How literally do you take the creation story?

[Rob Osborn]

These layers are far older than the flood was supposed to have been.

In fact, we cannot find one single piece of evidence that we would expect to find if there had ever been a global flood.

And just what would a global flood catastrophe look like then???? What model of gradualism are you basing this from?

Hello?

[Rob Osborn]

Is that the sole scripture on which your assertion is made that God is the physical pro-creator of our physical bodies?

What else could it possibly mean?

[semlogo]

And just what would a global flood catastrophe look like then???? What model of gradualism are you basing this from?

Hello?

You would find all life, dinosaurs, cows, people, etc, all buried in a single layer of sediment, for one.

[Walden]

Folks, in the last thread I oppened, some people (quite more than I expected, actually) expressed that they took the creation story not as a hard historical fact but as a symbol. The obvious question now is, how literally do you take the genesis as accounted in LDS scripture to be? In particular, how much of the "Adam and Eve" story do you take as actually having occured?

Also, how much of what goes on in the temple do you take as actually having occured and how much just as a symbol that didn't necessarily happen? ...obviously, without getting too specific.

I take the Adam and Eve myth about as literally as I take the creation myths that numerous other cultures and religions have created in order to explain that which cannot be explained. They are all myths.

[SilverKnight]

I take the Adam and Eve myth about as literally as I take the creation myths that numerous other cultures and religions have created in order to explain that which cannot be explained. They are all myths.

What do you think of LDS who 'straddle the fence' and reject the more far-fetched scriptural myths, but believe in other supernatural events like Jesus' resurrection?

[cinepro]

What do you think of LDS who 'straddle the fence' and reject the more far-fetched scriptural myths, but believe in other supernatural events like Jesus' resurrection?

How does one distinguish between a scriptural "myth", and a scriptural "event"? You use the terms as if the difference is self-evident.

[SilverKnight]

How does one distinguish between a scriptural "myth", and a scriptural "event"?

You can't, at all.

I guess there are a handful that are important enough, that to doubt their historical reality would be to doubt that God had anything to do with our religion, or that he exists at all.

I can toss aside the Global Flood more easily than I can the Resurrection.

You use the terms as if the difference is self-evident.

Not at all.

For myself it is a wholly arbitrary line in the sand that is often illogical and inconsistent.

[Tarski]

It's called the sedimentary layers that we see exposed because of the upthrust.

Unfortunately the exposed layers vary in age as widely as hundreds of million of years as we go from place to place on the surface of the earth. They could not have been layed down at the same time or anything close to the same time.

Also, what we see in the layers is evidence of various rather calm marine ecosystems rather than evidence of a catastrophy.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

That you don't know the difference between monkeys and apes.

No that is not what common descent means. It simply means that all life on this planet is related. IE. My niece has a common descent with me through my father but she is not my child.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

No you can't trace your biological line back to Adam. Further the Church would not accept it.

For arguments against a Global Flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[zelder]

The three pillars of the gospel are:

The Creation

The Fall

The Atonement

I see no avenue for departure from believeing in the literal creation of Adam and Eve. The scriptures, the modern prophets and the temple are very clear in their teachings about the creation and the fall. Why is it so hard to believe that god formed Adam body from the dust? Why is it so hard to believe that there is in existence a fruit that has a nutrient compound capable of transforming the body from a mortal to immortal state? I reject some of what modern "science" has to say regarding evolution. Man has always been man, turtles has always been turtles and giraffs have always been giraffs.

I believe that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago.

[David T]

The three pillars of the gospel are:

The Creation

The Fall

The Atonement

I see no avenue for departure from believeing in the literal creation of Adam and Eve. The scriptures, the modern prophets and the temple are very clear in their teachings about the creation and the fall. Why is it so hard to believe that god formed Adam body from the dust? Why is it so hard to believe that there is in existence a fruit that has a nutrient compound capable of transforming the body from a mortal to immortal state? I reject some of what modern "science" has to say regarding evolution. Man has always been man, turtles has always been turtles and giraffs have always been giraffs.

I believe that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago.

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.

[David T]

The Creation

The Fall

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.

[Fifth Columnist]

It appears that Rob Osborn is to the creation story what Rod Meldrum is to BOM geography. I am surprised that Rob has met such a buzz saw of resistance for actually believing what the Church teaches about the creation story.

[urroner]

Like I said- can't see the forest because of all the trees.

