D&c 107, Long Lives, And The Nature Of Revelation

[erdoch]

NOTE: this topic is related to the topic "Why did Old Testament people live so long?". However, I'm not interested in descending into a Babel discussion of evolution and creationism. I am more interested in discussing with people who see evolution as a fact and also believe in the scriptures... Updating our understanding of the revelations in a 21st century world rather than remaining in a pre-Darwinian early 19th century world. 

 

The question about the longevity of the Patriarchs is an interesting one. Especially since Joseph Smith very clearly saw the ages as literal. Why else would he make minor changes to ages in the Joseph Smith Translation? 

 

Even more important - for those who accept the D&C as containing revelations from God - is how D&C 107 confirms the longevity of Old Testament patriarchs. After reviewing at what age they received the Priesthood, D&C 107:53 states:

 

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing."

 

In other words, Adam is calling together an entire 7 generations (8 with himself included) for the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman. For those who accept evolution as fact (as do I) and find it hard to believe that the Patriarchs lived for this long... how do you respond to this? 

 

Some of the potentially "faithful" responses that I've considered in retaining that a literal gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman took place include: (1) people may have lived that long through the power of translation (though translation here might be thought of in terms of "degrees" since full translation would have to be reserved for Enoch and his city); (2) the ages previously renumerated should not be understood literally, but the gathering itself could still be literal and either (a) have taken place entirely in the spirit world, or (b) in the mortal world, but with most of these attending as spirits who had previously passed. I don't really consider any of these explanations convincing however. 

 

But I am seriously considering another possibility: that there was no such meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman where 8 generations mingled together. That, whether or not the story has a historical background, it represents a revelation adapted to the capacity of Joseph Smith as he grappled with Biblical accounts, produced inspired scripture with inspired constructs, and brought the modern and Biblical worlds together. This is a possibility that is generally in line with Bokovoy's recent volume arguing that the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham should be understood as inspired pseudopigraphic writings rather than as literal accounts by either Moses or Abraham. It is also in line with Blake Ostler's concept of "co-creative" revelation where revelation should not be understood as inerrant but rather as given "unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" so that revelation is really an inspired co-creation of God and a prophet.

 

 

Allowing for this new possibility does raise some questions though. If D&C 107 is not to be understood as literal, then how far do we go? Is the Book of Mormon inspired scriptural fiction rather than historically based? Where do we draw the line? What does it mean to you if this or other parts of the scriptures are not historically based, what difference does that make? 

 

Or are there other possibilities?

[thesometimesaint]

Think of it as a family priesthood line.

[BCSpace]

The question about the longevity of the Patriarchs is an interesting one. Especially since Joseph Smith very clearly saw the ages as literal. Why else would he make minor changes to ages in the Joseph Smith Translation? 

 

Even more important - for those who accept the D&C as containing revelations from God - is how D&C 107 confirms the longevity of Old Testament patriarchs. After reviewing at what age they received the Priesthood, D&C 107:53 states:

 

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing."

 

In other words, Adam is calling together an entire 7 generations (8 with himself included) for the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman. For those who accept evolution as fact (as do I) and find it hard to believe that the Patriarchs lived for this long... how do you respond to this?

 

 

As an acceptor of Evolution as fact and also a believer in the Church and the scriptures (as you required), there are at least two possibilities:

 

1) The original ancient writers/prophets merely believed the ages to be that great and JS in his restoration, merely preserved that fact and did not receive any additional revelation as to their actual ages.

 

2) The Lord blessed certain people or peoples with long lives.  Just because we accept all science does not mean we have to reject miracles.

 

I believe all LDS scripture must be historical because the way the Church presents them, but I do not believe all the details have to be literal or accurate; the Church doctrine on Eve created from a rib story (figurative) is a case in point.

 

[The Nehor]

I suspect they just lived that long.

