he is is own measurement and is above the scripture...but knowing this does not help resolve sec 77
Don't treat scripture as perfect and your all set.
Sometimes I think that ambiguous language is the only thing that keeps the scriptures alive. You'd think that Heavenly Father, in his infinite wisdom, would be able to reveal a clear and concise text that was not open to interpretations of convenience.
Plenty of people have "live" scriptures without needing to read them ambiguously. In the end, it seems the text is only as clear and concise as the reader wants it to be.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
Personally, I have some questions about D&C 77 as a Revelation from God to Joseph Smith that should be in the canon. I'm not certain that it is either. It seems to me to be quite different than Joseph Smith's one public discourse on the book of Revelation, given on the occasion of his important observation that "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine."
Does anyone know the provenance of D&C 77? It was not in the original 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Apparently, it was not added until 1876. The first recording of it I know about is in the Manuscript History vol. A-1 (http://josephsmithpa...-volume-a-1#198) This part of MH was written by Willard Richards around 1842. But where did Richards get it from? And why did Richards implicitly characterize it as a revelation, when just based on the text alone it could easily also be interpreted as an academic-type exercise by Smith?
Also, I found an interesting article that discusses the historical context of D&C 77 (http://rsc.byu.edu/a...-project-early-) But it doesn't say anything about the provenance of the original manuscript.
Plenty of people have "live" scriptures without needing to read them ambiguously. In the end, it seems the text is only as clear and concise as the reader wants it to be.
Most Scripture is very clear.
Most ambiguity is the result of the reader needing it to be that way.
Once in a while it really is ambiguous.
IMO, Living scripture has to do more with the capacity of the spirit to supply us as readers with messages beyond the scope of the text, not intentionally ambiguous language crafted to help us make it mean what we need it to mean.
it was again taught that "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works".
That is correct. This is why the publications are official doctrine. Doctrine may reside in the scriptures, but it's the 15 prophets and apostles who establish it (and as we learned in this last Conference, scriptures aren't necessarily the impetus for doctrine) and then publish it according to the Church's 2007 statement. Without this, we would not know that the water in John 3:5 is water baptism or that singles might have an opportunity in the next life to marry, or that abortion is "like unto murder". None of these and hundreds of other doctrines we take for granted are directly stated in the scriptures; it takes the prophets to know and find out they exist and communicate them to us by official publication.
If it were otherwise, then there is no need for the Church to exist.
Could "temporal" mean telestial? While Adam was in the Garden of eden the earth was in a Terrestrial existance and perhaps that way for 4.5 billion years before that. With the fall of Adam the earth entered into a Telestial or temporal existance and has been such for about 6000 years now.
I agree, because Smith evidently dated the beginning of the first seal as the fall of Adam. I don't think anybody knows whether or not Smith believed in a multi-billions-long creation period before the fall. He probably believed that each of the "days" mentioned in Genesis was 1000 years.
Here's an interesting passage from the early-20th century work of John A. Widtsoe, who was http://books.google....9MrJAUC&pg=PA50 decidedly pro-science on the issue of the earth's age, before the LDS Church took an anti-science detour in the mid 20th century from which it is still recovering. Widtsoe was pro-science not because his science was necessarily correct, but because his goal was to show that Joseph Smith's doctrines were consistent with science, which implies that doctrine may be judged by its consistency with scientific discovery, rather than vice versa. We used to do more of that in the past. Now, we are all supposed to think that "secular voices" (i.e., scientists) are tools of the devil.
That is correct. This is why the publications are official doctrine. Doctrine may reside in the scriptures, but it's the 15 prophets and apostles who establish it (and as we learned in this last Conference, scriptures aren't necessarily the impetus for doctrine) and then publish it according to the Church's 2007 statement. Without this, we would not know that the water in John 3:5 is water baptism or that singles might have an opportunity in the next life to marry, or that abortion is "like unto murder". None of these and hundreds of other doctrines we take for granted are directly stated in the scriptures; it takes the prophets to know and find out they exist and communicate them to us by official publication.
If it were otherwise, then there is no need for the Church to exist.
So are you suggesting that LDS Scriptures be taken with a grain of salt? How else does Sec 77 make any sense? It can't be taken literally and it is hard to take it metephorically...basically it just doesn't sync with how we know the world to be
I agree, because Smith evidently dated the beginning of the first seal as the fall of Adam. I don't think anybody knows whether or not Smith believed in a multi-billions-long creation period before the fall. He probably believed that each of the "days" mentioned in Genesis was 1000 years.
Here's an interesting passage from the early-20th century work of John A. Widtsoe, who was http://books.google....9MrJAUC&pg=PA50 decidedly pro-science on the issue of the earth's age, before the LDS Church took an anti-science detour in the mid 20th century from which it is still recovering. Widtsoe was pro-science not because his science was necessarily correct, but because his goal was to show that Joseph Smith's doctrines were consistent with science, which implies that doctrine may be judged by its consistency with scientific discovery, rather than vice versa. We used to do more of that in the past. Now, we are all supposed to think that "secular voices" (i.e., scientists) are tools of the devil.
