How literally do you take the creation story?

[Nathair/|\]

I am pretty sure that the last time I looked in the mirror I was a "man". It is as simple as that.

So, if you and, say a Cylon, were to stand in front of that mirror, could an observer tell us which is a man based only on what can be seen in the mirror?

Yours under the essential oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Rob Osborn]

So Rob, how did a global flood about 5000 years ago lay down hundreds of thousands of layers of sedimentary layers and then afterward, the mountains were grown in the west while the mountains in the east, Smokies, etc., were worn down.

I await a plausible explanation other than being told that I can't see the forest because of the trees. Please help me to see the forest, but then again, you don't seem to be able to see any of the trees because of the forest and are you even looking at the right forest?

Let me just state that when one crosses with information it is always best to be skepticle regardless of the source. Let human reason set in place the truth. Who is to say how old any mountain range is? Why should we assume that the Appalacians are of different age than the Rocky mountains? How can anyone really know when they were upthrust and at what rate their erosion is?

Let's shift focus here for a second and place it directly on the BoM. Why is science silent on the factual events of the BoM and perhaps even against it? (I am stating this off of complete 100% faith that the BoM is a real ancient text of the peoples of the Americas.) This is the same institution that has already written their opinions of events here in this country. They have a lot at stake. There is no way that that institution of science will ever state that the BoM events were factual because it goes against what they have already written and claimed as "fact". If they can do this with science do you suppose that they can do this also with flood evidence? I am not suggesting conspiracy or anything whacko like that, I am stating that even the best minds in institutions can get things really really wrong. I mean- if they are right about the events in the Americas, then our whole religion is a fraud, Joseph Smith is a fraud, and every prophet has unknowingly led us down strange paths.

Based off of this I know that things are not as they seem- not what the instituionals of science has to say regarding the events of the inhabitants of the Americas. If they can be so drastically wrong with these things, of no real fault of their own perhaps they do not understand the mind and will of the Lord.

Now, getting back to the geology, why are we to believe these institutions are correct? It's who we place our faith in that matters regardless of what on the surface seems to be real.

When God flooded the earth it was one continent. The earth was completely destroyed. All of the high places were destroyed- everything was leveled and under water. This all took place before the great mountain chains were upthrust that we see today. The flood waters were abated from the earth because God caused there to be both canyons form (underwater canyons) and mountains to uplift- land to rise while other parts fell. As a result of that the continents were born- the land became divided. Now, as this relates back tot he BoM, the Jaredites were told to take of all different seeds and animals (not every one, just some) and take them to a place God had prepeared. They even brought the honey bee with them. They gathered and built barges and crossed the sea and came to America, a place God had reserved for all those who serve him. This is the story of the peopling of America and the insights are obvious and tie in with the flood. Why bring all this life with them? Because they were sent as God's servents to help replenish nature to this part of the world that was yet barren after the flood waters had receded off the land.

There is much much more but sufficeth to say- this should get you started. The answers are all in the scriptures. God speaks and those who are ready to see will see.

That is all.

[shalamabobbi]

Just some musings..

I discovered that a recently made good friend of mine had contracts for making furniture for many of our temples. I found out later that he was now a non-believing ex-member and that his father was a convert that held to the BRM version of things.

That is how he lost his son and how his son adopted the viewpoint that his father was a fool. Kind of sad. It doesn't take a whole lot of study to acquire enough knowledge to realize that that interpretation flies in the face of facts.

One example of many..

The earth is slowing down. It is not rotating as fast today as it was in the past. This slowdown is caused by the tides which the moon raises on the earth. However, before we explain this slowdown, we need to discuss how tides are formed.

All physical objects attract one another through the force of gravity. This force depends upon the mass of each object and upon the distance between the objects. The closer they are to each other, the more strongly they attract. In the case of the moon and the earth, the moon pulls the ocean water on the nearer side of the earth more strongly than it pulls the rest of the earth, so the water forms a bulge. The opposite occurs on the far side of the earth. Here the water experiences the least pull because it is farthest from the moon. The rest of the earth is pulled away from the water, forming another bulge of water pointing away from the moon, though the bulge is not quite as large as the first one. The moon holds these bulges (more or less) in place while the earth rotates beneath them. The net effect is the tides we experience at the seashore.

Tides slow down the earth's rotation speed because of friction between the earth and the water under which it rotates. The effect is very small - a slowdown rate of about 0.0002 seconds per day per year. This means that as each year goes by, each day of the year lasts 2 hundred-thousandths of a second longer. Thus the length of the day changes by about 20 seconds every million years.

