Jump to content

Have A Blessed Midsummer Everyone


Recommended Posts

We have reached the time of the Summer Solstice, Alban Hefin, The Light of the Shore, by June 21st or 22nd [the dates for each of the solar festivals vary each year since the events are astronomical not man-made, like our calendar]. Light is at its maximum, and this is the time of the longest day.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Mormons Talk
      [Topic: Creation "Ex Nihilo"]   I've frequently seen statements to the effect that, in contrast to other Christians, Mormons reject "Creation Ex Nihilo." Sometimes people refer to this when talking about "Mormon cosmology" and the like.   (1) What are the actual *doctrinal* underpinnings of the positions that Mormons reject creation ex-nihilo?   (2) What is the basis of this "Mormon cosmology," and is it really doctrine?   For example, the King Follett discourse is, to my knowledge, not considered "doctrine." And while people may read certain sections of the D&C and Book of Abraham to support their view (that creation was not ex-nihilo), this is an interpretation of scripture, and not itself binding doctrine, since other interpretive schemes exist that seem like they could be consistent with creation ex nihilo (i.e. one can agree that scripture is authoritative without agreeing that a particular interpretation of it is). General authorities may have said we reject ex nihilo, but were they talking as "men" or "prophets," let alone in unison as a First Presidency + Q12? And it seems there are competing views as to what doctrine is contained in the Temple ceremony.   Is the rejection of the doctrine of creation "ex nihilo" really just folk tradition, and not doctrine?   In your opinion, is the science of the big bang more or less compatible with creation ex nihilo than so-called "Mormon cosmology" (which I would be delighted to discover is actually not doctrine!)? Why or why not?  
    • By JAHS
      Which was the correct order of creation of animals, and Adam and Eve?
       
      The Genesis creation account clearly has the animals being created first, then Adam, then Eve.
       
      25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
       
      26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
       
      27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1: 25-27)
       
      21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
       
      22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.(Gen 2: 21-22)
       
      Now the account from Abraham:
       
      24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.
       
      25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.
       
      26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.(Abr 4: 24-26)
       
      15 And the Gods caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and they took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;
       
       16 And of the rib which the Gods had taken from man, formed they a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Abr 5: 15-16)
       
      So far so good. Abraham seems to agree with Genesis. However the Moses account has man being created first before animals:
       
      5. ...and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;(Moses 3: 5)
       
      7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses 3: 7)
       
      Later in the chapter, after creating man, it says:
       
      19. And out of the ground I, the Lord God, formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and commanded that they should come unto Adam, to see what he would call them; and they were also living souls; for I, God, breathed into them the breath of life, and commanded that whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that should be the name thereof. (Moses 3: 19)
       
      So there was no flesh on the earth, water, or air before man was made. This seems to conflict with both the Genesis and Abraham accounts.
       
      The Abraham account could agree with Moses if we consider that in the Abraham account the words "prepared" and "organized" are used. 
      "Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature"
      "organized the earth to bring forth the beasts"
       
      The Abraham account never directly states that the animals were created before man; only that the world was "prepared" for their creation. So the Moses account could be true and agree with Abraham when it says that Adam was the first flesh upon the earth, even before the animals. 
       
      However it still conflicts with the Genesis account.
       
      Another conflict:
       
      In the Abraham account, the creation of Eve is mentioned before the creation of the animals, 
       
      16 And of the rib which the Gods had taken from man, formed they a woman, and brought her unto the man.
       
      20 And out of the ground the Gods formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them;  (Abr 5: 16, 20)
       
      but in the Moses account, animals are created before Eve.
       
       19 And out of the ground I, the Lord God, formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and commanded that they should come unto Adam, to see what he would call them; 
       
      21 And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;
       
      22 And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Moses 3: 19-22)
       
      So in the Moses account Eve has no say in what names to give the animals. ;-)
       
      The only way I see to resolve some of these conflicts is to consider that either the Genesis account is incorrect or perhaps just because things are mentioned in a certain sequence does not have to mean that they were created according to that sequence or that some of the scriptures are refering to spiritual creation rather than physical.
       
       
       
       
       
       
    • By Bernard Gui
      Yonder is matter unorganized. Who wants to go down?
       
      http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150523.html
       
    • By stephenpurdy
      I am a convert to the LDS church.  I was agnostic in my teenage years and began investigating Mormonism while in college.  I was very skeptical of organized religion.  When approached by my religious family members, I would tell them,
       
      "Why would God create me, and when I turn out to be defective or insufficient, He punishes me for not being good enough?  It is nonsense for God to punish me for being who and what God created me to be."
       
      Unfortunately, those who I said this to had no good answers for this logical response.  I will explain in more detail why this argument was so convincing, but in the mean time, I wanted to enter the discussion by referring to an old article in the Harvard Theological review, which I am sure that many of you all will appreciate.
       
      - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       
      THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
      In the Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
       
      http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/logic-bible.htm
       
       
      This was followed up by another article, also written by Cherbonnier: 
      In Defense of Anthropomorphismhttp://rsc.byu.edu/archived/reflections-mormonism-judaeo-christian-parallels/9-defense-anthropomorphism
       
       
      - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - -
       
      This is not just about Anthropomorphism.  It is about the nature of God.  It is about the nature of existence, the nature of the Universe / Multiverse.  It is about the nature of man and our relationship with God.
       
      -Stephen
    • By BCSpace
      I'm not a big fan of "the more science can explain, the less room there is for God" type of arguments. I believe they are absolutely non sequitur and anti-science. However, if they shake an atheist's beliefs, more power to them.
       
      But since we are going the other way on this one, I have to say it goes against my preference for a universe teaming with life and not one like Isaac Asimov's universe in which the all powerful robots altered the universe to ensure humanity would not have much competition.
×
×
  • Create New...