Why Do Mormons Have Difficulty Believing . . .

[LDSMusic483]

I would disagree. a literal Gen 1 is fully supported by the evidence we have.

We can literally understand it to be 6 days, but that which isn't supportable is the length of the days during the creation period. If one day equals a thousand years to God, and if mankind wasn't yet on this earth to reckon it to their understanding, I would think it more likely that the days atleast were reckoned off of Gods understanding. I would say that the least likely of the scenarios is it being 6 24-hour period days.

[Jason]

I don't recall that. Which one?

I was referring specifically to the temple account.

[maklelan]

Because God created them fully at creation. Fully able to reproduce and function as an "adult" tree.Apparent age.

No he didn't. In the text God commands the earth to bring forth trees, and the earth brings everything forth until it produces seed.

[ThePhy]

I think most LDS are taught that if you consider the creation as 6 "periods", then it can still square with evolution.

Whether 24 hours day or long periods of time, the Biblical order of creation just doesn't fit evolution:

Bible says -

Day 3 â?? seed bearing plants, trees, fruits

Day 4 â?? visibility of sun, moon, and stars

Day 5 â?? fish and birds

Day 6 â?? land animals

Evolution says seed bearing plants and trees appeared long after sea creatures, and most modern plants and fruits came on the scene long after land animals were trotting around eating each other. The order in evolution is much more of an ongoing increase in diversity among all the life forms than a sequential appearance.

[Connolly]

That God's people at the time Genesis was written didn't have either the vocabulary or necessary understanding of the laws of Nature and God to understand what God was doing. So God gave them a poetic (and accurate in it's own way) story to explain the Creation. The only question left would be why God hasn't inspired a Prophet to expand on the story. My theory: God's people at this time don't have either the vocabulary or necessary understanding of the laws of Nature and God to understand what God was doing.

Even if we could understand it at some level there are lots of people at this time who would not accept a new doctrine on the matter - it would become a stumbling block to them. IMO, there are many things in our church that are conflations with apostate Christianity and age old superstitions that persist because the church membership is not ready to throw them out.

I look at the creation account this way: Six times God planned a task for Christ to perform, and six times Christ performed the task exactly as planned with tangible visible results that we experience first hand. If Christ successfully performed the task with exactness six times, then he will do so a seventh time, that is, we can trust in his atoning work to return us to our Heavenly Father.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would disagree. a literal Gen 1 is fully supported by the evidence we have.

Did you like my theory Hoops? It is more reasonable then 6 24 hour periods. Since the earth was not yet created at first nor was the sun or the moon, how could it be 6 24 hour periods with which to tell time as we know it. Your interpretaion is not supported by the text. Becuase there are other verses of scripture that let us know that it was long than 6 earth days.

[Buckeye]

IMO, the key difference between LDS and EVs (and most other Christians for that matter) is that we reject creation ex nihilo.

[thesometimesaint]

Hoops:

LDS are not limited to just the Bible for its Scriptures.

[emeliza]

I never believe in a literal 6 days even when I was Protestant. I always believe it was periods. However I don't agree each period was only 1,000 years either.

[Hoops22]

Did you like my theory Hoops?

I like you. But I'm not a big fan of your theory.

It is more reasonable then 6 24 hour periods.

I don't think so.

Since the earth was not yet created at first nor was the sun or the moon,

That's true. The text only says the something along the lines of "the elements" or "the material" was created from nothing.

how could it be 6 24 hour periods with which to tell time as we know it.

All that's required for a day is a fixed light source. We have that. Sun is not required.

Your interpretaion is not supported by the text.

I think it is.

Becuase there are other verses of scripture that let us know that it was long than 6 earth days.

I'm unaware of those.

[Bat-Man]

People,

Genesis 1:5 states that God called the Light "Day", so as long as there was Light, it was Day.

Q: ... so how long was that Day?

A: ... well, as long as there was Light.

Q: ... and how long was there Light?

A: ... well, certainly at least as long as God was there because He is the Light, after all.

[firepatch36]

I remember hearing somewhere that the word day in the Genesis doesn't mean a day in the 24 hour sense (isn't that yom in Hebrew)? Is this right, or am I just hearing things?

[Bat-Man]

I remember hearing somewhere that the word day in the Genesis doesn't mean a day in the 24 hour sense (isn't that yom in Hebrew)? Is this right, or am I just hearing things?

According to Genesis 1:5, the Light is Day.

I'm really not sure about how well you are hearing things.

[Scottie]

The Book of Abraham does refer to each period as time but also seems to emphasize it's length as essentially one day by prefacing each 'time' by: "And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day". I do recall the other intro you mentioned, I'd forgotten about that.

Well, yes, but IIRC, it is also believed that Earth was in the same orbit as Kolob until the fall. During the creation, the BoA could be referencing a Kolobian day?

[ttribe]

Well, yes, but IIRC, it is also believed that Earth was in the same orbit as Kolob until the fall. During the creation, the BoA could be referencing a Kolobian day?