Since the earth's rotation is slowing down, it took less time in the past for the earth to rotate on its axis than it does today. But the time for one complete rotation is the length of a day. So if the days were shorter in the past, then there were once more days in the year than there are now. This, of course, assumes that the length of the year has not changed. This is a reasonable assumption, since the year is the time (measured in unchanging units) it takes for the earth to go once around the sun, and there is no known mechanism to make any measurable changes in this period over a few billion years.

If we assume that the rate of slowing of the earth's rotation has been constant, we can calculate the number of days in a year at various times in the past (Hayward, 1985, p. 95). Suppose we want to know how many days made up a year in the Devonian period, estimated to have been some 400 million years ago. Each day was 20 sec shorter per million years x 400 million years = 8,000 seconds shorter. This means each day was only 21.8 hours long then, as opposed to 24 hours per day now. Since a year is 8799 hours long (24 hours/day x 365.25 days/year, using modern-length days) and this length has not changed, we can calculate the number of ancient days in a Devonian year by dividing 8766 hours/year by 21.8 hours/day, to get about 400 days/year. A similar calculation for the Pennsylvanian period, beginning about 280 million years ago, gives 22.4 hours/day, or 390 days in the Pennsylvanian year.

The reason for choosing the Devonian and Pennsylvanian periods is that we can check to see if these calculations correspond to reality. In certain modern corals and shellfish, we find growth-bands that indicate yearly, monthly, and even daily growth, rather like the annual rings that trees produce. By counting these bands, we can determine how long a particular coral or shellfish lived just as we can for a tree by counting its rings. We can also see that there are about thirty daily bands per month and about 365 daily bands per year for modern corals and shellfish. But careful analysis of the growth-bands of fossil corals and shellfish from the Devonian and Pennsylvanian has confirmed that years in these periods contained more days than years do now, and that the number of days per year for both these periods is remarkably close to the values calculated above.

This correlation between theory and observation is striking. After all, three different modes of dating are used here, and they all correlate with each other. The fossils are dated by the rock layers in which they are found, which dating ultimately depends on radiometric methods (decay rates of radioactive elements). The growth bands in the fossils are biological in origin, depending on the response of the organism to daily, monthly and yearly changes in environment (light, weather, and temperature). The earth's slowdown is an astronomical phenomenon. The three processes upon which the dates depend - radioactivity, biological growth, and tidal friction - are independent processes, yet all three combine to form a coherent, natural picture of what is happening.

This is surely not mere coincidence. The Lord himself seems to be providing sincere seekers and careful investigators with valid evidence that the earth is old.

source: http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/tidaltct.htm

[urroner]

Now, getting back to the geology, why are we to believe these institutions are correct? It's who we place our faith in that matters regardless of what on the surface seems to be real.

Rob, why should I believe that you are correct, just because you say so? I place my faith in God the Father and His Son. Whom/What are you placing your faith in? Are the scriptures a science book? Was Eve truly created from one of Adam's ribs? Is pi really 3?

There is much much more but sufficeth to say- this should get you started. The answers are all in the scriptures. God speaks and those who are ready to see will see.

So when will you open your eyes and see that you can't even begin to defend your position in the slightest without repeatedly citing that those who disagree with you lack faith and are deceived by the evil men who do science?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

[semlogo]

There is something seriously wrong when some members consider deliberate ignorance a mark of virtue and "true faith."

What happened to seeking truth wherever you can find it?

[semlogo]

If you add in the "hand breadth" as the .14 the Bible estimates Pi at a better Precision than the Egyptians or the Babylonian sacred texts of the time.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

The Bible says the earth is flat and covered by a dome, and sits on pillars. Is the Bible right or is science right?

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

The Bible COULD have also said "about", and that would work for me.

[Senator]

There is something seriously wrong when some members consider deliberate ignorance a mark of virtue and "true faith."

What happened to seeking truth wherever you can find it?

Religion, is a jealous creature.

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

Yes and no. Lots depends on what is asked of it.

[zelder]

Apart from science, here's another strike a literal view of the Adam and Eve story has against it:

The study of historical biblical text, contemporary history, and other related studies shows very convincingly that the Adam and Eve story as extant in Genesis was a late addition, and in fact replaced a very different, and much earlier creation story that is referred to far more often in the Old Testament than the Adam and Eve story is (which is never referred to again outside of Genesis). The Adam and Eve story as found and developed in Genesis was based on hindsight interpretations of Israelite history combined with the symbolism of the Israelite Temple - not the other way around.

