EllenMaksoud Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Scientific evidence shows that the above statement is not strictly true as is evidenced by the Intersex people we know about. There is not strictly XX and XY but XXXX, XY46, and XXY and thousands of other genetic anomalies. In the past, these things were veiled in secrecy largely because of prejudice and the difficulty of identifying the problem. So, to the ancient religions readers, I wonder if the original language actually said "Male and Female" ? From Jewish scholars I have known, there are sections of the OT that are complete nonsense when interpreted by them in comparison to modern Christian texts. I wonder why we do not talk about these things?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 It is true that there is a spectrum of genderness or gender identity when genes are examined, but biologists still maintain that mammals are divided into male and female, and nearly all are able to reproduce. That is the overwhelming norm, and the exceptions merely prove the rule. There is no reason to believe that some other notion obtained in antiquity. The Genesis story of Creation is not intended as a scientific text. It is a liturgical text with figurative and religious value. The Brethren have repeatedly observed that it is very symbolic in nature. Most Jewish scholars (like their Christian colleagues) have a particular theological position to defend. This often means casting aspersions on Christian beliefs or interpretations. A great many of us discuss these things on a regular basis with our Jewish colleagues. The interchange is very healthy and there is a lot of mutual respect. The conclusion which most scholars share nowadays is that one cannot understand Christianity without understanding Judaism. 4
Tacenda Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 It is true that there is a spectrum of genderness or gender identity when genes are examined, but biologists still maintain that mammals are divided into male and female, and nearly all are able to reproduce. That is the overwhelming norm, and the exceptions merely prove the rule. There is no reason to believe that some other notion obtained in antiquity. The Genesis story of Creation is not intended as a scientific text. It is a liturgical text with figurative and religious value. The Brethren have repeatedly observed that it is very symbolic in nature.Most Jewish scholars (like their Christian colleagues) have a particular theological position to defend. This often means casting aspersions on Christian beliefs or interpretations. A great many of us discuss these things on a regular basis with our Jewish colleagues. The interchange is very healthy and there is a lot of mutual respect. The conclusion which most scholars share nowadays is that one cannot understand Christianity without understanding Judaism.Well I never remember it being taught as liturgical. It's about time we hear it put that way, if they know that to be the case. Of course I tune out in church sometimes. Do you have a reference of the leaders stating it that way? Or saying the GoE is symbolic? When going to the temple I thought it was historical.
Palerider Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Scientific evidence shows that the above statement is not strictly true as is evidenced by the Intersex people we know about. There is not strictly XX and XY but XXXX, XY46, and XXY and thousands of other genetic anomalies. In the past, these things were veiled in secrecy largely because of prejudice and the difficulty of identifying the problem. So, to the ancient religions readers, I wonder if the original language actually said "Male and Female" ? From Jewish scholars I have known, there are sections of the OT that are complete nonsense when interpreted by them in comparison to modern Christian texts. I wonder why we do not talk about these things? In a more traditional view, it might also be said that "in the beginning" they were perfectly created male and female. It would only be AFTER the fall (however one chooses to view the fall taking place) when the irregularities of a temporal world began to bear sway, that the imperfections came along. 3
EllenMaksoud Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 In a more traditional view, it might also be said that "in the beginning" they were perfectly created male and female. It would only be AFTER the fall (however one chooses to view the fall taking place) when the irregularities of a temporal world began to bear sway, that the imperfections came along.Yes, there is a term called Entropy where part of its definition is that things tend to become more disorganized. Oddly, when looking at various chromosomal combinations, keeping mind that I am not a geneticist, the X chromosome seems very orderly, of which there are around 1400. On the other hand, the Y chromosome is by comparison much more misshapen. Additionally, I read an article that says evolution occurs through the Y Chromosome. Hmmmm So does that mean that women do not evolve?
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Well I never remember it being taught as liturgical. It's about time we hear it put that way, if they know that to be the case. Of course I tune out in church sometimes. Do you have a reference of the leaders stating it that way? Or saying the GoE is symbolic? When going to the temple I thought it was historical. It is both. The significance of the GoE isn't that it actually existed, I believe it did. Adam were created THEN placed in the GoE. What is of significant importance is what happened AFTER they got there. 1
teddyaware Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 In a more traditional view, it might also be said that "in the beginning" they were perfectly created male and female. It would only be AFTER the fall (however one chooses to view the fall taking place) when the irregularities of a temporal world began to bear sway, that the imperfections came along. I'm agree with you 100%.
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) In a more traditional view, it might also be said that "in the beginning" they were perfectly created male and female. It would only be AFTER the fall (however one chooses to view the fall taking place) when the irregularities of a temporal world began to bear sway, that the imperfections came along. Their Spirits were perfect. I see nothing that their bodies were perfect. Edited January 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint
rodheadlee Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Their Spirits were perfect. I see nothing that their bodies were perfect.Yeah but it only makes sense that they had perfect Terrestrial bodies. There was no corruption in the Garden of Eden until after they ate the apple.
EllenMaksoud Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 Since it was mentioned that birth defects likely started after the fall, a possibility I had not considered, I remember that in Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon where depleted Uranium ammunition has been used, birth defects are greatly increased. 1
Stone holm Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 In a more traditional view, it might also be said that "in the beginning" they were perfectly created male and female. It would only be AFTER the fall (however one chooses to view the fall taking place) when the irregularities of a temporal world began to bear sway, that the imperfections came along.You nailed it.
