Fall Of Adam 6000 Years Ago... Doctrine?

[David T]

You do realize that several of those quotes are devastating to the point you think you're trying to make?

 

 

 

 

So, you're arguing with Elder McConkie that the entire earth "came into being" in a "paradisiacal state"?  How is that better?

 

The point in all this is that the Scriptures (D&C 77) and modern LDS Prophets, Apostles and correlated publications and curriculum all state clearly and literally that Adam's fall occurred ~4,000 BC.  We're not talking about the age of the Earth, or evolution, or anything else.  It's the specific claim about the date of Adam's fall, and the associated claims about what changes the Fall brought about on the planet.

 

It's awesome that there are other scriptures that are meant to be figurative (in 2,000 + pages of scripture, I would be surprised if that weren't the case), and that Church leaders acknowledge other scriptural points as possibly being figurative or metaphorical in nature.  But this thread is discussing one specific scriptural claim which is taught literally, not figuratively, by the Church. 

 

We know, and agree with your assessment of the current state of things. Several faithful members here agree, and still find it unfortunate. What is your ultimate point? That's there's a tension and contradiction with what can be observed with current curriculum and official interpretation? Yeah, we know.

 

What some are noting is that there are foundations for some eventual turn-around and revision of this point. Yes, the bottom line is that as of right now, the current Church curriculum strongly supports a 6,000 year post fall existence. There really is no way about that. Right now, the anti-evolution crowd have the institutional upper hand. I suggest this is going to change pretty soon. Or maybe it won't until Elder Nelson dies. But we won't know until it does. Right now, you're right. The anti-science crowd get to cheer over their manuals. Their day is coming, though

Edited February 7, 2014 by David T

[cinepro]

We know, and agree with your assessment of the current state of things. Several faithful members here agree, and still find it unfortunate. What is your ultimate point? That's there's a tension and contradiction with what can be observed with current curriculum and official interpretation? Yeah, we know.

 

What some are noting is that there are foundations for some eventual turn-around and revision of this point. Yes, the bottom line is that as of right now, the current Church curriculum strongly supports a 6,000 year post fall existence. There really is no way about that. Right now, the anti-evolution crowd have the institutional upper hand. I suggest this is going to change pretty soon. Or maybe it won't until Elder Nelson dies. But we won't know until it does. Right now, you're right. The anti-science crowd get to cheer over their manuals. Their day is coming, though

 

That is a perfectly rational (and I would surmise, entirely correct) approach to the issue.  I only take exception to those who argue that this isn't "the current state of things".

 

I would also add that since the point seems to be taught plainly (and literally) in D&C 77, it might take more than a change in the manuals to get this idea out of the Mormon mainstream. 

Edited February 7, 2014 by cinepro

[Brian 2.0]

One can dream up an interpretation for anything. 

 

If you want one to make this literal here it is:

 

At the time of the Millennium there will be a "new heaven and a new earth" yet we know that this earth will become the "sea of glass"- AFTER there is a "new heaven and earth".

 

So if there will be a NEW heaven and earth, there, at that time, will also be a record of our "old" heaven and earth which we now occupy.

 

So "temporal existence" refers to the existence of THIS "earth/world" we now inhabit.

 

So if Adam was a special creation - the first of God's children on "this" earth, (the time before Adam being another "old earth") as opposed to "animals" who may have looked like Adam- there will be 7000 literal years between the fall and the millennium, that time period compromising the "temporal existence of this earth"

 

Before that was the "old earth" - NOT "this earth"- and after that there will be the "new earth" - the millennium and the celestialized sea of glass which becomes and urim and thummim.

 

So there are successive "earths" occupying the same planet in different phases, the transitions between phases being spiritual in nature, or not yet capable of being understood by science.

 

There you go.  Literal and compatible with science as presently understood.

 

Whether or not it did or will happen that way is another question of course, but if anyone wants to believe it, there it is.  To me, it is as good as any other way of seeing it which works for you.

 

I hear you on this.  The church position seems to be as you said:  there will be 7000 literal years between the fall and the millennium, that time period compromising the "temporal existence of this earth"

 

The point of my OP is that it seems this the current position of the church on this matter.  Whether or not it's true, or if other's have their own different personal opinions wasn't really my focus.

