Should God Make Sure That Stuff Stays "true"?

[sdc999]

We are all, including Prophets, influenced by the culture we live in. The truly wonderful things is the God still works with us anyway.

you and I are in violent agreement but the prophet, when leading the church, hopefully goes to the Lord and listens to the Lord and if there is communication, there should be NO misunderstanding on what is to be done.  When a prophet wants to lead the church with his own wishes and desires, then it just becomes an administrative position.

[cinepro]

"Creation mythology" ought to be the operative phrase in our discussion.  The Brethren have repeatedly made it clear that the story of creation & Eden is figurative in nature.  Just so, it is not intended to be a scientific account, but is a ritual reflection of higher truths --- whatever those are.

 

 

No they haven't.  Other than President Kimball's acknowledgment that the "rib" story of Eve's creation is figurative, can you provide a single statement anywhere on the Church websites that suggests the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall is anything other than literal, physical history?

 

It's great to have apologists, Nibley and unpublished memos to support the alternate interpretations needed to maintain belief, but when it comes to what the Church teaches through the Apostles and Prophets via Conference talks and official Church publications and curriculum, it's pretty clear and consistent.

[trim]

"Creation mythology" ought to be the operative phrase in our discussion.  The Brethren have repeatedly made it clear that the story of creation & Eden is figurative in nature.  Just so, it is not intended to be a scientific account, but is a ritual reflection of higher truths --- whatever those are.

 

You pretty much lose me when you insist that "Sidestepping the creation timeline concern may jeopardize faith and participation in the temple ordinances."   That is a non sequitur, and your wife may be overthinking it.

I agree with your first point and I tried to explain that point to my wife as well.  While you and I know that, I think that many would agree that the figurative explanation of the creation receives very little attention or explanation in our classrooms.  The Sunday school discussion about what the fruit of the tree of knowledge might be ends up as a suggestion that there are many other fruits besides the apple that could come from a tree rather than a discussion of what the fruit might symbolize.  I see this as a deeply engrained perception within our congregations that the creation story is literal in spite of what the brethren have said.  What I meant by " sidestepping the creation timeline concern may jeopardize faith" was that there are many doctrines and concepts around the creation that may not become clear or be understood as long as a literal interpretation persists, and that a clearer understanding (at least from my experience) of those concepts is faith promoting and places the temple ordinances in a context that makes their meaning more accessible.  In contrast, the misunderstanding of doctrines surrounding the creation can be destructive to faith and can negatively impact the understanding of temple worship.

 

There have been a number of suggestions in this thread about reconciling the creation mythology with the modern view that this planet is older than several thousand years and I am not suggesting that we need to adopt one specific explanation, but if the literal presentation is deeply rooted in much of the church there may not be a willingness to consider any figurative or symbolic explanation.  If "The Brethren have repeatedly made it clear that the story of creation & Eden is figurative in nature" and we continue to teach it as literal then what we teach is not "true".  This seems like a problem.  Now, it may not be a your-salvation-is-at-risk problem, but I can see how my wife sees it as a the-only-true-chruch-is teaching-untrue-things kind of problem.  Historically, there has always been the reboot button and call it another dispensation, but if we are in the last dispensation then that option appears to be off the table and there is some kind of do not cross line that triggers some divine intervention or maybe just a focus on doctrinal correction from church leadership that don't suffer from such scriptural misinterpretations.  I guess my wife feels like we've crossed that line and is wondering why we aren't seeing any action.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe that he does go to the Lord for inspiration. But how, and with what words, he communicates that inspiration to us is always conditioned on the culture which he and we live. To use an obvious example. Before the internet was invented it would have made no sense for the prophet to use the word internet and explain how to use it appropriately.

Edited September 27, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

No they haven't.  Other than President Kimball's acknowledgment that the "rib" story of Eve's creation is figurative, can you provide a single statement anywhere on the Church websites that suggests the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall is anything other than literal, physical history?

