cinepro Posted February 21, 2016 Author Posted February 21, 2016 On 2/20/2016 at 6:11 PM, mfbukowski said: Well there goes your distinction then because I am a chapel Mormon by that definition I acknowledge the church's right to give one the authority and trust to teach in its classes and therefore I use the church materials. So I guess that makes Consig wrong automatically Here you have a chapel Mormon who sees this issue as a non- issue because of course Adam was not going to literally appear. Thread over. Sorry, but you're just wrangling semantics to try and make a point. But if you feel your beliefs are more closely aligned with the "Chapel Mormon" approach, including a belief in a literal world-wide flood of Noah and a literal gathering of Adam's family in the land now known as Missouri, USA, then good for you. Perhaps the day is coming when "Chapel Mormons" will no longer make up a meaningful voice in the Church (including among Church leadership), and you are on the vanguard.
CV75 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: Sorry, but you're just wrangling semantics to try and make a point. But if you feel your beliefs are more closely aligned with the "Chapel Mormon" approach, including a belief in a literal world-wide flood of Noah and a literal gathering of Adam's family in the land now known as Missouri, USA, then good for you. Perhaps the day is coming when "Chapel Mormons" will no longer make up a meaningful voice in the Church (including among Church leadership), and you are on the vanguard. So remind me, what’s at issue with believing that Adam-ondi-Ahman is the land where Adam dwelt (whether a mountain, a plain or a valley), presumably after he had thoroughly established himself in the ways of God in this world (probably in the same vein as Enoch in Zion, or Melchizedek in Salem), and blessed his righteous posterity and prophesied; the name given by the Lord for Spring Hill, Missouri; a locale anciently sharing the same locale as our modern-day Missouri (which may depend on the reckoning used), which is also where Adam shall come to visit his people in the last days; and, which may be a name used for more than one place?
omni Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 31 minutes ago, CV75 said: So remind me, what’s at issue with believing that Adam-ondi-Ahman is the land where Adam dwelt (whether a mountain, a plain or a valley), presumably after he had thoroughly established himself in the ways of God in this world (probably in the same vein as Enoch in Zion, or Melchizedek in Salem), and blessed his righteous posterity and prophesied; the name given by the Lord for Spring Hill, Missouri; a locale anciently sharing the same locale as our modern-day Missouri (which may depend on the reckoning used), which is also where Adam shall come to visit his people in the last days; and, which may be a name used for more than one place? Whew...I think you just broke an MDDB record for the longest sentence. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 9 hours ago, CA Steve said: ........................... I am still trying to connect your comment about the two rivers (or as you say four, I was unaware of the Egyptian component of the myth) being a late insertion to the story of the Garden of Eden as being anything that can reflect one way or anther about Adam-ondi-Ahman and the Garden of Eden located in Missouri. Was your initial response here to the poster Kaleb Webb intended to leave room for belief that the Garden of Eden might be in Missouri since the rivers were a late insertion into the story? Or were you just responding that they should not be part of what we take into account when dealing with the Biblical version of the Garden of Eden? ................................................. I am not sure why you think this particular omission of the names of the rivers in the Book of Abraham is inexplicable. Given the process outlined by David it seems to me that errors, omissions, redactions, and additions are to be expected and why should one particular difference between a Biblical version and our own Book of Abraham be viewed as indicative of the Book of Abraham being more accurate, especially since we know our version is dependent on the Biblical version? Albright said that losses are more common than glosses, but most scholars believe that accretion and insertion of text takes place through time. That is why they think that the older myth finds itself being added to with specific names of Mesopotamian and Egyptian rivers in Genesis. They believe generally that the earlier, pre-exilic text did not include the names of the rivers. Bokovoy does not disagree, and his analysis of the Flood Story is a parade example of how two versions of the same event are brought together, with all manner of duplications and internal conflicts resulting. When losses occur, on the other hand, there is typically an excellent reason for it -- due to same beginning or ending lines leading the copyist astray, or demythologizing the story, etc. There is no explanation as to why the names of those rivers would be lost in a later text, but plenty of reason to suppose that the river names are a late insertion, in midrashic fashion. Bokovoy's conclusion on the lateness of the Abraham text (Ptolemaic) is certainly correct, but that does not mean that it follows even later Masoretic Hebrew tradition. Instead, we could as easily be dealing with a separate Hebrew Vorlage (which all scholars admit existed in Egypt at one time) which did not contain the river names. We have no rationale for their deliberate omission. That is why it is inexplicable. Redaction critics and text critics at least try to find a rational explanation of such losses. We have none here. 1
cinepro Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 9 hours ago, CV75 said: So remind me, what’s at issue with believing that Adam-ondi-Ahman is the land where Adam dwelt (whether a mountain, a plain or a valley), presumably after he had thoroughly established himself in the ways of God in this world (probably in the same vein as Enoch in Zion, or Melchizedek in Salem), and blessed his righteous posterity and prophesied; the name given by the Lord for Spring Hill, Missouri; a locale anciently sharing the same locale as our modern-day Missouri (which may depend on the reckoning used), which is also where Adam shall come to visit his people in the last days; and, which may be a name used for more than one place? If the timeline promoted by the Church is correct, then humanity originated in the area now known as Missouri, USA, around 4,000 BC, and around 3100 BC, Adam gathered his posterity together at Adam-ondi-Ahman (also in Missouri, USA). The "issue" is that this contradicts just about everything anthropologic evidence tells us about human history (including the location and time frame for human origins). 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, cinepro said: If the timeline promoted by the Church is correct, then humanity originated in the area now known as Missouri, USA, around 4,000 BC, and around 3100 BC, Adam gathered his posterity together at Adam-ondi-Ahman (also in Missouri, USA). The "issue" is that this contradicts just about everything anthropologic evidence tells us about human history (including the location and time frame for human origins). Any good, up-to-date anthropology text can provide a dependable summary of modern human origins, and the most recent views can be found online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations . Some of the details will change based on continuing discoveries, but the general outlines are well understood.. One must not confuse that with biblical and religious accounts which are primarily ritualistic in content, and were never intended to be taken as actual history or science. That is, Gen 1 - 3 is not a scientific or history text, and non-Mormon scholars do not consider it as such. Instead, we may more likely have an actual "witness couple," generically "man" and "woman," acting on our behalf in a grand temple rite -- as the first step in modern salvation history (Heilsgeschichte). Moreover, all Scripture must be read in that context. Thus, the contradictions which you find, cinepro, are a direct result of your own category mistake. Edited February 23, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 16 hours ago, omni said: Whew...I think you just broke an MDDB record for the longest sentence. The only longer single sentence I have seen is one composed by Hugh Nibley as the abstract for his PhD dissertation at Berkeley.