[mfbukowski]

I hear you on this.  The church position seems to be as you said:  there will be 7000 literal years between the fall and the millennium, that time period compromising the "temporal existence of this earth"

 

The point of my OP is that it seems this the current position of the church on this matter.  Whether or not it's true, or if other's have their own different personal opinions wasn't really my focus.

Ok so now the thread is done then, right?

 

It's doctrine, it can be interpreted literally, and it's not science, and must be verified by the spirit.

 

Is that all?  Question answered?

[Brian 2.0]

We know, and agree with your assessment of the current state of things. Several faithful members here agree, and still find it unfortunate. What is your ultimate point? That's there's a tension and contradiction with what can be observed with current curriculum and official interpretation? Yeah, we know.

 

What some are noting is that there are foundations for some eventual turn-around and revision of this point. Yes, the bottom line is that as of right now, the current Church curriculum strongly supports a 6,000 year post fall existence. There really is no way about that. Right now, the anti-evolution crowd have the institutional upper hand. I suggest this is going to change pretty soon. Or maybe it won't until Elder Nelson dies. But we won't know until it does. Right now, you're right. The anti-science crowd get to cheer over their manuals. Their day is coming, though

 

I 2nd was cinepro said... Your use of "we" doesn't include everyone on this thread as we have been in debate with plenty who are arguing that this is not what the scriptures and current curriculum support.

 

And you have a nice approach to this.  And your theories of how and why the scripture exists in the first place is a fine perspective (with my reservations on it already stated).  

[mfbukowski]

That is a perfectly rational (and I would surmise, entirely correct) approach to the issue.  I only take exception to those who argue that this isn't "the current state of things".

 

I would also add that since the point seems to be taught plainly (and literally) in D&C 77, it might take more than a change in the manuals to get this idea out of the Mormon mainstream. 

This board would not exist if this were NOT the current state of things- what's your point?  Nobody seems to get that there are many levels of understanding possible on any of this stuff.

 

And why do we want to get it out of the mainstream?  I have shown an interpretation which puts it right IN the mainstream.

[Brian 2.0]

Ok so now the thread is done then, right?

 

It's doctrine, it can be interpreted literally, and it's not science, and must be verified by the spirit.

 

Is that all?  Question answered?

 

well if you really believe this then the thread has been a big success!  As your first post was a quick:  "No, not doctrine."

 

And my intention of the OP wasn't to simply get a bunch of "Yes" replies and stop talking.  

 

The next obvious point is that while the scriptures aren't a science textbook, does this point of church doctrine, when taken literally as the current church teachings suggests, contradict modern day science?  And what do we do with that if it does?

 

But we first have gone through a lot of talk of if it is doctrine/current church teaching/etc.

[David T]

well if you really believe this then the thread has been a big success!  As your first post was a quick:  "No, not doctrine."

 

And my intention of the OP wasn't to simply get a bunch of "Yes" replies and stop talking.  

 

The next obvious point is that while the scriptures aren't a science textbook, does this point of church doctrine, when taken literally as the current church teachings suggests, contradict modern day science?  And what do we do with that if it does?

 

But we first have gone through a lot of talk of if it is doctrine/current church teaching/etc.

 

Joseph believed it literally in terms of his dispensational pre-Darwinian worldview. If you're willing to go with Joseph's context, it works fine.

 

If we insist that it has to apply to a 21st Century cosmological worldview which is beyond what Joseph understood, however, just like Genesis, it just simply doesn't work with our modern reality.

 

What to do with it is up to one to consider. For me, I personally seek to understand what significance it would have had to Joseph in the context of his framework, and "translate"/"liken" it to our new world/understanding of reality. This can bring practical meaning to the text where just spitting out a number and asserting beyond all evidence that it's a fact will do.

 

The former is an act of faith. The latter is just an act of regurgitation.

Edited February 7, 2014 by David T

[Brian 2.0]

Joseph believed it literally in terms of his dispensational pre-Darwinian worldview. If you're willing to go with Joseph's context, it works fine.

 

If we insist that it has to apply to a 21st Century cosmological worldview which is beyond what Joseph understood, however, just like Genesis, it just simply doesn't work with our modern reality.