 

It's great to have apologists, Nibley and unpublished memos to support the alternate interpretations needed to maintain belief, but when it comes to what the Church teaches through the Apostles and Prophets via Conference talks and official Church publications and curriculum, it's pretty clear and consistent.

 

See http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

 

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J.

Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

[california boy]

See https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/10/prophets-seers-and-revelators?lang=eng -- do you have issues with what is explained there?

 

Their role is certainly to receive revelation from God. Revelation comes in many ways and forms. For example, they receive the keys that allow them in turn to reveal things (instructions, ordinances, delegation, etc.) to us, which in turn allow us to receive revelation (enlightenment, sanctification, protection, etc.) ourselves, typically through the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

I have no equivocation with anything that Elder Holland has said.  Yes church members believe that the general authorities lead the church by inspiration.  But inspiration is hugely different than revelation.  And by revelation I mean God speaking personally to his prophet concerning important doctrinal matters for His church so that only truth will be found there.  If we have a church that errors in it's doctrine, or maybe more fairly takes their best guess at doctrine, then what is the difference between the church of Jesus Christ and any other denomination on the earth.  

 

I think I am going to bow out of this thread.  Apparently I am the only one that would like or expect a prophet that actually receives doctrinal revelation from God Himself more than every 30-50 years.  

[cinepro]

See http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

 

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J.

Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

 

 

Swingandamiss!

 

 

 

Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Preface

 

Anything from the Church website (which hosts all current official Church publications as far as I can tell) that indicates the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall, might be anything other than literal, physical history?

 

Heck, can you find anything indicating that physical death or mankind might possibly have existed on this planet more than ~6,000 years ago?

 

Regarding whether or not Adam, or anything he did, might be considered figurative or allegorical, I submit this article as exhibit A:

 

The Man Adam

 

Few persons in all eternity have been more directly involved in the plan of salvation—the creation, the fall, and the ultimate redemption of the children of God—than the man Adam. His ministry among the sons and daughters of earth stretches from the distant past of premortality to the distant future of resurrection, judgment, and beyond.

As Michael, the archangel, Adam led the forces of God against the armies of Lucifer in the War in Heaven. Under the direction of Elohim and Jehovah, he assisted in the creation of the earth. After taking physical bodies, Adam and Eve brought mortality into being through partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. With the fall of our first parents came blood and posterity and probation and death, as well as the need for redemption through a Savior, a “last Adam.” (1 Cor. 15:45.) To Adam the gospel was first preached, and upon him the priesthood was first bestowed. From Adam and Eve the message of the gospel of salvation went forth to all the world. Following his death, which occurred almost a millennium after he entered mortality, Adam’s watch-care over his posterity continued. Revelations have come and angels have ministered under his direction. Priesthood has been conferred and keys delivered at his behest.

Edited September 27, 2013 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Why? The Lord certainly can tell anyone/everyone what he has in mind. So why have a prophet or leaders at all? The Children of Moses certain had the opportunity to hear from God himself, but they wanted Moses to do it for them instead.

[cinepro]

Brother Brigham thought somewhat differently.  He suggested that the Saints need to know for themselves whether brother X is led by God.  How can a Mormon sustain any of his leaders unless the Holy Spirit has confirmed for him that the leaders and their policies are of God.  He didn't think that living on borrowed light was a good idea, and said so.

 

In the context of the OP, that statement has terrible implications.

[jkwilliams]

In the context of the OP, that statement has terrible implications.

Agreed. Church publications are reviewed by Correlation and are supposed to be consistent with approved doctrine. Are we supposed to pray about every single church publication when we read it, or are we supposed to trust that it represents truth?

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

Swingandamiss!

 

 

 

 

Anything from the Church website (which hosts all current official Church publications as far as I can tell) that indicates the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall, might be anything other than literal, physical history?

 

Heck, can you find anything indicating that physical death or mankind might possibly have existed on this planet more than ~6,000 years ago?

