Christianity vs. Fundamentalism

[WalkerW]

Walker Wright, "Christianity vs. Fundamentalism," North Texas Daily (March 30, 2011).

[Calm]

Walker Wright, "Christianity vs. Fundamentalism," North Texas Daily (March 30, 2011).

Enjoyed reading. Well done. Wish it was longer.

[Anakin7]

Awesome analysis Walker my LDS JEDI Knight Master Brother In Christ Jesus.

Salvation Is In Jesus Chrust The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[WalkerW]

Thanks. I too wish it was longer. I only have 300-500 words and I think this was 500 on the dot. I wanted to include the temple aspect of Genesis, but I had no room. Both Walton and Barker address this. Oh, well.

[Vance]

Walker Wright, "Christianity vs. Fundamentalism," North Texas Daily (March 30, 2011).

[Bill Hamblin]

Very good!

[SilverKnight]

Nice job.

The problem is that this sort of Fundamentalism towards the Genesis creation account is alive and well in mormonism too. It's certainly not as bad as in hyper-evangelicalism however.

I would say that most members literally believe in that some time in the distant past, there really was a paradisaical garden either in the near east (or even more absurdly, in Jackson Co. Missouri), inhabited by two well-coiffed modern humans frolicking about, feeding exotic birds and being tempted by talking snakes.

The church has never published one article, or spoken one word in conference, indicating that genesis is anything but a literal historic account of real events.

As you pointed out in your article, this type of thinking crashes head-on into the totality of scientific knowledge and accepted history.

If the mormon creation-fundamentalist doesn't shift his paradigm, and aligns himself only with official church material on the subject, some truly bizarre apologetic justification results.

Ultimately there is a big disconnect between the mormon belief in an errant bible, and the institutional fundamentalism towards the Genesis story.

If we believe in the bible as far as it translated correctly, why does the church (just like the biblical-inerrantist christians we are so keen to distinguish ourselves from) insist on clinging to fundamentalist interpretations of the most obviously ahistorical OT stories?

[kolipoki09]

Walker Wright, "Christianity vs. Fundamentalism," North Texas Daily (March 30, 2011).

I would love to publish something like this in the school newspaper here. I'm quite sure it would ruffle some feathers, particularly as it relates to the age of the earth and evolution. Perhaps one day...

[WalkerW]

I'm quite sure it would ruffle some feathers, particularly as it relates to the age of the earth and evolution.

I'm very sorry to hear that. At the very least with the age of the earth.

[zelder]

Mormon leaders avoid this battle and wisely so but mormon scriptures make it clear that Adam partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago, that he was the first man, that he was immortal prior to the fall and that the earth was in a paradisaical state prior to the fall. My reading of our scriptures tells me that we have even more reason to be young earth creationists that the people you wrote about in you article.

[zelder]

Nice job.

Ultimately there is a big disconnect between the mormon belief in an errant bible, and the institutional fundamentalism towards the Genesis story.

If we believe in the bible as far as it translated correctly, why does the church (just like the biblical-inerrantist christians we are so keen to distinguish ourselves from) insist on clinging to fundamentalist interpretations of the most obviously ahistorical OT stories?

There is no disconnect at all becasue latter-day revelation confirms the Genesis story. A lot of core doctrines and teachings would have to be erased in order for the church to take the position that you want it to take. It is impossible for the church to backstep on this issue.

[WalkerW]

Mormon leaders avoid this battle and wisely so but mormon scriptures make it clear that Adam partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago, that he was the first man, that he was immortal prior to the fall and that the earth was in a paradisaical state prior to the fall. My reading of our scriptures tells me that we have even more reason to be young earth creationists that the people you wrote about in you article.

The quote by Margaret Barker toward the end of my article should address this.

[WalkerW]

There is no disconnect at all becasue latter-day revelation confirms the Genesis story. A lot of core doctrines and teachings would have to be erased in order for the church to take the position that you want it to take. It is impossible for the church to backstep on this issue.

What core doctrines are dependent on believing in a young earth, special creaton, and a literal garden with a literal tree with literal fruit? Given the creation's connection to our own temple worship, I find that understanding the temple imagery of Genesis 1-3 is much more important to core LDS doctrines than, say, the age of the earth.

For example, see the following from my blog:

I had learned to call thee Father,

Thru thy Spirit from on high,

But, until the key of knowledge

Was restored, I knew not why.

In the heav

[zelder]

--Nevermind more later

[kev_stevens67]

Enjoyed reading the article and thought it was well done.

[WalkerW]

--nevermind more later

I read it before it changed. Frankly, if I were expected to take the creation story as a literal, historical account (using modern historical methods that would have been unknown to the ancients who penned them), then I would definitely conclude that the scriptures are full of junk.

I would leave the church if I thought this to be the case.