 

What to do with it is up to one to consider. For me, I personally seek to understand what significance it would have had to Joseph in the context of his framework, and "translate"/"liken" it to our new world/understanding of reality. This can bring practical meaning to the text where just spitting out a number and asserting beyond all evidence that it's a fact will do.

 

The former is an act of faith. The latter is just an act of regurgitation.

 

This is somewhat off topic form the OP but it is about your approach (I've heard it before, I don't know if the methodology has a name or anything).

 

With this approach I always flip it to the saints 100s or 1000s of years in the future looking back on our time.  They would then find a number of points that we believe today, points God is telling his prophets now, but that actually aren't "true" according to how they view the world.

 

It's impossible to know what that future will be, but go with me on a hypothetical, and I'll make it non scientific... The world becomes very different in social structure and familiar structure.  Gender isn't really a factor much in anything, and families are not the main social structure of society.  Individuals are born and raised in full communities, not necessarily small family units.  The church is alive and thriving in this relatively peaceful time, it's not dystopic or anything.  The idea of being "married for eternity" continuing all of existence with this one "eternal companion" seems odd, and a little undesirable in their communal societies.  Those members and leadership then say, "Back in the 19th and 20th centuries there was a big emphasis on "the nuclear family".  The sealing doctrine made sense to them in their time and helped them live their lives better, which is why God revealed that to them, but it's not applicable to us and we have this new doctrine that is applicable to our time."

 

Are you cool with scenarios like this?  Because that's how I see it when I take your methodology of looking at the past and apply it forward.

[Senator]

We know, and agree with your assessment of the current state of things. Several faithful members here agree, and still find it unfortunate. What is your ultimate point? That's there's a tension and contradiction with what can be observed with current curriculum and official interpretation? Yeah, we know.

 

What some are noting is that there are foundations for some eventual turn-around and revision of this point. Yes, the bottom line is that as of right now, the current Church curriculum strongly supports a 6,000 year post fall existence. There really is no way about that. Right now, the anti-evolution crowd have the institutional upper hand. I suggest this is going to change pretty soon. Or maybe it won't until Elder Nelson dies. But we won't know until it does. Right now, you're right. The anti-science crowd get to cheer over their manuals. Their day is coming, though

 

So this is the look and feel of continuing revelation in the 21st century.....?

 

For some reason I'm have this strange - almost sentimental-  longing  for seer stones, visitations and visions.

[mfbukowski]

Are you cool with scenarios like this?  Because that's how I see it when I take your methodology of looking at the past and apply it forward.

I don't think that particular scenario will come to pass, but yes I am cool with that kind of idea.

 

That is how it all works, and always has been.

[mfbukowski]

So this is the look and feel of continuing revelation in the 21st century.....?

 

For some reason I'm have this strange - almost sentimental-  longing  for seer stones, visitations and visions.

Then stay with that approach.  Nothing wrong with it.  Every story is a paradigm that works for a while and then changes.  That is the current paradigm. 

 

It works in science, it works in religion it works morally and in every other way.  Some things stay constant, but for the most part the only constant is change.

 

After all don't they say that over the pulpit every time they put in a new primary teacher? 

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think that particular scenario will come to pass, but yes I am cool with that kind of idea.

That is how it all works, and always has been.

I like your answer. I may disagree with someone's worldview, but that's just my worldview vs. another so arguing it can become pointless a lot of times.

But i will argue sometimes when I feel the worldview isn't internally consistent or applied across the board. Selectively applying different methodologies and worldviews depending on the situation to always come to the answer desired can rub me the wrong way sometimes.

Always glad to see consistency.

[mfbukowski]

I like your answer. I may disagree with someone's worldview, but that's just my worldview vs. another so arguing it can become pointless a lot of times.

But i will argue sometimes when I feel the worldview isn't internally consistent or applied across the board. Selectively applying different methodologies and worldviews depending on the situation to always come to the answer desired can rub me the wrong way sometimes.

Always glad to see consistency.

Oh yes, exactly.  If it's not consistent with what are regarded as "facts" it must at least explain why the alleged "facts" are wrong.

 

What people don't realize is that there is no way to compare what we "know" with "the real world", because we cannot get OUTSIDE of what we "know" to see what is "real".