 

Regarding whether or not Adam, or anything he did, might be considered figurative or allegorical, I submit this article as exhibit A:

 

The Man Adam

 

The reason for the Church isn't to establish science. IE; Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

 

I know of nothing in our publications about JS Great Great Grandfather. So he must not have existed.

 

Apparantly he listened to a snake taking to him. Maybe we should also discuss Numbers 22:28 in the context of science.

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ***, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

[trim]

I have no equivocation with anything that Elder Holland has said.  Yes church members believe that the general authorities lead the church by inspiration.  But inspiration is hugely different than revelation.  And by revelation I mean God speaking personally to his prophet concerning important doctrinal matters for His church so that only truth will be found there.  If we have a church that errors in it's doctrine, or maybe more fairly takes their best guess at doctrine, then what is the difference between the church of Jesus Christ and any other denomination on the earth.  

 

I think I am going to bow out of this thread.  Apparently I am the only one that would like or expect a prophet that actually receives doctrinal revelation from God Himself more than every 30-50 years.  

Okay.  That's twice now that california boy has expressed the point better than I have.  Thank you.

 

One point I would elaborate on in the context of what I am trying to resolve.  At a personal level I have managed to wade through the religious scholarship, scientific advances, personal biases, etc. and come to a point that my faith is vibrant and growing, so I don't know that I need some revelatroy intervention.  Sure it would be nice and I would "like" something additional to think about, but I don't really "expect" it.  So I am not as concerned about revelation or direction to satisfy personal expectations, but rather, is there a need for it to guide the general belief and teachings within the church so that they reside firmly in the sphere of truth.  Specifically, does that need exist now for some doctrines or beliefs that have broad impacts to our worship, faith, and understanding.  If the church has a unique claim to truth as we regularly assure each other, then it seems like we, collectively, should expect some guidance and correction from time to time.

[cinepro]

If the church has a unique claim to truth as we regularly assure each other, then it seems like we, collectively, should expect some guidance and correction from time to time.

Wherever you end up on the spectrum of belief and attendance, those expectations are going to be the first thing to go...

[jkwilliams]

Wherever you end up on the spectrum of belief and attendance, those expectations are going to be the first thing to go...

 

In my experience, the manuals reflect the beliefs and often the personalities of the person in charge of the project. Sometimes Correlation catches things, and sometimes they don't.

[strappinglad]

Imagine yourself explaining the creation of your child to your child when he was 5 , then 10 , then 15 . then 20 years old. Would you always be telling the truth , the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? Scientists today have no real clue about the Origin of Life. Oh , they have a bunch of theories that are at best guesses. Some like to fall back on the possible delivery of life from a comet or some such encounter. Just where should we stop when telling the story of creation? The scriptures were written for the literate ,the semi-literate , the illiterate and even the blithering idiot. They have spoken to mankind over thousands of years. With few exceptions they are remarkable in their consistency. Some now want God to " fess up" and tell all and sundry how it was done. I sincerely doubt most of mankind would understand it if He did.

[CV75]

But inspiration is hugely different than revelation.

How so? What you wrote below sounds like it could be either inspiration or revelation.

 

And by revelation I mean God speaking personally to his prophet concerning important doctrinal matters for His church so that only truth will be found there.  If we have a church that errors in it's doctrine, or maybe more fairly takes their best guess at doctrine, then what is the difference between the church of Jesus Christ and any other denomination on the earth. 

What truth is not found in the LDS Church doctrine? How does it err in or guess about its doctrine? Some truth is found in all denominations, so what is the difference between other churches and the LDS?

 

I think I am going to bow out of this thread.  Apparently I am the only one that would like or expect a prophet that actually receives doctrinal revelation from God Himself more than every 30-50 years.  

What kind of doctrinal revelation should be received at this point? “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” -- Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), p. 49

Edited September 29, 2013 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

Our church has the most correct of doctrines on the earth. Thete have been times when the truth on sone subject ma be hazy, wrong, or even misleading. Its up to us on those points to study it out for ourselves. Usually those issues are not salvation deal breakers. As parents we should do our best to ensure our children are being taught "correct principles". The age of the earth, details of creation, etc etc do not really fall into that "correct principles" categories. I do believe however we should use our best judgment to inform our children and our neighbors about potential hazards that may arise from debateable doctrines, teachings or issues.