If you have glasses on that only see things one way, you will never see them as they may really be. At some point you have to remove those glasses and entertain other ideas. Until then it is pointless because you will never see it even with it staring you in the face.

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?

[urroner]

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.

That is what Margaret Barker said.

[Jeff K.]

I am not sure what the scale is between what is literal and what is not. Such things are not presented in the scriptures. On the one had we do have a Garden of Eden and a Fall, I have not seen that as symbolic, but literal. The creation story is symbolic. The link to Adam and Eve and the evolved lines of early man have not been established as far as I can see. If it has been, then of course the science would nobel winning since it would show the purported missing link. We haven't seen it. We have an assumption that a mechanism that appears to work may have created homo sapien sapiens.

I would reserve judgement on that because it hasn't been proven as "fact", so I do not think you can honestly call it "fact". Rather you could say it is a strong supposition with prior evidence for other species. I personally like the mechanics of evolution, it is elegant. But that doesn't automatically mean it remains absolute in all situations.

[Lightbearer]

It appears that Rob Osborn is to the creation story what Rod Meldrum is to BOM geography. I am surprised that Rob has met such a buzz saw of resistance for actually believing what the Church teaches about the creation story.

I must say after reading this thread I agree with you. I find it sad that so many "apologists" seem more concerned with defending evolution to the point of belittling a fellow LDS, than actually trying to determine what is actually taught in the Church. Rob, you have much more patience than I do... that is the reason I generally avoid threads like this, although I made my intial post that gave my opinions on this subject and I have no interest in arguing it with so many "great big elders." I find it sickening that those who are such champions of Darwinism try so desperately to justify their own position by claiming the Gospel endorses or rather does not oppose such a position. I realize many try to use some esoteric comments of David O McKay to justify it and downgrade Joseph Fielding Smith, I guess some forget that Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet as well. In any even it is a loosing battle here Rob, there are some few that agree that evolution is a theory of men, but the great majority here just shout you down and call you names. So good luck Rob.

Now as for the OP, I find it interesting how so many LDS here are so quick to jump on the mythic, metaphoric bandwagon... reminds me of the way the literal anthropomorphic God of the Bible was reduced to a spirit essense through the use of metaphoric imagery once revelation was rejected in favor of the philosophies of men...

[urroner]

I must say after reading this thread I agree with you. I find it sad that so many "apologists" seem more concerned with defending evolution to the point of belittling a fellow LDS, than actually trying to determine what is actually taught in the Church. Rob, you have much more patience than I do... that is the reason I generally avoid threads like this, although I made my intial post that gave my opinions on this subject and I have no interest in arguing it with so many "great big elders." I find it sickening that those who are such champions of Darwinism try so desperately to justify their own position by claiming the Gospel endorses or rather does not oppose such a position. I realize many try to use some esoteric comments of David O McKay to justify it and downgrade Joseph Fielding Smith, I guess some forget that Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet as well. In any even it is a loosing battle here Rob, there are some few that agree that evolution is a theory of men, but the great majority here just shout you down and call you names. So good luck Rob.

Now as for the OP, I find it interesting how so many LDS here are so quick to jump on the mythic, metaphoric bandwagon... reminds me of the way the literal anthropomorphic God of the Bible was reduced to a spirit essense through the use of metaphoric imagery once revelation was rejected in favor of the philosophies of men...

Actually, if you have read some of the threads here, some of us isn't disputing whether Rob is right or wrong, but Rob is telling us, those who believe that evolution occurred, that we are wrong. He claims that I can't see the forest because of the trees and uses the sedimentary layers in the sandstone formations out west as a plain example of a global flood. Well, I've asked him how this is example of a global flood as opposed to plate tectonics that occurred over millions of years and he just told me again that I can't see the forest because of the trees.

I'm just asking him to defend his position. Is there anything wrong with that?

He also accused us of using conjecture while he was doing the same thing. What is up with that?

BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet, not a scientist.

[David T]

BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet, not a scientist.

Individuals should keep in mind that when he wrote his key works condemning evolution, he was a member of the 12, not President of the Church. Not authorized to establish Doctrine on his own. And the President of the Church at the time (David O McKay) was quite unhappy with his unofficial publications on this matter (especially Man His Origin and Destiny), and wished he hadn't done it - and did emphasize clearly that it was not an official text.