 

For us, radio waves have no color because our eyes are not designed (or have not evolved- pick your story) to pick up that wavelength and assign a name to what is seen corresponding to that wavelength.

 

So one can imagine a hypothetical discussion between aliens with a different eye structure, about whether or not a given wavelength of what we call "radio waves" is the color "xorb" or the color "glotch", as we might discuss whether or not aquamarine is "actually" green or blue, based on the portion of the spectrum we can see with our eyes.

 

"But what is it REALLY?" is usually a question which is totally unanswerable- it is what we see it to be because that is the only way we can define it.  We don't have the experience or the words to say or know anything more about it.

 

Even this description depends on the idea of "wavelengths" which may or may not be an adequate description of what light "really" is, but we have no way of knowing.

 

So based on our human senses we construct our best guesses of what "really is" but there is no way to go out and see what it "really is" and compare it all to the way we have "represented" it in our languages.  We can't compare the snapshot to the "reality" because we cannot ever get outside of the snapshot. 

 

We are all stuck in the same human movie not realizing that we are stuck in flatland while there is a theater out there, and a whole universe beyond the theater.  So we muddle through our little human movie lives and argue about what is "real" not realizing that we cannot escape to even get a glimpse of what IS "real".

 

But yes, the story must be what we call "consistent" because we are wired that way because consistency works- it's the way we are hard-wired. 

 

We could not survive without thinking that a certain plant was always poisonous, having decided that today it might not be poisonous.  Yep, I would say that consistency is just a little important. 

 

Once again for old time's sake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Edited February 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm actually not raising anything to scripture.  I'm saying scripture is scripture.  We're talking about D&C 77 specifically v6-7 where is says the Earth has a temporal existence of 7000 years and the seals are the records of each 1000 years.  That's the scripture.

You cited the manuals and other stuff from lds.org above, and employed D&C 77:6-7, "as well as current official church explanations for that canonized scripture.  Which is why I feel confident calling it doctrine."  It was not sola scriptura for you, according to your own words there, and below:

 

So then it's time to try and think of what that means.  Is it literal?  Figurative? Nothing itself in the scripture seems to indicate it is, but let's look at what the church has said regarding it.  Then came the quotes from the manuals, which don't indicate it being figurative but seems to indicate is being literal "1000 years of history"

Which of course does raise the manuals to the level of Scripture, despite your denials.

 

I don't know how you define church doctrine, but I was looking at church scripture with says one thing and looking at church sources to help understand it.  If that isn't church doctrine I don't know what is.

You want answers, and I don't fault you for that.  You might want to consider a wider and richer purview -- which won't be helped by bare literalism.  The Brethren just don't don't share your kneejerk literalism.

 

But can we agree that current church teaching has place the Fall of Adam roughly 6000 years ago?

 

Again... not talking about the age of the earth and I'm well aware that there is no current church position on age of the earth and plenty of of quotes can be found to indicate they believe it's VERY old.  We're talking about time from the Fall of Adam.

 

And I'm well aware that there are plenty of quotes calling things in scripture figurative or symbolic, and the creation of the world, and the creation of Adam, the creation of Even are among those.  But that doesn't help us in this specific matter any more than it gives us license to call anything we want in the scriptures and figurative simply because other stuff is figurative.  Can I say the 2nd Coming of Christ is actually figurative and not literal because it's in the book of revelation that has a lot of figurative stuff in it?  Or say the resurrection in the bible is symbolic because there are other stories in the Bible that are symbolic?  I'm not sure how the quotes you mentioned help us in this specific matter.

The Second Coming of Christ may indeed be an actual event to take place in the future.  That does not mean that the descriptive language predicting it needs to be literal.  Those two issues need to be separated.  Many colleges and universities offer courses on the Bible as literature, which can be a great help in seeing beyond the literal surface-scape.

[Robert F. Smith]

We know, and agree with your assessment of the current state of things. Several faithful members here agree, and still find it unfortunate. What is your ultimate point? That's there's a tension and contradiction with what can be observed with current curriculum and official interpretation? Yeah, we know.

Speak for yourself, good buddy!