[mfbukowski]

NOTE: this topic is related to the topic "Why did Old Testament people live so long?". However, I'm not interested in descending into a Babel discussion of evolution and creationism. I am more interested in discussing with people who see evolution as a fact and also believe in the scriptures... Updating our understanding of the revelations in a 21st century world rather than remaining in a pre-Darwinian early 19th century world. 

 

The question about the longevity of the Patriarchs is an interesting one. Especially since Joseph Smith very clearly saw the ages as literal. Why else would he make minor changes to ages in the Joseph Smith Translation? 

 

Even more important - for those who accept the D&C as containing revelations from God - is how D&C 107 confirms the longevity of Old Testament patriarchs. After reviewing at what age they received the Priesthood, D&C 107:53 states:

 

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing."

 

In other words, Adam is calling together an entire 7 generations (8 with himself included) for the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman. For those who accept evolution as fact (as do I) and find it hard to believe that the Patriarchs lived for this long... how do you respond to this? 

 

Some of the potentially "faithful" responses that I've considered in retaining that a literal gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman took place include: (1) people may have lived that long through the power of translation (though translation here might be thought of in terms of "degrees" since full translation would have to be reserved for Enoch and his city); (2) the ages previously renumerated should not be understood literally, but the gathering itself could still be literal and either (a) have taken place entirely in the spirit world, or (b) in the mortal world, but with most of these attending as spirits who had previously passed. I don't really consider any of these explanations convincing however. 

 

But I am seriously considering another possibility: that there was no such meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman where 8 generations mingled together. That, whether or not the story has a historical background, it represents a revelation adapted to the capacity of Joseph Smith as he grappled with Biblical accounts, produced inspired scripture with inspired constructs, and brought the modern and Biblical worlds together. This is a possibility that is generally in line with Bokovoy's recent volume arguing that the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham should be understood as inspired pseudopigraphic writings rather than as literal accounts by either Moses or Abraham. It is also in line with Blake Ostler's concept of "co-creative" revelation where revelation should not be understood as inerrant but rather as given "unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" so that revelation is really an inspired co-creation of God and a prophet.

 

 

Allowing for this new possibility does raise some questions though. If D&C 107 is not to be understood as literal, then how far do we go? Is the Book of Mormon inspired scriptural fiction rather than historically based? Where do we draw the line? What does it mean to you if this or other parts of the scriptures are not historically based, what difference does that make? 

 

Or are there other possibilities?

All of these are possibilities and there are many others. The key however is to realize that scripture is not about history, though it may be historical sometimes, literal sometimes, figurative sometimes and metaphorical sometimes.

The bottom line is that it is not always perfect history nor should we worry about that. The purpose of scripture is to teach us lessons God wants us to learn- not to be a historical or scientific textbook.

Since we cannot know if a given scripture is literal or figurative, my view is to not worry about it, and look for the lessons God wants me to learn from the scripture, and not worry about trying to harmonize it with all the other scriptures

[theplains]

I believe all LDS scripture must be historical because the way the Church presents them, but I do not believe all the details have to be literal or accurate; the Church doctrine on Eve created from a rib story (figurative) is a case in point.

 

There may come a day when the LDS Church also views the forbidden tree as figurative.

 

Jim 

[Tiki]

"people who see evolution as a fact and also believe in the scriptures.."

 

This is the problem: per your statement, you actually don't believe the scriptures, thus you have to question them, as you noted, because you place the Theory of Evolution before them or use the Theory as your baseline or standard in which to judge the scriptures.

 

The First Presidency, long ago, has declared the Theory is not accurate. It was republished in the Feb 2002 Ensign.

 

"Updating our understanding of the revelations in a 21st century world rather than remaining in a pre-Darwinian early 19th century world."

You're also mocking the source of the scriptures.

[Stone holm]

NOTE: this topic is related to the topic "Why did Old Testament people live so long?". However, I'm not interested in descending into a Babel discussion of evolution and creationism. I am more interested in discussing with people who see evolution as a fact and also believe in the scriptures... Updating our understanding of the revelations in a 21st century world rather than remaining in a pre-Darwinian early 19th century world. 