[urroner]

When he wrote his key works condemning evolution, he was a member of the 12. And the President of the Church at the time was quite unhappy with his unofficial publications on this matter (especially Man His Origin and Destiny), and wished he hadn't done it - and did emphasize clearly that it was not an official text.

Didn't he also say that he wished he had never made the statement that man would never reach the moon? I realize the anti's use his quote about man never reaching the moon as sure evidence that he wasn't a prophet, but I'm sure that even one of the prophets in the Bible once stated his opinion and it turned out completely wrong.

Isaiah: Oh honey, my most dearest, I have cooked you this exquisite meal tonight over some fine, cedar flavored camel dung. This is be the best meal ever. I promise you this.

Wife: Isaiah, it taste like camel dung.

Isaiah: Woman, be silent!!! I am a prophet and never wrong. Be gone with you.

[David T]

Didn't he also say that he wished he had never made the statement that man would never reach the moon?

I'm sure somewhere out there are members who believe that he was right about that.

[Brenda]

Brenda:

Please tell us all that Pi is equal to exactly 3 because it says so in the Scriptures.

What?

The three pillars of the gospel are:

The Creation

The Fall

The Atonement

I see no avenue for departure from believeing in the literal creation of Adam and Eve. The scriptures, the modern prophets and the temple are very clear in their teachings about the creation and the fall. Why is it so hard to believe that god formed Adam body from the dust? Why is it so hard to believe that there is in existence a fruit that has a nutrient compound capable of transforming the body from a mortal to immortal state? I reject some of what modern "science" has to say regarding evolution. Man has always been man, turtles has always been turtles and giraffs have always been giraffs.

I believe that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago.

Exactly.

Bishop Richard C. Edgley said in GC last month:

"There is much that I do not know. I do not know the details of the organization of matter into the beautiful world we live in. I do not understand the intricacies of the Atonement, how the Savior

[David T]

I refuse to believe my faith is inferior than yours, and my testimony of the Gospel less authentic and powerful than yours, just because you have a different understanding of non-essential elements of the Plan of Salvation than my prayerful and diligent studies have led me to.

I believe I made a choice in premortality that has an inevitable end result in my mortal life and physical death, and that without the Atonement of Christ, my progression and potential for Joy would have been shut off at that point.

I believe that I have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, and that I need to rely on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, accept the Savior as my Lord, and base my Hope in the Covenants He has made with me as the only way I can return home to joyfully dwell with my Father and God after this life. I dedicate my all to serving Jesus Christ as my Master.

Part of my Patriarchal blessing is an exhortation to learn as much as I can through diligent study and through various readings, and to write and share what I learn with others. I view my constant prayerful struggles in learning and re-adjusting as an act of obedience and worship. My testimony is centered on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and His Atonement, and the fact that the Priesthood Keys have been restored in our day by the prophet Joseph. I constantly study and make attempts to exercise the principles of revelation as have been presented by the teachings and examples of prophets ancient and living.

It was part of such study and willingness to obey the promptings of the spirit that softened my heart enough to ask God to reveal Truth to me, that resulted in my joining the Church nearly 7 years ago, and led me to serving a mission 4 years ago.

The insinuations that we rely 'wholly' on science and reject God, or that your faith or loyalty to the gospel is greater because you reject science and understand elements auxiliary to the core of the Gospel differently is the height of arrogance, and ignorance concerning the course of our actual, personal lives.

Believe what you want. In the end, you may be right, and I'm wrong. That's fine.

It's the Holier-than-thou-because-I'm-willing-to-believe-more-far-out-things-than-you attitude that makes me want to puke.

It's possible to have a fulfilling and useful debate and discussion without resorting to calling out in judgement the nature of individuals' souls and faithfulness.

I do choose faith. I also reject ignorance. Both choices are very much compatible.

[thesometimesaint]

Brenda:

You told us that "If science does not agree with the scriptures, then the flaw is in science".

Well Scripture(the Bible) tells us that Pi is exactly 3.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html

Science tells us that it is 3.14...out to 5 trillion decimal places, and it still doesn't repeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Do you see the problem?

[Zakuska]

Brenda:

You told us that "If science does not agree with the scriptures, then the flaw is in science".

Well Scripture(the Bible) tells us that Pi is exactly 3.

http://www.abarim-pu..._The_Bible.html

Science tells us that it is 3.14...out to 5 trillion decimal places, and it still doesn't repeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Do you see the problem?

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