[Stone holm]

Have not read all of the comments on this topic, so apologize for any redundancy. Our leaders are our spiritual leaders and on things spiritual they deserve our deference. They also deserve our deference on many temporal matters. Occasionally, however, it is possible for people to let their knowledge of science which may be somewhat deficient and there superb knowledge of what the scriptures literally say and what Church leaders have said down through the ages set themselves up for bizarre opinions as to natural history. It would probably be better for all concerned if GAs would avoid scientific subjects.

[cinepro]

Imagine yourself explaining the creation of your child to your child when he was 5 , then 10 , then 15 . then 20 years old. Would you always be telling the truth , the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? Scientists today have no real clue about the Origin of Life. Oh , they have a bunch of theories that are at best guesses. Some like to fall back on the possible delivery of life from a comet or some such encounter. Just where should we stop when telling the story of creation? The scriptures were written for the literate ,the semi-literate , the illiterate and even the blithering idiot. They have spoken to mankind over thousands of years. With few exceptions they are remarkable in their consistency. Some now want God to " fess up" and tell all and sundry how it was done. I sincerely doubt most of mankind would understand it if He did.

 

Sorry, but the idea of God having "created" life on Earth is only one degree more "true" or helpful in its ability to explain anything compared to science.  Once the question "where did God come from?" is broached (usually most quickly by the five year old), then you're right back where you started, with "a bunch of theories that are at best guesses", or just plain "I don't know".

 

So which "I don't know" do you want to go with?  Take your pick.  While I'm a big fan of the LDS view of things, I have to admit I really like the illustrative power of the "turtles all the way down" theory.

 

And ultimately, we probably shouldn't judge a theory based on its ability to be understood by idiots, blithering or otherwise.

Edited September 30, 2013 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

Sorry, but the idea of God having "created" life on Earth is only one degree more "true" or helpful in its ability to explain anything compared to science.  Once the question "where did God come from?" is broached (usually most quickly by the five year old), then you're right back where you started, with "a bunch of theories that are at best guesses", or just plain "I don't know".

 

So which "I don't know" do you want to go with?  Take your pick.  While I'm a big fan of the LDS view of things, I have to admit I really like the illustrative power of the "turtles all the way down" theory.

 

And ultimately, we probably shouldn't judge a theory based on its ability to be understood by idiots, blithering or otherwise.

Had to give you a bump on this. I also feel it's not truly required for salvation that we make arguments that make us look like blithering idiots in order to defend literal readings of Genesis, nor is it necessary to forsake cherished beliefs drawn from Genesis due to scientific discoveries if we look hard enough for sensible ways to make them have a modicum of consistency with each other.

[Damien the Leper]

Careful, Valentinus.  Shel Silverstein was a very wise man who reflected our often cockeyed world back at us.

And, there is only one truth (= reality), which can be described via equations or via allegory and poetry, but it is always the same truth;.

 

But even Silverstein's reflections could be quite subjective. He not only mirrored them through his poetry, he did so with how he visualised and reinterpreted them. This is partially why Silverstein's work is problematic to me.

[Sethbag]

First, I did catch them. These are pretty simply dealt with in my mind. 

 

Second, I don't consider them errors.  I consider them misinterpretations that are perpetuated all too often.  That said,  the explanations can be difficult for those that don't have any background in the scholarship.  I believe that some if not all of the "church leaders" may have caught these errors and can respond to them perfectly well.  That isn't the point.  My wife's concern was:  Why isn't the perpetuation of false or misunderstood doctrine important enough to address on a church wide basis or at least be a priority that we deal with at local levels.  Doesn't this at some point start to interfere with the claims of being "true" as in the "true church".