Sorry, I don't know of any such beliefs about the Earth being in the same orbit as "Kolob"? Besides, isn't Kolob supposed to be a star, not a planet. Do stars orbit?

[LDSMusic483]

Well, yes, but IIRC, it is also believed that Earth was in the same orbit as Kolob until the fall. During the creation, the BoA could be referencing a Kolobian day?

GA's have postulated that when the fall occurred, the earth "fell" as well from its orbit by Kolob. There's no cannonical basis for it though. And if it was a Kolobian day, it would have been the 1000 year thing for us here.

Sorry, I don't know of any such beliefs about the Earth being in the same orbit as "Kolob"? Besides, isn't Kolob supposed to be a star, not a planet. Do stars orbit?

Considering that a celestialized earth will probably resemble a sun which is in fact a star, it would still work.

[Scottie]

I've never been taught that. In fact, your post is the first I've heard of that philosophy.

In Utah County it was common to say that evolution could have happened, and that a day to God is not a day to us. It isn't necessarily 1000 years, but rather a length of time.

The account of Genesis really does speak well, if not very vague, to the process of how Earth was developed. If you had to break the creation of the Earth into 6 descriptive events, I think Genesis outlines it pretty well.

[ttribe]

In Utah County it was common to say that evolution could have happened, and that a day to God is not a day to us. It isn't necessarily 1000 years, but rather a length of time.

Just because something may be commonly believed does not make it an official "teaching"; you know that.

Considering that a celestialized earth will probably resemble a sun which is in fact a star, it would still work.

If you re-read Abraham I think you'll see what I am talking about.

[maklelan]

That's true. The text only says the something along the lines of "the elements" or "the material" was created from nothing.

It says nothing of the sort. Nowhere does the Bible say that the universe or the world or anything used to make it was created from nothing.

[Scottie]

Just because something may be commonly believed does not make it an official "teaching"; you know that.

I don't think I ever claimed it was. I'm just putting my 2 cents in to the question "Why Do Mormons Have Difficulty Believing..."

[ttribe]

I don't think I ever claimed it was. I'm just putting my 2 cents in to the question "Why Do Mormons Have Difficulty Believing..."

I was referring to this - Post Link

[katherine the great]

That seemed to be the theme of my whopping THREE science classes at BYU, so it has at least gained traction among some faculty at BYU.

Really? I graduated from BYU and had a number of science classes there and was not once taught about the periods of creation as part of the science curriculum. I've also never been taught in church that we are allowed to believe in evolution since we are taught that the six periods of creation were not literal days. In fact, I've never heard evolution being spoken of in any supportive way in church. I'm pretty sure that I am one of the only people in my ward who even believe in the theory of evolution. Frankly, it mystifies me because I reside in a ward of very educated people.

[consiglieri]

Thanks, everybody, for the responses!

I think there are probably a number of things that come into play with regard to this seeming disparity of belief between Mormons and Evangelicals.

1. Mormons, for good or ill, seem to be more prone to accepting and incorporating scientific advances into their religious thinking.

2. Mormons tend to be more flexible in the way they view and understand scripture; especially the Bible ("as far as it is translated correctly" and all that).

3. Mormons tend to be better educated than Evangelicals. (I know I am going to catch hell for this one, but I think it is a documented fact, regardless of whether there is actually a connection between the level of education and the difference of belief in regard to the creation period.)

4. As has been mentioned, Mormons also have the Book of Abraham, which in addition to speaking of "times" rather than days, also states in several places that the Gods commanded the earth to do this or that, and then they watched until they were obeyed. (This is somewhat remarkable inasmuch as On the Origin of Species , which introduced Darwin's theory of evolution, was not published until 24 November 1859.)

Well, that should be enough to ignite a firestorm, so I'll leave it at that for now.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

I find it always interesting that the Mormons rejected the Darwinian science of Evolution, but accepted the pseudoscience of Social Darwinism, more properly called Spencer-ism.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks, everybody, for the responses!

I think there are probably a number of things that come into play with regard to this seeming disparity of belief between Mormons and Evangelicals.

1. Mormons, for good or ill, seem to be more prone to accepting and incorporating scientific advances into their religious thinking.

2. Mormons tend to be more flexible in the way they view and understand scripture; especially the Bible ("as far as it is translated correctly" and all that).

3. Mormons tend to be better educated than Evangelicals. (I know I am going to catch hell for this one, but I think it is a documented fact, regardless of whether there is actually a connection between the level of education and the difference of belief in regard to the creation period.)

4. As has been mentioned, Mormons also have the Book of Abraham, which in addition to speaking of "times" rather than days, also states in several places that the Gods commanded the earth to do this or that, and then they watched until they were obeyed. (This is somewhat remarkable inasmuch as On the Origin of Species , which introduced Darwin's theory of evolution, was not published until 24 November 1859.)

Well, that should be enough to ignite a firestorm, so I'll leave it at that for now.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

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