 

What some are noting is that there are foundations for some eventual turn-around and revision of this point. Yes, the bottom line is that as of right now, the current Church curriculum strongly supports a 6,000 year post fall existence. There really is no way about that. Right now, the anti-evolution crowd have the institutional upper hand. I suggest this is going to change pretty soon. Or maybe it won't until Elder Nelson dies. But we won't know until it does. Right now, you're right. The anti-science crowd get to cheer over their manuals. Their day is coming, though

 

Let's see, all biology teachers and researchers at BYU are evolutionists.  Yet you say that "Right now, the anti-evolution crown have the institutional upper hand."  As I understand it, the LDS Church takes no stand on evolution pro or con, and the Board of Trustees of BYU take no such position.  Despite some personal opinions, is it possible that those who run the show don't think that evolution pro or con is essential to our salvation?  I just don't see this "upper hand" you speak of.  Are you speaking literally or figuratively?   

[Robert F. Smith]

Hugh Nibley's 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood manual was pre-Correlation. Nowadays, as you know, all manuals are approved by the Church Correlation Department before use. They are official and authoritative and don't simply represent someone's personal opinion. This is especially true of seminary manuals, which are carefully vetted by the Brethren to ensure doctrinal purity.

I don't know about "doctrinal purity," and am not sure how one goes about establishing it inside Church Correlation.  I knew the long-time head of Correlation, Prof. Daniel Ludlow, and he had an excellent appreciation for the purpose of correlatkion.  I'm not sure that everyone working for him had that same level of appreciation.

As for Hugh Nibley's 1957 manual, some complained before it went into production that it was too intellectual.  Pres. McKay responded "Let em reach"  (or something to that effect), and it carries the official imprimatur (Preface) of Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith   Many previous manuals were written by members of the Twelve.  In no case does that make them doctrine or quasi-doctrine (though some oddly make that claim).

 

 

As President Eyring explained in a talk given to seminary teachers some years ago, "Those called by the prophet to assure the correctness of doctrine taught in the Church review every word, every picture, every diagram in that curriculum which you receive" ("The Lord Will Multiply the Harvest" [an evening with Elder Henry B. Eyring, Feb. 6, 1998], 4–5).

 

The Gospel Teaching and Learning handbook, issued to all S&I teachers, admonishes teachers to rely primarily on the scriptures and S&I curriculum. "Teachers may use additional resources such as Church magazines, especially teachings from general conference, as they contribute to a clearer understanding of the scripture block. Other resources should not be used to speculate, sensationalize, or teach ideas that have not been clearly established by the Church" (4.3.1; emphasis added).

 

Although I personally believe in evolution, in Church settings I am careful to teach only "the doctrines and principles of the gospel as found in the scriptures and the words of the prophets." I teach the standard Church doctrine of the Fall and don't inject my own views into it.

Though I personally believe in Transmission (panspermia), I never mention it at Church.  It is quite enough just to teach the basic, elementary principles of the Gospel, without going off into the stratosphere. 

 

Edited February 8, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I disagree.  I was using doctrine correctly there.  My reference to blacks and the priesthood as something being taught as doctrine which is not considered doctrine today was not in reference to folklore or offhand beliefs an opinions.  I was referring to the 1949 signed First Presidency Statement:

 

 

I do not want to make this a blacks and the priesthood thread, but I wanted to defend my position on what I said.

I can understand why you take that position, Brian.

However, bear in mind that David O. McKay's signature was on that First Presidency Statement as first counselor.  He soon became President of the Church and ironically concluded that there was in fact no such doctrine ever within the LDS Church.  Something to think about.

[Robert F. Smith]

And I'm fine with that.  I have just yet to read anything from our church which has continuing revelation that those verses in D&C 77 is inaccurate, or that Joseph Smith was incorrect in what he wrote, or he was writing this with his understanding of how the world worked in his day when he wrote that the earth's temporal existence is 7000 years, in fact I've read the opposite from church sources.

 

My point was that without that, if we dismiss the verses simply because we know scripture CAN be in err then we can simply dismiss any scripture on the basis that scripture can be in err.

 

And I'm actually fine with people doing that based on their own spiritual experiences, but I'm not so much concerned with what people's personal stance is on this scripture, but what the church's stance is on this scripture.

Did you take notice of my post #65?  I'll repeat it here, and would appreciate your comments (it was written to you):

 

But are you taking that period of time literally?  From the D&C Student Manual:

 

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

 

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.”  http://institute.lds...c-in-071-77.asp .

 

"Seven great days"?  We already know that Hebrew 'elef "thousand," has a very broad semantic range, and may be taken as "a myriad, a lot."

Likewise the thousand thousands in Daniel 7:10 "are not meant to be taken as mathematically precise.  Rather they suggest extremely large or incalculable numbers." (R. Peter-Contesse and J. Ellington, A Handbook on The Book of Daniel [uBS, 1993], 188)

[Robert F. Smith]

You do realize that several of those quotes are devastating to the point you think you're trying to make?

I don't manage quotes so as to provide only one point of view.  Indeed, although I am intent on demonstrating how non-literal the Brethren think many scriptures are (which seems to escape notice by those otherwise intent on apriori views), I am happy to show the lack of agreement of the Brethren as well.

 

I'll leave canon law to others.  I am more interested in the willingness of the Brethren to opt for figurative and symbolic interpretation.

 

The point in all this is that the Scriptures (D&C 77) and modern LDS Prophets, Apostles and correlated publications and curriculum all state clearly and literally that Adam's fall occurred ~4,000 BC.  We're not talking about the age of the Earth, or evolution, or anything else.  It's the specific claim about the date of Adam's fall, and the associated claims about what changes the Fall brought about on the planet.

I am no more intimidated by all that than you are.  The opinions expressed in manuals and in various other sources do not obviate good exegesis using figurative and symbollc standards.  What you see as necessarily literal I see as decidedly non-literal.  To each his own.

 

It's awesome that there are other scriptures that are meant to be figurative (in 2,000 + pages of scripture, I would be surprised if that weren't the case), and that Church leaders acknowledge other scriptural points as possibly being figurative or metaphorical in nature.  But this thread is discussing one specific scriptural claim which is taught literally, not figuratively, by the Church.

Yes, you insist upon it and you are even a hardcore supporter of that view.   I see no reason to accept that approach.  Indeed, even though you insist that the Church takes an official stand on the matter, I see no such official stand.  To my mind, manuals are written by well-intentioned people who reflect some current views.  I might write the manual quite differently.  I am sure that you would write it quite differently.  Am I mistaken about that last fact?

[Brian 2.0]

 

Did you take notice of my post #65?  I'll repeat it here, and would appreciate your comments (it was written to you):

 

But are you taking that period of time literally?  From the D&C Student Manual:

 

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

 

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.”  http://institute.lds...c-in-071-77.asp .

 

 

I guess I don't see this the same way you do.  This reads to me about something literal (7000 years, the last 1000 being the millennium) and making a symbolic parallel to the to our week (working 6 days and resting 1).  How does this indicate that the 7000 years are not literal?  Whenever I hear a phrase like this it's taking something literal and making a figurative/symbolic parallel.  "My kids are as the oaks of the forest, growing stronger and taller everyday."  I didn't just make my kids figurative or symbolic with this statement, they are still very much literally my kids.

 

"Seven great days"?  We already know that Hebrew 'elef "thousand," has a very broad semantic range, and may be taken as "a myriad, a lot."

Likewise the thousand thousands in Daniel 7:10 "are not meant to be taken as mathematically precise.  Rather they suggest extremely large or incalculable numbers." (R. Peter-Contesse and J. Ellington, A Handbook on The Book of Daniel [uBS, 1993], 188)

 

 

I see how this applies to "thousands" or Hebrew 'elef in the bible, but neither D&C 77 or the student manuals were written in Hebrew and translated to English so I fail to see how this applies here.

 

[Brian 2.0]

You cited the manuals and other stuff from lds.org above, and employed D&C 77:6-7, "as well as current official church explanations for that canonized scripture. Which is why I feel confident calling it doctrine." It was not sola scriptura for you, according to your own words there, and below:

Which of course does raise the manuals to the level of Scripture, despite your denials.

I guess I would ask you what I should look at to help determine what is church doctrine or what the church's current stance is on a particular passage of scripture? Edited February 8, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

I guess I would ask you what I should look at to help determine what is church doctrine or what the church's current stance is on a particular passage of scripture?

