169 replies to this topic

[zerinus]

CV75, on 05 April 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

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.

The funny part for me is that I have read this several times, and can't make head or tail out of it. You appear to make a virtue out of incomprehensibility.

[Stargazer]

I don't have any problem at all with the temporal existence of the earth being a stretch 7,000 years long, and the age of the physical earth being 4.5 billion years.  The universe is apparently 15 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million.  I believe in the Big Bang.  No problem with any of it.

I also happen to believe that man as we know him is descended from Adam and Eve, and they were put here at some point, not entirely clear if it was 6,000 years ago or some other number, and we're all descended from them.  I don't believe that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was descended from Adam and Eve, because A&E were put here as initial colonial stock, essentially in parallel with Neanderthals (assuming they were still extant at the time of the GofE).  If we share some DNA with Neanderthals, this is probably because we share the same planet with the same flora and fauna.  We have to be able to eat what we find here, in other words.  Not only that, but I think it would be extremely telling if we had completely distinctive DNA, and at this time in our development you either wouldn't be able to disbelieve in God, on biological science grounds, or else you would have to be convinced that our ancestors came here from the stars and would be looking for the remains of the spacecraft that brought us here, not to mention incredible scholarly arguments over whether we came here in a generation-ship, or there remains an FTL technology to discover.  As it is, we think we came from here, and so our gaze is properly directed at the ground around our feet instead of the heaven above, at least literally.

When it comes to numbers in the scriptures, as God seems to use them, they aren't necessarily intended to be taken exactly, anyway.  There is symbolism, numerology if you will, all over them.  For instance, what is up with SEVEN?  This number occurs every freaking where.  7 days of the week.  70 Elders of Israel.  7,000 years of its temporal existence.  Forgive your enemy 70 times 7 times.  Naaman is commanded to bathe 7 times in the Jordan.

Well, the number 7 has a certain implication, that being "spiritual perfection," "totality of perfection," or "completeness".

And the combination of 7 times 1,000 = 7,000 combines the meaning of 1,000, which is "immensity" or "fullness of quantity" (especially prominently in the Book of Revelation).  So figuratively, it doesn't matter that the actual age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when we get down to the end of the Millenium, which is the end of the Earth's temporal existence, 7,000 figurative years will have passed, making the earth immensely complete.  So to speak.

Why do people have to be so bloody literal minded?  No accounting for it, I guess.

Edited by Stargazer, 05 April 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Stargazer]

Tarski, on 05 April 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

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.

I just did.

Actually, God has been playing word and number games with us for thousands of years, and yet you're still expecting Him to speak plainly in words you can't possibly misunderstand?  Well, He knows you don't believe Him no matter what He says anyway, so He's giving you some very merciful plausible deniability.  As in:

God: Well, I told you all about it; quite clearly, I am sure.
Tarski: Clear?  There was nothing clear about it!  Number games, plays on words, you name it -- it looked like a whole bunch of confusing gobbledegook to me!
God: Yes, I know.  You ought to be glad about that.
Tarski: How so?
God: Well, because of mercy!  If it was all very clear so you understood every nuance of it, and yet still refused to believe, where do you think you'd be?
Tarski: Perdition?
God: Got it in one.

[DarkScythe]

both are true. Earth is 4.5 billions years old and Scripture only matters of the 6,000 years of it.

[zerinus]

Stargazer, on 05 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

I don't have any problem at all with the temporal existence of the earth being a stretch 7,000 years long, and the age of the physical earth being 4.5 billion years.  The universe is apparently 15 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million.  I believe in the Big Bang.  No problem with any of it.

I also happen to believe that man as we know him is descended from Adam and Eve, and they were put here at some point, not entirely clear if it was 6,000 years ago or some other number, and we're all descended from them.  I don't believe that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was descended from Adam and Eve, because A&E were put here as initial colonial stock, essentially in parallel with Neanderthals (assuming they were still extant at the time of the GofE).  If we share some DNA with Neanderthals, this is probably because we share the same planet with the same flora and fauna.  We have to be able to eat what we find here, in other words.  Not only that, but I think it would be extremely telling if we had completely distinctive DNA, and at this time in our development you either wouldn't be able to disbelieve in God, on biological science grounds, or else you would have to be convinced that our ancestors came here from the stars and would be looking for the remains of the spacecraft that brought us here, not to mention incredible scholarly arguments over whether we came here in a generation-ship, or there remains an FTL technology to discover.  As it is, we think we came from here, and so our gaze is properly directed at the ground around our feet instead of the heaven above, at least literally.

When it comes to numbers in the scriptures, as God seems to use them, they aren't necessarily intended to be taken exactly, anyway.  There is symbolism, numerology if you will, all over them.  For instance, what is up with SEVEN?  This number occurs every freaking where.  7 days of the week.  70 Elders of Israel.  7,000 years of its temporal existence.  Forgive your enemy 70 times 7 times.  Naaman is commanded to bathe 7 times in the Jordan.