Once again, from my blog:

The Creation account of Genesis 1 poses a problem for many religious individuals, largely due to modern scientific discoveries and historical methodologies.[1] Elder Neal A. Maxwell made it clear a few years back that "the Church does not align itself with the astrophysics of [the present day], nor does it endorse any particular scientific theory about the creation of the universe. As astrophysicists pursue their important work, they use the scientific method and are not in pursuit of spiritual answers."[2] What is unfortunate is that so many become obsessed with proving the Genesis story to be scientifically sound and historically accurate that they miss the purpose of the creation story itself. An insightful Margaret Barker has noted that "a great deal of the material pre-supposed by the biblical writers, the background to their writing so to speak, is not found in the Bible itself. Genesis 1-3 is profoundly true, but historicity is not a relevant question because it was not written as history. The biblical material must be treated with respect and allowed to speak for itself. It is the literature of a pre-philosophical culture, in which profound issues were debated by means of stories and vivid imagery such as talking snakes."[3] She reminds readers that "Genesis 1 was not an account of the historical process of creation, but a record of the great vision granted to Moses and others of how the world is made."[4] The keyword here is "vision". Such a word should cause a Latter-day Saint familiar with the scriptures to recall Nephi and Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life and Iron Rod, John's Book of Revelation, Peter's vision of the unclean animals, and so forth. The common aspect of these visions is that ancient symbolism was used to teach profound truths or represent significant events. Many have lost their faith due to an overliteral reading of the Genesis text; a reading they did not apply to examples such as the Book of Revelation.

Barker makes yet another important connection: "A few ancient sources say that Moses saw the heavenly temple; but most assume that he saw the process of creation, and that the tabernacle represented this."[5] Temple-endowed LDS can certainly recognize the truth in this statement: the temple has a direct relation to the creation and vice versa. It is a dramatized and ritualized version of the creation account that makes up what we know as the temple endowment. Dr. Stephen D. Ricks states, "It has been suggested that the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:4 was used in the temple liturgy of Israel at New Year

[zelder]

The fall of Adam is a core doctrine. The D&C as well as the genealogy tell us this was 6,000 years ago. The Book of Mormon confirms the doctrine of Adam. He was the first man, Ancient of days and father of all, created from the dust and immortal. I don't see any room to argue that the Adam story is intended to be allegorical. Do you see it as allegorical? What is your view of Adam?

[WalkerW]

The fall of Adam is a core doctrine. The D&C as well as the genealogy tell us this was 6,000 years ago. The Book of Mormon confirms the doctrine of Adam. He was the first man, Ancient of days and father of all, created from the dust and immortal. I don't see any room to argue that the Adam story is intended to be allegorical. Do you see it as allegorical? What is your view of Adam?

Is it really the Fall of Adam in particular that is a core doctrine? Or is it the fallen nature of man and his need for God's redemption that is core? The 2nd Article of Faith seems to be more worried about combating original sin and providing a context for judgment than Adam and Eve specifically.

[WalkerW]

The fall of Adam is a core doctrine. The D&C as well as the genealogy tell us this was 6,000 years ago. The Book of Mormon confirms the doctrine of Adam. He was the first man, Ancient of days and father of all, created from the dust and immortal. I don't see any room to argue that the Adam story is intended to be allegorical. Do you see it as allegorical? What is your view of Adam?

Where in the D&C? Considering the D&C contains biblical language and concepts, I'm not sure why I'd have to take 1,000 at face value (it wasn't this way to biblical authors).

The Book of Mormon is an ancient book. The point of my article is to avoid reading modern concepts into ancient works.

I see the story of Adam and Eve largely as a temple ritual. I believe in some kind of primal parents/people doing something to violate their covenant with God, but no, I do not believe that there was a literal garden with a literal tree with a literal snake.

[Libs]

Where in the D&C? Considering the D&C contains biblical language and concepts, I'm not sure why I'd have to take 1,000 at face value (it wasn't this way to biblical authors).

The Book of Mormon is an ancient book. The point of my article is to avoid reading modern concepts into ancient works.

I see the story of Adam and Eve largely as a temple ritual. I believe in some kind of primal parents/people doing something to violate their covenant with God, but no, I do not believe that there was a literal garden with a literal tree with a literal snake.

I agree, that makes much better sense than taking the story literally. Is there any kind of LDS doctrinal teaching that says the story must be taken literally?

[Mars]

WalkerW:

Do you believe that the Garden of Eden was a physical location on the Earth? Or that it's not so much the paradisaical nature of the garden that counts, or even that there was a garden at all, but that Adam and Eve fell and can be redeemed through the Savior?

I ask because of this quote:

President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

[WalkerW]

WalkerW:

Do you believe that the Garden of Eden was a physical location on the Earth? Or that it's not so much the paradisaical nature of the garden that counts, or even that there was a garden at all, but that Adam and Eve fell and can be redeemed through the Savior?

I ask because of this quote:

President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

[thesometimesaint]

Mars:

I believe in a literal Garden, but where ever it was it isn't there now. My job now is to make my little patch of ground a garden.

[Mars]

You think that the idea has taken root because of American saints' fascination with the restoration of the Gospel, literal building of the Kingdom, and acreage that was right near them? Do I understand you properly?

[Mars]

tss: That I like.