A dead giveaway should be your use of the phrase "current stance."  Manuals are helpful, but are not doctrine.  They are useful guides, but not canon.  Humans write them, and most of those humans are not General Authorities.  Let us say that you are assigned to write such a manual, and you give it your best effort, and get advice from various people whom you trust.,  Then, to top it off, a General Authority examines it to see whether it seems doctrinal and authentic.  Then it is published.  Do you really expect it to be taken as the absolute and final word?  Should it be taken as canonical?

 

What should really give you pause is that many manuals have been written, and many of them disagree as to this or that detail.  Your own manual in this hypothetical case will be superseded by a future manual.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I guess I don't see this the same way you do.  This reads to me about something literal (7000 years, the last 1000 being the millennium) and making a symbolic parallel to the to our week (working 6 days and resting 1).  How does this indicate that the 7000 years are not literal?  Whenever I hear a phrase like this it's taking something literal and making a figurative/symbolic parallel.  "My kids are as the oaks of the forest, growing stronger and taller everyday."  I didn't just make my kids figurative or symbolic with this statement, they are still very much literally my kids.

 

 

I see how this applies to "thousands" or Hebrew 'elef in the bible, but neither D&C 77 or the student manuals were written in Hebrew and translated to English so I fail to see how this applies here.

 

 

You presumably understand that the Book of Revelation was written in Greek, and that it depends heavily on apocalyptic imagery in the Hebrew and Aramaic in the Book of Daniel.  Assuming that the numbers used in such books are to be taken at face value might not be too wise.  Instead, you might want to examine the usage of numbers in a variety of contexts in the Bible in order to determine what sort of phenomena one is dealing with.  D&C 77 is dealing with those very biblical numbers.

 

For example, the Primeval History in Genesis has a number of individuals who live very long lives, in some cases almost a thousand years each.  We likewise have early cuneiform documents from Mesopotamia with similar sequences of individuals who live even longer lives.  Are we to take all those literally?  Or is something else going on?  Here are some samples of the problem:

 

Abraham 7 x 5² = 175 years -------------------------(5 + 5 + 7 = 17)

(Sarah --------------127 years -------------------------(2 x 60) + 7 = 127)

Isaac----- 5 x 6² = 180 --------3 x 60 = 180 --------(6 + 6 + 5 = 17)

Jacob ----3 x 7² = 147 ---------2 x 70 = 147--------(7 + 7 + 3 = 17)

Joseph --1 x (5² + 6² + 7²)  = 110 ------------------(8 + 8 + 1 = 17)

 

The ten antediluvian patriarchs from Adam to Noah live within a period of 1,656 years according to the Massoretic Hebrew text, with Adam dying at least by the time of Lamech, father of Noah.  Counting the year of the great Deluge, that would be 1,657 years (Gen 8:13) = 600,000 days + 2 x 7 years.  The sexagesimal implications should be clear.

 

As Stephanie Dalley points out (Myths from Mesopotamia, rev. ed., 6):

. . . the survivor of the Flood (Xisuthros, Noah) is the tenth antediluvian king in both Berossus and Genesis (Priestly source), that the month in which the Flood happened is named, and that the ten antediluvian kings whom Berossus cites ruled 432,000 “years” (i.e. 86,400 x 5, five years being sixty months) and in Genesis (Priestly source) for 1,656 “years” (i.e. 86,400 weeks), so the two accounts may originally have shared a common chronological scheme.

 

By the time we get to the known and verifiable historical period in the Bible, with David & Solomon, people are all living the lengths of life well-known today.  Do you really want to take every thousand year period at face value?  Why?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Brian 2.0]

A dead giveaway should be your use of the phrase "current stance." Manuals are helpful, but are not doctrine. They are useful guides, but not canon. Humans write them, and most of those humans are not General Authorities. Let us say that you are assigned to write such a manual, and you give it your best effort, and get advice from various people whom you trust., Then, to top it off, a General Authority examines it to see whether it seems doctrinal and authentic. Then it is published. Do you really expect it to be taken as the absolute and final word? Should it be taken as canonical?

What should really give you pause is that many manuals have been written, and many of them disagree as to this or that detail. Your own manual in this hypothetical case will be superseded by a future manual.

Good food for thought but still didn't answer my question.

I'm not asking for where to look for absolute truth, but where to look for the current church stance on a passage of scripture or topic.