Well, the number 7 has a certain implication, that being "spiritual perfection," "totality of perfection," or "completeness".

And the combination of 7 times 1,000 = 7,000 combines the meaning of 1,000, which is "immensity" or "fullness of quantity" (especially prominently in the Book of Revelation).  So figuratively, it doesn't matter that the actual age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when we get down to the end of the Millenium, which is the end of the Earth's temporal existence, 7,000 figurative years will have passed, making the earth immensely complete.  So to speak.

Why do people have to be so bloody literal minded?  No accounting for it, I guess.

Except that whenever we have been able to ascertain the exact number, 7 and 70 etc. have meant just that. Seve days of the week really are 7 days, and 70 elders really are 70 elders, and Naaman dipping himself 7 times really meant 7 times. So why not the "7,000 years" of the earth's continuance, or the 7 days of creation?

Edited by zerinus, 06 April 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[Stargazer]

zerinus, on 06 April 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Except that whenever we have been able to ascertain the exact number, 7 and 70 etc. have meant just that. Seve days of the week really are 7 days, and 70 elders really are 70 elders, and Naaman dipping himself 7 times really meant 7 times. So why not the "7,000 years" of the earth's continuance, or the 7 days of creation?

144,000 being 12,000 out of each tribe, except that Revelation leaves a tribe or so out.  12 apostles, except that the number is more like 15, these days.  Seventy, except that a quorum of seventy can contain any number up to and including seventy.  And were there always exactly 70 elders of Israel, or some other lesser number in practical matters, and do you really have to forgive your trespasser 490 times, or is 341 sufficient?  7,000 years, except that so far we seem to be 12 years into the 7th thousand years and we're still not starting up the Millenium.  Your other examples?  Sure, Naaman did indeed dip himself 7 times, but it would be hard to fudge that, and distinct numbers like 7 days likewise.

I'm telling you that you're trying to hold the Lord to literal mathematics, but I don't think He cares about that.  You can't number the number of his created worlds, and though He himself uses the example of sand on the seashore, I don't think there is a the slightest chance of a match between the number of stars in the Universe with the number of sand grains on all of earth's shores, and the number of Abraham's descendants isn't anywhere near enough to match the number of stars or planets in the Universe (or even this galaxy's, either).  The Lord is constantly dealing in figurative numbers, symbols only suggestive of literal facts, and squishy, uncertain illustrations like the statue with head of gold and feet of clay.

And you want numeric precision and mathematical accuracy?  Good luck with that one, Bijhan!  

[zerinus]

Stargazer, on 06 April 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

144,000 being 12,000 out of each tribe, except that Revelation leaves a tribe or so out.

That could be an inadvertent omission. The figures are still being applied correctly.

Quote

12 apostles, except that the number is more like 15, these days.

That is not correct either. 12 Apostles are 12. The quorum consists of 12 Apostles. The remaining three are not part of that quorum, and do not officiate in that capacity.

Quote

Seventy, except that a quorum of seventy can contain any number up to and including seventy.

The same principle applies to the 12, the elders, priests, teachers, and deacons. It is part of the constitution of each quorum that it can still function as a quorum if some members (up to a predetermined figure) are absent or missing. But the quorum itself is still defined correctly by the appropriate number. It cannot exceed that number without being split.

Quote

And were there always exactly 70 elders of Israel, or some other lesser number in practical matters, . . .

See above.

Quote

. . . and do you really have to forgive your trespasser 490 times, or is 341 sufficient?

That is probably a figure of speech; but may even be taken literally. Are we really supposed to forgive someone an infinite number of times; or is there a cut off point where we can say "enough is enough"? What is that cut off point if there is one? If so, why not the figure that Jesus suggested? See D&C 98:39-40.

Quote

7,000 years, except that so far we seem to be 12 years into the 7th thousand years and we're still not starting up the Millenium.

Actually, according to my reckoning, that is more likely to work out as 8,000 years in total, rather than 7,000. An alternative possible calculation is that we are still in the 6^th thousand year.

Quote

Your other examples?  Sure, Naaman did indeed dip himself 7 times, but it would be hard to fudge that, and distinct numbers like 7 days likewise.

I don't think that any of them need be fudged.

Quote

I'm telling you that you're trying to hold the Lord to literal mathematics, but I don't think He cares about that.

I think that in some things He does, and in some things He doesn't--in the same way as we might.

Quote

You can't number the number of his created worlds, and though He himself uses the example of sand on the seashore, I don't think there is a the slightest chance of a match between the number of stars in the Universe with the number of sand grains on all of earth's shores, and the number of Abraham's descendants isn't anywhere near enough to match the number of stars or planets in the Universe (or even this galaxy's, either).

In that particular example, the context makes clear that the comparison with the "sand on the seashore" is meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. It says, "as the sand ...", which makes it clear that it is not meant to be taken as an exact equivalence. But as far as the actual numbers are concerned, God makes it clear that He does know (and care) about the exact numbers:

Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

So numbers are indeed important, and God knows (and cares about) the exact numbers.

Quote

The Lord is constantly dealing in figurative numbers, symbols only suggestive of literal facts, and squishy, uncertain illustrations like the statue with head of gold and feet of clay.

I don't deny that figures of speech play an important role in revelatory language; but that does not mean that everything is figurative, or that God is not interested in exact numbers.

Quote

And you want numeric precision and mathematical accuracy?  Good luck with that one, Bijhan!

LOL! Don't you just wish you knew your scriptures as well as I do? And by the way, you didn't even tell me if you read my book, and if so what you thought of it. No feedback, no nothing. Now don't say it is so bad you can't even tell me!

Edited by zerinus, 06 April 2012 - 05:31 AM.

[Robert F. Smith]

BCSpace, on 05 April 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

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.

The LDS Church has produced plenty of "official" publications in furtherance of its objective to promulgate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God on Earth, and in doing so the General Authorities who often contribute to such publications carry "treasure in earthen vessels" (II Cor 4:7), that is, they are fallible humans made of clay who attempt to fulfill the grand commission they have been given to preach the Gospel.  However, since the publications you refer to (including those containing the words of General Authorities) have over time carried divergent messages on some issues, it seems suspect to hold to the rigid position you so frequently maintain.

Such a position reminds me of the rabbinic practice of interpreting Holy Scripture (the Hebrew Bible) in order to apply it to modern life, the very interpretations themselves being eventually codified in the Talmud -- which then takes on a deuterocanonical status.  

You ought to be very cautious about touting this sort of parascripture, since it contains within itself plenty of instances of internal contradictions.  The only way for us to know for certain whether some particular interpretation is of God is to pray about it and to obtain the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Meantime, "official publication" does not constitute doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

Craig Paxton, on 05 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

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

Vox  populi, vox Dei?  How many physicists were in that congregation?  Is Elder Neilson a physicist and does he understand the basics of the Big Bang?  Is this how one establishes LDS theology & doctrine?  Or are you creating your own strawman, Craig?

[Robert F. Smith]

Stargazer, on 05 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

I don't have any problem at all with the temporal existence of the earth being a stretch 7,000 years long, and the age of the physical earth being 4.5 billion years.  The universe is apparently 15 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million.  I believe in the Big Bang.  No problem with any of it.

I also happen to believe that man as we know him is descended from Adam and Eve, and they were put here at some point, not entirely clear if it was 6,000 years ago or some other number, and we're all descended from them.  I don't believe that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was descended from Adam and Eve, because A&E were put here as initial colonial stock, essentially in parallel with Neanderthals (assuming they were still extant at the time of the GofE).  If we share some DNA with Neanderthals, this is probably because we share the same planet with the same flora and fauna.  We have to be able to eat what we find here, in other words.  Not only that, but I think it would be extremely telling if we had completely distinctive DNA, and at this time in our development you either wouldn't be able to disbelieve in God, on biological science grounds, or else you would have to be convinced that our ancestors came here from the stars and would be looking for the remains of the spacecraft that brought us here, not to mention incredible scholarly arguments over whether we came here in a generation-ship, or there remains an FTL technology to discover.  As it is, we think we came from here, and so our gaze is properly directed at the ground around our feet instead of the heaven above, at least literally.

When it comes to numbers in the scriptures, as God seems to use them, they aren't necessarily intended to be taken exactly, anyway.  There is symbolism, numerology if you will, all over them.  For instance, what is up with SEVEN?  This number occurs every freaking where.  7 days of the week.  70 Elders of Israel.  7,000 years of its temporal existence.  Forgive your enemy 70 times 7 times.  Naaman is commanded to bathe 7 times in the Jordan.

Well, the number 7 has a certain implication, that being "spiritual perfection," "totality of perfection," or "completeness".

And the combination of 7 times 1,000 = 7,000 combines the meaning of 1,000, which is "immensity" or "fullness of quantity" (especially prominently in the Book of Revelation).  So figuratively, it doesn't matter that the actual age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when we get down to the end of the Millenium, which is the end of the Earth's temporal existence, 7,000 figurative years will have passed, making the earth immensely complete.  So to speak.

Why do people have to be so bloody literal minded?  No accounting for it, I guess.

I love your phrase "initial colonial stock" since it shows that you actually understand that LDS theology need not support either creationism or evolutionary theory, but rather transmission of life from other worlds, which kicks the chicken & egg question down the road apiece.

D&C 77:7 interprets the meaning of the seals, each one being taken to represent a thousand years.  The same applies to 77:6, where the sealed book in Rev 5:1 is said to contain the revealed will of God, His mysteries, and works, i.e., the hidden things of His economy (His way and concerns) during a set period, which some on this Board believe must be taken literally in the midst of all manner of figurative and allegorical interpretations.  D&C 77 is no more a scientific work than is Genesis 1 - 2 (ritual drama), and it borders on the ridiculous to forget that.

[thesometimesaint]

At least according to Scripture God took the materials of THIS Earth, and formed the physical man.

[blackstrap]

I know of no scientist that does not accept that the earth is 6000 years old (at least). What if I were assert that the earth is actually 4.7 billion years old,or 4.3?
Could there be arguments for either position? Those who think that there are no disagreements within the scientific community about the Big Bang have not done their reading. We play with a million years ,,or 100 million years like the Feds play with trillions of dollars,as if it was no big deal,and yet we can observe and record only a few hundred years at best.For example,for how long have measurements been made on the strength of the earths magnetic field> 150 years? We can extrapolate back in time and make assumptions which may or may not be correct. What is observed in the cosmos is,by admission,the events of billions of years ago,for all we know the universe may already be blacking out at the outer edges and we would not know it for millenia.

[blackstrap]

If you want to read about "magic",do some light reading on quantum mechanics and the apparent foreknowledge of electrons as to whether or not we are observing them at any given moment. And some here think that the stone in  a hat was a strange notion.

[thesometimesaint]

blackstrap:

It's even worse, if our sun blackedout 6 minutes ago we wouldn't know it for another 3 minutes or so.

[DBMormon]

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote a book and spoke his mind..... it has to be true.

we need to cut slack here.  The Savior himself said that "this generation shall not pass away" before he returned.... that literal generation is long gone.  we must have a ton more flexibility..... I always try to see these problems in relationship to old and new testament experiences that are similar.

[thesometimesaint]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.

[blackstrap]

thesometimesaint, on 06 April 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.

Unfortunately,often opinion is presented as proven unassailable 'fact'.Science tries to observe and draw conclusions,preferably on repeatable evidence.What has happened millions of years ago is often hard to repeat because of too many unknown variables.

[Stargazer]

zerinus, on 06 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

LOL! Don't you just wish you knew your scriptures as well as I do? And by the way, you didn't even tell me if you read my book, and if so what you thought of it. No feedback, no nothing. Now don't say it is so bad you can't even tell me!

OK, I wish that, but I am familiar with all that you have said anyway.  I just hold that there is numerology in that Bible, and as to whether or not the Bible is a reliable is a reliable text on astrophysics, I say that it isn't.  And where God tells His prophets things that deal with cosmology, He does not try to give them a PhD course on the Universe.  7,000 years of the Earth's temporal existence does not mean that on December 31, 5999 BP there was an empty slot between the orbits of Venus and Mars, and early the next morning there was the earth, pretty much as it is now.  It means something to the effect that Adam and Eve found themselves plunked down in the GofE that morning, and the Earth was as it is now.  I believe that there were dinosaurs roaming the earth for millions of years and that there were lots and lots of trilobites in the oceans.  But that was before A&E.  Whether the 7,000 years of the earth's temporal is figurative in the sense that it means (as I said earlier), "immensely complete", or whether it means there were literally 6,000 years between A&E's arrival in the GofE and 12 years ago, is not important, although I lean towards the former.

As to your book, I am still reading it.  I have gotten to page 21 and I have enjoyed it thus far.  In fact I have learned lots that I wasn't aware of before.  The book deserves being sat down with for some extended study, but I don't have the time at the moment.  I will do it soon.

[Stargazer]

thesometimesaint, on 06 April 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.

If I know something that is true that you don't know, and I don't tell you, I have my own facts.  If I know something is true that you don't believe, I have my own facts.

Your opinion does not trump actual facts -- even if you don't believe the facts are true.

Not arguing with you, understand, I'm just clarifying why your statement may not be true in all cases.

[Robert F. Smith]

thesometimesaint, on 06 April 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

At least according to Scripture God took the materials of THIS Earth, and formed the physical man.

We have a ritual-dramatic text in Gen 1 - 2 which suggests that humans are composed of the same sort of matter which composes all earth-class worlds.  It is a figurative account, not a historical or scientific text.  What is more, some of the most sophisticated and well-respected non-Mormon scholars assert that it is a temple text (N. T. Wright, Margaret Barker, James Barr, Lawrence Stager, et al.), and Serge Sauneron even provides detailed analysis of the Creation Rites in the Temple of Esna in Egypt.

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 07 April 2012 - 02:52 AM.