thesometimesaint Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 At least according to Scripture God took the materials of THIS Earth, and formed the physical man.
blackstrap Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 I know of no scientist that does not accept that the earth is 6000 years old (at least). What if I were assert that the earth is actually 4.7 billion years old,or 4.3?Could there be arguments for either position? Those who think that there are no disagreements within the scientific community about the Big Bang have not done their reading. We play with a million years ,,or 100 million years like the Feds play with trillions of dollars,as if it was no big deal,and yet we can observe and record only a few hundred years at best.For example,for how long have measurements been made on the strength of the earths magnetic field> 150 years? We can extrapolate back in time and make assumptions which may or may not be correct. What is observed in the cosmos is,by admission,the events of billions of years ago,for all we know the universe may already be blacking out at the outer edges and we would not know it for millenia.
blackstrap Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 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.
thesometimesaint Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 blackstrap:It's even worse, if our sun blackedout 6 minutes ago we wouldn't know it for another 3 minutes or so.
DBMormon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 Joseph Fielding Smith wrote a book and spoke his mind..... it has to be true.we need to cut slack here. The Savior himself said that "this generation shall not pass away" before he returned.... that literal generation is long gone. we must have a ton more flexibility..... I always try to see these problems in relationship to old and new testament experiences that are similar.
thesometimesaint Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.
blackstrap Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.Unfortunately,often opinion is presented as proven unassailable 'fact'.Science tries to observe and draw conclusions,preferably on repeatable evidence.What has happened millions of years ago is often hard to repeat because of too many unknown variables.
Stargazer Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 LOL! Don't you just wish you knew your scriptures as well as I do? And by the way, you didn't even tell me if you read my book, and if so what you thought of it. No feedback, no nothing. Now don't say it is so bad you can't even tell me! 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.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.
Stargazer Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.If I know something that is true that you don't know, and I don't tell you, I have my own facts. If I know something is true that you don't believe, I have my own facts.Your opinion does not trump actual facts -- even if you don't believe the facts are true.Not arguing with you, understand, I'm just clarifying why your statement may not be true in all cases.
Robert F. Smith Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) At least according to Scripture God took the materials of THIS Earth, and formed the physical man.We have a ritual-dramatic text in Gen 1 - 2 which suggests that humans are composed of the same sort of matter which composes all earth-class worlds. It is a figurative account, not a historical or scientific text. What is more, some of the most sophisticated and well-respected non-Mormon scholars assert that it is a temple text (N. T. Wright, Margaret Barker, James Barr, Lawrence Stager, et al.), and Serge Sauneron even provides detailed analysis of the Creation Rites in the Temple of Esna in Egypt. Edited April 7, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) 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 April 7, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
thesometimesaint Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 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.
Calm Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) 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.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 April 7, 2012 by calmoriah
BCSpace Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) 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.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 beThe 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 April 7, 2012 by BCSpace
Calm Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 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 Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 Only if you want the Lord to forgive you 490 times.
Calm Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 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?
Calm Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) 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.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: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 April 7, 2012 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 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 Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 In this context, I feel this quote is appropos.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 Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 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. 1
Calm Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) In this context, I feel this quote is appropos. 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.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_2/The_Gospel—Growing_in_Knowledge,_etc. Edited April 7, 2012 by calmoriah
Log Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 It is unfortunate for your counter that we're not discussing the Bible.
blackstrap Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 The D&C does indicate that after the third unrepentant offence,the offender can receive your "undivided attention"
thesometimesaint Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 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.
Recommended Posts