History has shown that the Lord is quite willing to change the framework story by which different truths are explored and taught.

*rolls eyes*

[zelder]

I believe in both.

I don't believe the mythic framework used to impress these sacred and personal concepts upon our mind are meant to be an historical account, but teach us very real and very practical principles.

One need not accept the mythic framework as history to recognize the need for the Atonement of Jesus Christ in our personal lives, and for the world as a whole.

I would love to be sitting in a gospel doctrine class where you explain to everyone that the story of the creation is a symbolic myth. lol

[zelder]

I am not suggesting conspiracy or anything whacko like that.

There is nothing wacko about conspiracy.

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

"I would love to be sitting in a gospel doctrine class where you explain to everyone that the story of the creation is a symbolic myth. lol ".

At time and a place for everything. This is neither.

[zelder]

There is something seriously wrong when some members consider deliberate ignorance a mark of virtue and "true faith."

What happened to seeking truth wherever you can find it?

Faith is not a blind belief. Faith is an action based on a belief for which there is evidence. There is evidence that the scriptures are true and there is evidence that they are not true. It's all a matter of who you believe.

Some people here choose to believe the scriptures while others choose to believe other things.

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

The wonderful thing about the Saints is we willingly accept science and religion.

[zelder]

Zelder:

The wonderful thing about the Saints is we willingly accept science and religion.

Of course! But as we can all see, many of us cannot reconcile some acpects of religion with some aspects of science.

[semlogo]

Faith is not a blind belief. Faith is an action based on a belief for which there is evidence. There is evidence that the scriptures are true and there is evidence that they are not true. It's all a matter of who you believe.

Some people here choose to believe the scriptures while others choose to believe other things.

Blind belief is rejecting reality in favor of a literalist take on Genesis.

[zelder]

Blind belief is rejecting reality in favor of a literalist take on Genesis.

You are insulting the intelligence of those who believe. Again, it is all a matter of who you believe. Just because you have accepted the secular humanist view of the creation does not mean that you are more intelligent than those who think they are liars.

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

A very human failing. But I willingly forgive them their faults, if they forgive me mine.

[David T]

Just because you have accepted the secular humanist view of the creation does not mean that you are more intelligent than those who think they are liars.

Secular Humanist view?

Do you seriously believe that individuals cannot be diligent and prayerful and faithful students of the scriptures and loyal to the counsel of the Prophets... and still accept the scientific evidences that the Lord has allowed to come to light?

Seriously, have people forgotten the Galileo Incident?

[zelder]

Secular Humanist view?

Do you seriously believe that individuals cannot be diligent and prayerful and faithful students of the scriptures and loyal to the counsel of the Prophets... and still accept the scientific evidences that the Lord has allowed to come to light?

Seriously, have people forgotten the Galileo Incident?

If the science behind all asepcts of evolution were irrefutable, there would be no controversy. Not only does it contradict the revelations from god.....its fuzzy science. Thats why it is controversial. If this was as easy as looking through a telescope there would be no controversy. I might reject the scriptures too if I didn't think the science was so hokey.

[Senator]

If the science behind all asepcts of evolution were irrefutable, there would be no controversy. Not only does it contradict the revelations from god.....its fuzzy science. Thats why it is controversial. If this was as easy as looking through a telescope there would be no controversy. I might reject the scriptures too if I didn't think the science was so hokey.

Mr.Irony, meet Mr.Zelder

Science has brought us many wonderful things. Do you spurn all science, or just that which fiddles with your beliefs?

[David T]

I think a key problem comes when one equates the framework by which revelation is recorded and expressed to the revelation itself.

If one is not prepared to accept that there is a difference, then I highly suggest staying far away from the Church-published Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations - Manuscript Revelation Books.

[zelder]

Mr.Irony, meet Mr.Zelder

Science has brought us many wonderful things. Do you spurn all science, or just that which fiddles with your beliefs?

Being rude and insullting my intelligence does not strengthen your position or weaken mine.

[zelder]

I think a key problem comes when one equates the framework by which revelation is recorded and expressed to the revelation itself.

If one is not prepared to accept that there is a difference, then I highly suggest staying far away from the Church-published Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations - Manuscript Revelation Books.

Instead of trying to make yourself look smart, why dont you make a point?