And boy didn't the opportunity for accepting a more comfortable position with science and secualr reasoning within Mormonism get slapped back about 50 years in this last conference...what with Elder Neilson's strawman argument on the Big Bang theroy...which actually got a huge laugh of approval from the congregation
How do you determine the age of a house? Is it when the builders finish construction? or do you count the age of the trees that were used in its construction? or the age of the stone?
My theory, and I'll be the first to admit it is not thought out very far but it works for me, is that this world, is one that had already passed away, then God re-organized this world into something useable by us...
To me, this explains the age of the materials this earth is made from, and the fossils of animals that were not part of our world.
Though this rock may be billions of years old, the time since the fall is much shorter.
How do you determine the age of a house? Is it when the builders finish construction? or do you count the age of the trees that were used in its construction? or the age of the stone?
My theory, and I'll be the first to admit it is not thought out very far but it works for me, is that this world, is one that had already passed away, then God re-organized this world into something useable by us...
To me, this explains the age of the materials this earth is made from, and the fossils of animals that were not part of our world.
Though this rock may be billions of years old, the time since the fall is much shorter.
For that to have happened, we would have to be able to see a 100% extinction event in the fossil record. No such event has occurred. There were major extinctions, such as the asteroid that killed the non-avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but some species always survived.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
How do you determine the age of a house? Is it when the builders finish construction? or do you count the age of the trees that were used in its construction? or the age of the stone?
My theory, and I'll be the first to admit it is not thought out very far but it works for me, is that this world, is one that had already passed away, then God re-organized this world into something useable by us...
To me, this explains the age of the materials this earth is made from, and the fossils of animals that were not part of our world.
Though this rock may be billions of years old, the time since the fall is much shorter.
While I apprecaite the creativity of your theory...it ust doesn't stand up to examination...you for get to consideer that there is a observable record of the earths existance for 4.5 billion years, there is a fossel record...showing a trail of evolution between species, there is DNA record...which also supports evolution, there is radiometric dating which also supports the 4.5 billion earth age. Basically there is nothing but ignorance or a dismissal of evidence or faith to support a young earth.
I think the better question is as I first began this thread is how do you reconcile this reality
While pondering the revelations of the Apostle John, Joseph Smith receives the revelation found in D&C 77.
In D&C 77:6 Joseph Smith asks this question of God, ”Q: What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?”
He is answered with the following explanation “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”
Clearly God is telling Joseph that the earth will have a temporal existence of 7,000 years…and since we know that 1,000 of those years will take place in the Millennium, that only leaves 6,000 years for the remainder of earth’s temporal existence.
The question at hand for me is how do I reconcile this Mormon claim with science’s claim that the earth has already had a temporal existence of not thousands of years but billions of years. Both diverse claims cannot be true…clearly one is true and the other false….or is there something I am missing and both claims are true?
I believe that most who post here are a smart, intelligent, educated, crowd. How do you reconcile the LDS claim of a 6,000 year temporal existstance for the earth…with science which gives observable evidence to support its claim rather than a merely rely on faith and belief.
Was Joseph mistaken…did he hear God incorrectly?
Was God mistaken and Joseph heard him correctly?
Am I mistaken in my reading of Section 77…and temporal existence of 6,000 years doesn’t mean 6,000 years?
Is science incorrect in its claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and God is correct, that the earth is in fact only 6,000 years old?
Help me understand how you reconcile these conflicts in your mind.
Both you are mistaken, and science is incorrect.
Abraham 5:
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord's time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.
The seven days of creation before the Fall, took place according to Kolob's time, which is 1000 years to one day. So the earth took seven Kolob-days (=7,000 years) to be created by the power of God. After the Fall, Adam's reckoning of time changed to earth time, and the "7,000 years" of D&C 77 refers to earth years.
I don't see the fossil record as a problem, or the need of 100% extinction as a problem either.
I figure that God simply used the previous fauna as a pattern for what we have now. That is how some animals seem to not have changed and some have been modified for the present state of the earth.
Science is still trying to interpret things correctly. I am not bothered by science not matching up with things because interpretations change. Right now we think we have it right. Well they thought that they had it right when they thought the sun went around the earth. They just didn't know what they didn't know.
Same as today...we don't know what we don't know. We don't know what piece of the puzzle is missing so we create a picture from the interpretation of the data we have. We could be close...or we could be 180 degrees out.
And boy didn't the opportunity for accepting a more comfortable position with science and secualr reasoning within Mormonism get slapped back about 50 years in this last conference...what with Elder Neilson's strawman argument on the Big Bang theroy...which actually got a huge laugh of approval from the congregation
It was funny. I think he was using humor by casually juxtaposing the indifference inherent in some impersonal thing that happened (“somewhere”) with the very intentional and very personal act of God, as either relates to our souls here on earth.
0
This topic is locked
Craig Paxton, on 05 April 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:
