169 replies to this topic

[Robert F. Smith]

blackstrap, on 06 April 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

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.

The stone-in-the-hat sounds like a solid state light emitting diode (LED).

Did anyone note during Conference that Apostle Russell Ballard compared the Liahona to his gps device?

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 07 April 2012 - 02:56 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert. Smith:

I have no problem with a figurative account of the Creation, as long as it is clearly labeled as such. What I do object to is the insistance by some that the Scriptures are a literal/scientific publication. Further I have no problem with other earth-class worlds being composed of the same materials as this earth. Though the actual proportions may slightly vary.  It is hard for me to imagine intelligent life evolving on say Jupiter, a Pluto, or as Brigham Young believed on the sun.

[calmoriah]

Quote

I think he was using humor by casually juxtaposing the indifference inherent in some impersonal important thing  that happened (“somewhere”) with the very intentional and very personal act of God, as either relates to our souls here on earth.

zerinus, on 05 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

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.

I understood him to be contrasting the very different meanings for us of a random mechanistic act of creation as opposed to an intended creative act done with purpose by a loving Father.  He can correct me if I am wrong.

Edited by calmoriah, 07 April 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

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.

Quote

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

The scriptures are not for private interpretation. Apostles and prophets are the key.  They have given clear doctrine on D&C 77 which I referenced and it certainly doesn't look like they've abandoned D&C 77 in any way.  The official doctrine is that D&C 77 doesn't speak to the age of the earth and that, while believing either in an old or young earth is not a problem, the Church has no position on the age of the earth.

Edited by BCSpace, 07 April 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[calmoriah]

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?

So does this mean we only have to forgive someone 7 times 70 as I'm getting kind of close to that limit with one person that I know.....

[thesometimesaint]

Only if you want the Lord to forgive you 490 times.

[calmoriah]

thesometimesaint, on 07 April 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

I have no problem with a figurative account of the Creation, as long as it is clearly labeled as such.

Do you really see things as clearly labeled in this way in the Scriptures?

[calmoriah]

thesometimesaint, on 07 April 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

Only if you want the Lord to forgive you 490 times.

But that is not what the verse says, it says I only have to forgive 7 times 70 and then I am off the hook, it doesn't say the Lord won't forgive me if I do either more, less or the same.

Quote

Matt 18:21 ¶Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I ^aforgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until ^aseventy times seven.

But then it is made very clear that what the Lord was really talking about was not actually 490 times as he states later in the chapter:

Quote

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

There are no formulas in mathematics that leave one with precisely 490=every last one no matter no matter how many.

The individual verse is very precise in count, the context OTOH demonstrates that this precision is figurative.

Edited by calmoriah, 07 April 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Calmoriah:

Yes. But it is a inference rather than a direct statement. Kinda like we can't, at present, literally see a electron. But it is an inference from the data.

[Log]

In this context, I feel this quote is appropos.

Joseph Smith, Jr. said:

Men are in the habit, when the truth is exhibited by the servants of God, of saying, All is mystery; they have spoken in parables, and, therefore, are not to be understood. It is true they have eyes to see, and see not, but none are so blind as those who will not see.

• Joseph Fielding Smith (editor), Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 96

[Deborah]

Adam and Eve are titles, not just names and so it may well be that such titles were bestowed on the first covenant man and woman. We have no time line for how long the creation of the earth took place or how long Adam and Eve may have remained in the Garden of Eden. But there came a point where Adam and Eve, as the first covenant man and woman, stepped into the Terestrial world as this one is known and began their mortal existence. I believe the Biblical timeline measures from that moment. But even the thousand year measurement is likely not exactly a thousand years but a frame for measuring events.

I think the fact of time being measured only to man puts limits on our thinking and because we have to have a time frame we are limited to other possibilities.

[calmoriah]

Log, on 07 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

In this context, I feel this quote is appropos.

Quote

You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

http://en.wikisource...Knowledge,_etc.

Edited by calmoriah, 07 April 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[Log]

It is unfortunate for your counter that we're not discussing the Bible.

[blackstrap]

The D&C does indicate that after the third unrepentant offence,the offender can receive your "undivided attention"

[thesometimesaint]

Jesus commanded us to forgive all men. You know "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us". He is The Judge and will forgive whom he chooses. That doesn't mean we have to be a punching bag. We can forgive and still not want to move in with our abuser.

[Stargazer]

calmoriah, on 07 April 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

So does this mean we only have to forgive someone 7 times 70 as I'm getting kind of close to that limit with one person that I know.....

Well, it appears that if Zerinus is correct, once you've reached 490 you can safely not forgive the person you're referring to.

But if the Lord was being figurative here in this case, well...

[zerinus]

calmoriah, on 07 April 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

So does this mean we only have to forgive someone 7 times 70 as I'm getting kind of close to that limit with one person that I know.....

Well I hope that is not me!

calmoriah, on 07 April 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

But then it is made very clear that what the Lord was really talking about was not actually 490 times as he states later in the chapter:

There are no formulas in mathematics that leave one with precisely 490=every last one no matter no matter how many.

The individual verse is very precise in count, the context OTOH demonstrates that this precision is figurative.

Not according to the D&C account. I don't think you looked at it, so I am going to quote it here for you. I will highlight the verses that are particularly relevant to this discussion; but I am going to quote the context as well because the highlighted bit needs to be understood in context:

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;
24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.
25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred fold.
26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;
27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.
28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.
29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children's children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;
30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children's children unto the third and fourth generation.
31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.
32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children's battles, and their children's children's, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.
38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

39 And again, verily I say unto you, if after thine enemy has come upon thee the first time, he repent and come unto thee praying thy forgiveness, thou shalt forgive him, and shalt hold it no more as a testimony against thine enemy—
40 And so on unto the second and third time; and as oft as thine enemy repenteth of the trespass wherewith he has trespassed against thee, thou shalt forgive him, until seventy times seven.
41 And if he trespass against thee and repent not the first time, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.
42 And if he trespass against thee the second time, and repent not, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.
43 And if he trespass against thee the third time, and repent not, thou shalt also forgive him.
44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee.
45 And if he do this, thou shalt forgive him with all thine heart; and if he do not this, I, the Lord, will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundred-fold;

46 And upon his children, and upon his children's children of all them that hate me, unto the third and fourth generation.
47 But if the children shall repent, or the children's children, and turn to the Lord their God, with all their hearts and with all their might, mind, and strength, and restore four-fold for all their trespasses wherewith they have trespassed, or wherewith their fathers have trespassed, or their fathers' fathers, then thine indignation shall be turned away;
48 And vengeance shall no more come upon them, saith the Lord thy God, and their trespasses shall never be brought any more as a testimony before the Lord against them. Amen.

According to the highlighted bit, the figure appears to be taken literally. But observe the context as well.

Stargazer, on 07 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Well, it appears that if Zerinus is correct, once you've reached 490 you can safely not forgive the person you're referring to.

But if the Lord was being figurative here in this case, well...

See above. Also note that this relates to the persecutions that the early saints were experiencing. How well it applies to the personal animosities that one may experience in one's personal life may be a different matter.

[zerinus]

Stargazer, on 06 April 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

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.

I don't advocate taking scriptures too literally; but I do not have as much trust in science as you seem to do either. Some sciences are more exact than others. The sciences of physics and chemistry are more exact than the sciences of archaeology, geology, and anthropology. Science can also be biased. For many scientists working in the above fields, Evolution is a "given". Any evidence which might challenge that theory is consciously or unconsciously discarded. I will give you an example. I attended BYU in the '70s. I took one course in one of the earth sciences (I can't remember now which). As part of that course, the instructor showed us a documentary film made by a British producer for some UK broadcasting station (probably BBC), relating to the subject of the course. It showed archaeological excavations and other geological data relating to prehistory, such as dinosaur skeletons etc. One of the scenes they showed was an area some place in the Utah desert which showed footprints of dinosaurs frozen in time in geological formation. After the film was over, the BYU professor, who was familiar with the terrain, said that in the same place, not far form the dinosaur footprints, there was a man's footprint, frozen in time just like the dinosaur footprints. One of the students in the class exclaimed in astonishment, "Why didn't they sowed us that?" The professor replied, "Why do you think they didn't?" End of the conversation! So science is biased. It is not so reliable as you think it is.

I will give you another example. Many years ago I read most of the Journal of Discourses. In one of his sermons, Brigham young said that when he was crossing the plains, he found a piece of petrified bacon on the ground! That led him to question the scientific inferences the petrified organic matter would require billions of years geological change to be produced.

In the case of inexact sciences such as geology, archaeology, and anthropology, scientists do not try to put their own prejudices behind in the interest of scientific impartiality, and their conclusions are not as reliable and trustworthy as you seem to think. Do I believe that dinosaurs existed? Sure. Does that mean that they lived on earth billions of years ago, or they came about as a result of organic evolution? No. While it is true that some scientific deductions are near infallible, it doesn't mean that all of them are.

P.S. I did a search of JOD on Wikisource, and found the following, which does not appear to be the same as what I had mentioned above, but still proves the point. It may be that my memory has faded; or it could be that the search was not conclusive. It produced 500 results, and I didn't bother to look at all of them. There are other problems with the search as well. Anyways, here is the paragraph from the JOD that I was able to find. It is from a discourse by Brigham Young. Other clever guys with more patience than I may be able to find more information regarding the same:

"Since I parted company with Major Powell I have heard another story, which will furnish another problem for the geologists to solve. A short time since a piece of petrified bacon was found on the trail of Colonel Fremont, and there is no question but it was left where found by his party when exploring in the Rocky Mountains. It is petrified, having become perfect rock. We all know that it is not half a million years since Colonel Fremont and his party went through this region of country. It is impossible for man to tell the cause of certain freaks of nature unless it is revealed to him by divine wisdom unless his eyes are open to understand the invisible things of God; for the ways of God and His dealings are very different from the ways and dealings of the children of men. Yet there is nothing done only on the science of true philosophy if we did but understand the facts. If we cannot define the power by which these things are done it is not our prerogative to dispute the effects, for they are before us. These and kindred topics give rise to much speculation on the part of the scientific; but it is for me to wait until their causes are made known from the proper source. It is very sure that there is no such thing in existence as a piece of wood being turned to stone without the action of elements upon it; and though we do not understand the combination, nature, and action of those elements, we can see their results." Source.

Quote

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.

I bet you had not even tried to read it until you saw my last post. How disappointing!

Edited by zerinus, 07 April 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Stargazer]

zerinus, on 07 April 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

See above. Also note that this relates to the persecutions that the early saints were experiencing. How well it applies to the personal animosities that one may experience in one's personal life may be a different matter.

Whatever.  I think I will simply forgive everyone.  I don't enough time and energy to maintain grudges.

[Stargazer]

zerinus, on 07 April 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

I bet you had not even tried to read it until you saw my last post. How disappointing!

You'd lose your stake if you were to make such a bet.

Besides, I did tell you that I had reached page 21.  I read every page, too.  I am wondering if you actually read my post, since I indicated that I had learned things I hadn't known already from your book.  You'd have to assume I was lying rhough my teeth to make this statement, if, that is, you had read my post.  Who hasn't been reading whose stuff, now?