 

The question about the longevity of the Patriarchs is an interesting one. Especially since Joseph Smith very clearly saw the ages as literal. Why else would he make minor changes to ages in the Joseph Smith Translation? 

 

Even more important - for those who accept the D&C as containing revelations from God - is how D&C 107 confirms the longevity of Old Testament patriarchs. After reviewing at what age they received the Priesthood, D&C 107:53 states:

 

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing."

 

In other words, Adam is calling together an entire 7 generations (8 with himself included) for the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman. For those who accept evolution as fact (as do I) and find it hard to believe that the Patriarchs lived for this long... how do you respond to this? 

 

Some of the potentially "faithful" responses that I've considered in retaining that a literal gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman took place include: (1) people may have lived that long through the power of translation (though translation here might be thought of in terms of "degrees" since full translation would have to be reserved for Enoch and his city); (2) the ages previously renumerated should not be understood literally, but the gathering itself could still be literal and either (a) have taken place entirely in the spirit world, or (b) in the mortal world, but with most of these attending as spirits who had previously passed. I don't really consider any of these explanations convincing however. 

 

But I am seriously considering another possibility: that there was no such meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman where 8 generations mingled together. That, whether or not the story has a historical background, it represents a revelation adapted to the capacity of Joseph Smith as he grappled with Biblical accounts, produced inspired scripture with inspired constructs, and brought the modern and Biblical worlds together. This is a possibility that is generally in line with Bokovoy's recent volume arguing that the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham should be understood as inspired pseudopigraphic writings rather than as literal accounts by either Moses or Abraham. It is also in line with Blake Ostler's concept of "co-creative" revelation where revelation should not be understood as inerrant but rather as given "unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" so that revelation is really an inspired co-creation of God and a prophet.

 

 

Allowing for this new possibility does raise some questions though. If D&C 107 is not to be understood as literal, then how far do we go? Is the Book of Mormon inspired scriptural fiction rather than historically based? Where do we draw the line? What does it mean to you if this or other parts of the scriptures are not historically based, what difference does that make? 

 

Or are there other possibilities?

Or, the long life spans had nothing to do with their physical bodies, but rather to the environment in which they lived. That the Earth actually had rejuvenating qualities at the time which it has since lost with the growth and duration of agriculture. Or as we now know, Homo sapiens interbred with other hominids including at least Neanderthals and possibly others. So the question is what again?

[thesometimesaint]

As an acceptor of Evolution as fact and also a believer in the Church and the scriptures (as you required), there are at least two possibilities:

 

1) The original ancient writers/prophets merely believed the ages to be that great and JS in his restoration, merely preserved that fact and did not receive any additional revelation as to their actual ages.

 

2) The Lord blessed certain people or peoples with long lives.  Just because we accept all science does not mean we have to reject miracles.

 

I believe all LDS scripture must be historical because the way the Church presents them, but I do not believe all the details have to be literal or accurate; the Church doctrine on Eve created from a rib story (figurative) is a case in point.

 

Agreed.

[erdoch]

Thanks for the responses everyone. 

 

BCSpace, I am somewhat inclined towards your position, both on #1 and #2. Traditionally I've considered the scriptures as being *generally* historical, though I do have questions about the historicity of the Pearl of Great Price. I consider the Garden of Eden story an allegory about our entrance into mortal life from the Garden of Eden. 

 

Where I have questions about historicity is where I agree with mfbukowski - that the purpose of scripture is to teach us lessons from God - not necessarily to be a textbook of history. Jesus taught in parables and I'm alright with other scriptural passages being more 'parables' than history (Job and Jonah comes to mind). 

 

I appreciate the responses. In my mind I don't have a set "answer" as to how this works out - and I remain open to longevity being possible, since all things are possible with God - though I remain skeptical (since the Genesis longevity seems to imitate Babylon narratives of longevity as well).

[erdoch]

"people who see evolution as a fact and also believe in the scriptures.."

 

This is the problem: per your statement, you actually don't believe the scriptures, thus you have to question them, as you noted, because you place the Theory of Evolution before them or use the Theory as your baseline or standard in which to judge the scriptures.

 

The First Presidency, long ago, has declared the Theory is not accurate. It was republished in the Feb 2002 Ensign.

 

"Updating our understanding of the revelations in a 21st century world rather than remaining in a pre-Darwinian early 19th century world."

You're also mocking the source of the scriptures.

 

So did David O. McKay not believe in the scriptures? (see David O. McKay and the Rise of Mormonism pp. 45-49). What about James E. Talmage or John A. Widtsoe, who both accepted at least aspects of evolution?

 

The Church does not have an official position on evolution. See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism or Google BYU's "Evolution Packet". The Church is, in fact, neutral on the subject. That said, there have been more General Authorities and Apostles expressing sentiments against evolution than for it (Bruce R. McConkie considering it a heresy for example). However, that is not the Church's official position. The "Origin of Man", while seemingly anti-evolution, actually falls short of explicitly condemning evolution or even describing the creation of Adam... and has to be read in context with other official statements from the Church which allow for the possibility of evolution or are at least neutral about it. 

 

I used to think, like you, that evolution was not true, or at least that it did not include humans -- until I spent a summer reading up on it by checking out a dozen books from the library about it. I came away convinced that evolution is a fact of life and that there's no possible logical alternative. I don't think I'm mocking God when I follow His admonition to "seek ye out of the best books" or to study up on things "in the earth, and under the earth". I do believe in receiving all that God has revealed, both through the scriptures and through science - and in looking forward to yet more to be revealed. I also believe that a fundamentalist reading/interpretation of the scriptures (Earth is flat with four corners, the Earth was created in six days, no death before 4000 BC) is incredibly unfruitful and in fact counterproductive to the progress of the Church in an age where we need to be better able to reach out to a secularizing world. 

[Gray]

"people who see evolution as a fact and also believe in the scriptures.."

 

This is the problem: per your statement, you actually don't believe the scriptures, thus you have to question them, as you noted, because you place the Theory of Evolution before them or use the Theory as your baseline or standard in which to judge the scriptures.

 

The First Presidency, long ago, has declared the Theory is not accurate. It was republished in the Feb 2002 Ensign.

 

"Updating our understanding of the revelations in a 21st century world rather than remaining in a pre-Darwinian early 19th century world."

You're also mocking the source of the scriptures.

 

This issue of literalness of scriptures really overshadows and in some cases destroys the deeper meaning of the scriptures.

[mfbukowski]

This issue of literalness of scriptures really overshadows and in some cases destroys the deeper meaning of the scriptures.

It does.

 

But that's ok because those who take them literally don't see those meanings anyway.  They think scriptures are merely historical.  Sad indeed. The richness of the multiple ways of seeing them is totally destroyed.

 

Instead of peeling the onion they eat the apple whole and don't even know there is something under the skin.

[mfbukowski]

I believe all LDS scripture must be historical because the way the Church presents them, but I do not believe all the details have to be literal or accurate; the Church doctrine on Eve created from a rib story (figurative) is a case in point.

It's not so much that I disagree with you, but that raises the question of how we know when something is literal or figurative.  Saying the scriptures are "historical but inaccurate sometimes" makes things very confusing.  It might be better to define how we decide if they are "historical" or "inaccurate"

 

To me, all of history is "inaccurate" because all we have are people's opinions and interpretations of the causes of "what really happened".  There is no such thing as an objective description of history.  We might say that "Columbus discovered America in 1492" but would Native Americans agree that he "discovered" where they had lived for thousands of years?

 

And their time reckoning was different, so for them, it wasn't "1492".

 

Columbus' name was actually "Cristoforo Colombo"  because he was Italian.  So did Columbus really discover America in 1492?

 

It wasn't even really "America" when it was "discovered" either!

 

So just that simple phrase requires a modern American context, and ignoring the Native American view to even make it "true".  So in what sense is any scripture "historical"?

 

We don't have to get into it- all this has been discussed ad nauseum here but I just wanted to make the point that words are words and always presume a context which may or may not apply in all cases.  History really IS "his-story"- one person's story of what happened taken from his point of view.  Combine all the witnesses points of view together and you get closer to "what really happened", but who knows if one did or not?

 

Imagine a Las Vegas stage magic show.  You might have hundreds of witness and hundreds of accounts of what "really happened".

[theplains]

History really IS "his-story"- one person's story of what happened taken from his point of view.  Combine all the witnesses points of view together and you get closer to "what really happened", but who knows if one did or not?

 

Is there any history in the Book of Mormon that is false from God`s point of view?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Stone holm]

So did David O. McKay not believe in the scriptures? (see David O. McKay and the Rise of Mormonism pp. 45-49). What about James E. Talmage or John A. Widtsoe, who both accepted at least aspects of evolution?

 

The Church does not have an official position on evolution. See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism or Google BYU's "Evolution Packet". The Church is, in fact, neutral on the subject. That said, there have been more General Authorities and Apostles expressing sentiments against evolution than for it (Bruce R. McConkie considering it a heresy for example). However, that is not the Church's official position. The "Origin of Man", while seemingly anti-evolution, actually falls short of explicitly condemning evolution or even describing the creation of Adam... and has to be read in context with other official statements from the Church which allow for the possibility of evolution or are at least neutral about it. 

 

I used to think, like you, that evolution was not true, or at least that it did not include humans -- until I spent a summer reading up on it by checking out a dozen books from the library about it. I came away convinced that evolution is a fact of life and that there's no possible logical alternative. I don't think I'm mocking God when I follow His admonition to "seek ye out of the best books" or to study up on things "in the earth, and under the earth". I do believe in receiving all that God has revealed, both through the scriptures and through science - and in looking forward to yet more to be revealed. I also believe that a fundamentalist reading/interpretation of the scriptures (Earth is flat with four corners, the Earth was created in six days, no death before 4000 BC) is incredibly unfruitful and in fact counterproductive to the progress of the Church in an age where we need to be better able to reach out to a secularizing world.

There was a time when the General Handbook of Instructions was neutral on evolution with the exception of Adam and Eve. I have never understood the big flap as there are a variety of ways to have evolution and a relatively literal acceptance of the Garden Story as well. But some people including the occasional GA get hung up on it.

[mfbukowski]

Is there any history in the Book of Mormon that is false from God`s point of view?

 

Thanks,

Jim

As soon as I have God's point of view, you will be the first I will tell. But that might take a few eternities.

[mfbukowski]

"people who see evolution as a fact and also believe in the scriptures.."

 

This is the problem: per your statement, you actually don't believe the scriptures, thus you have to question them, as you noted, because you place the Theory of Evolution before them or use the Theory as your baseline or standard in which to judge the scriptures.

 

The First Presidency, long ago, has declared the Theory is not accurate. It was republished in the Feb 2002 Ensign.

 

"Updating our understanding of the revelations in a 21st century world rather than remaining in a pre-Darwinian early 19th century world."

You're also mocking the source of the scriptures.

Well of course that is from 1909 and it doesn't mention evolution.

One can easily believe every word of that statement AND also believe in evolution. Many here believe that Adam was the first "man" and all the others who may have preceded him were essentially "animals".

But that is a derail and has been re-hashed a million times. I am surprised you have not read any of those threads.

But evolution is not a "fact" anyway- it is a specific interpretation of the data

Edited April 4, 2014 by mfbukowski