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Yeah we have been de-evolving ever since. Kind of opposite of what science has to say on the subject.
Stone holm Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Yeah we have been de-evolving ever since. Kind of opposite of what science has to say on the subject.Not necessarily, Science via such authors as Diamond have been suggesting that environmental contamination built up over centuries due to agricultural practices and the domestication of animals may have brought various infirmities into the world. To the extent mankind is still evolving it would be via mutations which allow it to succeed better in a polluted industrial world. However, we no longer live in a world which favors natural selection, at least we haven't, although as Ayn Rand devotees rather than Christians rise in power we may revert to such a law of the jungle environment.
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Not necessarily, Science via such authors as Diamond have been suggesting that environmental contamination built up over centuries due to agricultural practices and the domestication of animals may have brought various infirmities into the world. To the extent mankind is still evolving it would be via mutations which allow it to succeed better in a polluted industrial world. However, we no longer live in a world which favors natural selection, at least we haven't, although as Ayn Rand devotees rather than Christians rise in power we may revert to such a law of the jungle environment. What science book will ever acknowledge that man once lived hundreds of years old according to the bible? Here we have an actual recorded written eye witness accounts and yet scientists still turn to their crystal balls...
Stone holm Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 What science book will ever acknowledge that man once lived hundreds of years old according to the bible? Here we have an actual recorded written eye witness accounts and yet scientists still turn to their crystal balls...Well Diamonds first book suggests that the Earth itself may have had healing qualities that were lost over time as the close living proximity of men and animals became ubiquitous.
Calm Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Aren't eye witness accounts firsthand ones and not reported by others thousands of years later?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Well I never remember it being taught as liturgical. It's about time we hear it put that way, if they know that to be the case. Of course I tune out in church sometimes. Do you have a reference of the leaders stating it that way? Or saying the GoE is symbolic? When going to the temple I thought it was historical.Hi Tacenda,Hope your new year is off to a good start.You are not alone in not realizing that the entire LDS Temple experience is liturgical. It is all liturgy, from beginning to end. The liturgy in your Sacrament Mtg consists of set prayers and actions, and the Hymnbook is also liturgy.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy . Non-Mormon biblical scholars recognize the Genesis Creation Story and many other specific sections of the Bible as liturgical, particularly the Psalter. They are specially prepared for group performance and edification. The Brethren have repeatedly referred to the symbolic and figurative nature of the Creation Story.Bob 2
Stone holm Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Hi Tacenda,Hope your new year is off to a good start.You are not alone in not realizing that the entire LDS Temple experience is liturgical. It is all liturgy, from beginning to end. The liturgy in your Sacrament Mtg consists of set prayers and actions, and the Hymnbook is also liturgy.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy . Non-Mormon biblical scholars recognize the Genesis Creation Story and many other specific sections of the Bible as liturgical, particularly the Psalter. They are specially prepared for group performance and edification. The Brethren have repeatedly referred to the symbolic and figurative nature of the Creation Story.BobYep, and Brigham Young referred to it as fable which seems odd given the endowment dramas.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Yeah but it only makes sense that they had perfect Terrestrial bodies. There was no corruption in the Garden of Eden until after they ate the apple. Lots depends on what we call corruption. A cold virus isn't corrupt in a biological sense of the word. but they sure make us sick. Edited January 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 What science book will ever acknowledge that man once lived hundreds of years old according to the bible? Here we have an actual recorded written eye witness accounts and yet scientists still turn to their crystal balls... From the scientific world a eyewitness account is the least trustworthy of evidence.
rameumptom Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Well I never remember it being taught as liturgical. It's about time we hear it put that way, if they know that to be the case. Of course I tune out in church sometimes. Do you have a reference of the leaders stating it that way? Or saying the GoE is symbolic? When going to the temple I thought it was historical. No, the temple film/endowment tells us that it is "figurative", and not historic. There is a difference between historicity and historical. We believe Adam and Eve actually existed in a Garden. The details of the Creation and the Garden may not have been transmitted to us in a modern historical method, so myth and symbolism may have mixed with history along the way. 1
rameumptom Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 What science book will ever acknowledge that man once lived hundreds of years old according to the bible? Here we have an actual recorded written eye witness accounts and yet scientists still turn to their crystal balls... Eye witness account? Genesis was originally written by Moses, who lived millennia AFTER Adam, Enoch and Noah. And then what we have today may have been changed since Moses wrote it. So, let's be cautious on hw we denigrate science in the name of Bible literalism.
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Eye witness account? Genesis was originally written by Moses, who lived millennia AFTER Adam, Enoch and Noah. And then what we have today may have been changed since Moses wrote it. So, let's be cautious on hw we denigrate science in the name of Bible literalism.Moses saw these things in vision also according to the PoGP. How about let us not denigrate the bible in the name of science mythology.
rpn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 My take is the Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ created Adam and Eve's body and the process for creating all other bodies. He no doubt knew of changes that would be caused by environmental toxins or even by changes in the gene structures or misfires in the way the process is supposed to work, or other mortal things like a particular couple's sperm and egg not cooperating, but clearly He is okay with those deviations to occur on earth and does not see them as eternal impediments to His plan or to the individuals who experience those differences. I don't see any way He could be responsible for creating all of those differences, unless He was much more hands on in the conception/birthing process than assigning a spirit to enter the body. I've not heard anything suggesting He invades the normal process except a few instances of ancient infertility and one virgin birth all of which appear to be directly related to foreordained events affecting more than the individuals themselves. 1
Recommended Posts