 

I am interested in some perspectives for these kinds of concerns.

 

You were interested in multiple perspectives, so here's mine:  they aren't merely misinterpretations, they are errors.  A misinterpretation would imply that the original authors actually knew the truth, and wrote the truth, but that we are reading what they wrote in such a way as to misconstrue their words and take away something different from what was intended.  I see no reason to believe the authors of Genesis, and the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon actually meant anything other than a literal Garden of Eden story happening just a few thousand years ago.  They were in error. 

My own perspective is that these errors in the scriptures reveal that they were written by men who didn't really know what they were talking about.  Rather than play word games like "the church and it's teachings are true, for some ideosyncratic and special-pleading-laden custom version of "true" that just happens to be unnaturally favorable to the religious beliefs I already hold", I've simply realized that the Mormon church, and all of its Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, and all of its scriptures, are the creations of men, just like the teachings and writings of every other church out there and their leaders, prophets, shaman, gurus, swamis, imams, rabbis, priests, rectors, bishops, pastors, and who knows what else.

That's the big reveal here:  the Mormon church should be lumped in together with every other church and religion on the planet because they are of a kind, being all creations of man.  The Mormon church is not "special" except to those who are members of it, and that specialness has more to do with those members' relationship to it and choice to be in it, just like the Jehovas Witnesses church is special from the perspective of faithful JWs, and so on with every other church out there.  If you grew up in it, or joined it as an adult and dedicated your life to it, you're going to think that whatever church you are in is special.  And it is to you, but it isn't any more or less true because of that.

[thesometimesaint]

You were interested in multiple perspectives, so here's mine:  they aren't merely misinterpretations, they are errors.  A misinterpretation would imply that the original authors actually knew the truth, and wrote the truth, but that we are reading what they wrote in such a way as to misconstrue their words and take away something different from what was intended.  I see no reason to believe the authors of Genesis, and the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon actually meant anything other than a literal Garden of Eden story happening just a few thousand years ago.  They were in error. 

My own perspective is that these errors in the scriptures reveal that they were written by men who didn't really know what they were talking about.  Rather than play word games like "the church and it's teachings are true, for some ideosyncratic and special-pleading-laden custom version of "true" that just happens to be unnaturally favorable to the religious beliefs I already hold", I've simply realized that the Mormon church, and all of its Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, and all of its scriptures, are the creations of men, just like the teachings and writings of every other church out there and their leaders, prophets, shaman, gurus, swamis, imams, rabbis, priests, rectors, bishops, pastors, and who knows what else.

That's the big reveal here:  the Mormon church should be lumped in together with every other church and religion on the planet because they are of a kind, being all creations of man.  The Mormon church is not "special" except to those who are members of it, and that specialness has more to do with those members' relationship to it and choice to be in it, just like the Jehovas Witnesses church is special from the perspective of faithful JWs, and so on with every other church out there.  If you grew up in it, or joined it as an adult and dedicated your life to it, you're going to think that whatever church you are in is special.  And it is to you, but it isn't any more or less true because of that.

 

Long time no see.

 

I think the Church is special, in that we have the Restored Gospel, and believe God will yet reveal many great and important things. That the quest of Mormonism is to know the truth of God. Whether those truths come from science, good literature, or what have you, we accept these things.

[jkwilliams]

Long time no see.

 

I think the Church is special, in that we have the Restored Gospel, and believe God will yet reveal many great and important things. That the quest of Mormonism is to know the truth of God. Whether those truths come from science, good literature, or what have you, we accept these things.

 

Of course. We all think our beliefs are special. I could have written what you just did a few years back. That my opinion has changed since then makes no difference as to whether the church is true or not.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course. We all think our beliefs are special. I could have written what you just did a few years back. That my opinion has changed since then makes no difference as to whether the church is true or not.

 

We all do including the Aheists. So it is possible for none or only one to be true. More than one can't be true. It is in this life we get to decide it is. I changed my opinion 42 years ago. I'm glad I did.