CV75 Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, cinepro said: If the timeline promoted by the Church is correct, then humanity originated in the area now known as Missouri, USA, around 4,000 BC, and around 3100 BC, Adam gathered his posterity together at Adam-ondi-Ahman (also in Missouri, USA). The "issue" is that this contradicts just about everything anthropologic evidence tells us about human history (including the location and time frame for human origins). The contradiction seems to be only in the fruit's designation as apple and orange, but no contradiction at all in its designation as fruit (the "fruit" being the "result" of scientific or spiritual perception, observation, and measurement and analysis, etc.). There is plenty of room for apples (e.g. scripture) and oranges (e.g. science) to share common ground. In the same way we can apply scriptural teachings to our temporal lives and can define the results either in scientific or spiritual terms, we can also apply Adam-ond-Ahman to physical places and events. Another example is, here I am, doing what i do, no matter how I got here! Edited February 22, 2016 by CV75
consiglieri Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 On 2/20/2016 at 9:38 AM, volgadon said: The interesting thing is that sister Nelson's quote is barely discussed in supposed "chapel Mormon" circles. I think that's because her husband's talk somewhat overshadowed it . . .
stemelbow Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think that's because her husband's talk somewhat overshadowed it . . . That's what happens when you try and tell people, whom you don't seem to understand, what they need to do to save themselves from themselves.
CA Steve Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Any good, up-to-date anthropology text can provide a dependable summary of modern human origins, and the most recent views can be found online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations . Some of the details will change based on continuing discoveries, but the general outlines are well understood.. One must not confuse that with biblical and religious accounts which are primarily ritualistic in content, and were never intended to be taken as actual history or science. That is, Gen 1 - 3 is not a scientific or history text, and non-Mormon scholars do not consider is as such. Instead, we may more likely have an actual "witness couple," generically "man" and "woman," acting on our behalf in a grand temple rite -- as the first step in modern salvation history (Heilsgeschichte). Moreover, all Scripture must be read in that context. Thus, the contradictions which you find, cinepro, are a direct result of your own category mistake. Hi Robert, I do not understand what category mistake Cinepro is making when he is quoting Joseph Smith on an event Joseph said happened? The problem seems to be the conflict of Biblical myths with a declarative statement on a historical event (the whole Adam-ondi-Ahman story) by the prophet. Are you saying that Adam-ondi-Ahman was also not intended to be taken as actual history? 1
volgadon Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 21 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think that's because her husband's talk somewhat overshadowed it . . . You mean that elder Nelson's talk overshadowed a dramatic claim that the second coming has begun and that Jesus has already met with a large group on earth? Some talk! 1
cinepro Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: One must not confuse that with biblical and religious accounts which are primarily ritualistic in content, and were never intended to be taken as actual history or science. That is, Gen 1 - 3 is not a scientific or history text, and non-Mormon scholars do not consider is as such. Instead, we may more likely have an actual "witness couple," generically "man" and "woman," acting on our behalf in a grand temple rite -- as the first step in modern salvation history (Heilsgeschichte). Moreover, all Scripture must be read in that context. Thus, the contradictions which you find, cinepro, are a direct result of your own category mistake. Your comment is actually quite good, but I think you need to be a little more specific. How about: "[LDS Apostles and Prophets] must not confuse that with biblical and religious accounts which are primarily ritualistic in content, and were never intended to be taken as actual history or science." My whole point of this thread is that Elder Renlund appeared to be so confused, as have all other Church leaders and publications for that last 180 years (and, as a result, LDS in general). It's great that some LDS have adopted a broader view of the reality of such things, but I'm not seeing much progress being made by the Apostles and Prophets, who are, coincidentally, the ones we are told to look to on such matters. 4
CV75 Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, cinepro said: Your comment is actually quite good, but I think you need to be a little more specific. How about: "[LDS Apostles and Prophets] must not confuse that with biblical and religious accounts which are primarily ritualistic in content, and were never intended to be taken as actual history or science." My whole point of this thread is that Elder Renlund appeared to be so confused, as have all other Church leaders and publications for that last 180 years (and, as a result, LDS in general). It's great that some LDS have adopted a broader view of the reality of such things, but I'm not seeing much progress being made by the Apostles and Prophets, who are, coincidentally, the ones we are told to look to on such matters. I think “one” is the better phrase because don’t think you can look to the Prophets and Apostles and insist that they are the only ones who mustn’t be confused and presume that you are not. It applies to all. They are speaking from a particular perspective, and yes, we are counseled to look to them for spiritual lessons and priorities. In order “to look,” we align our spiritual perspective and take responsibility for receiving spiritual understanding while managing our personal historical, scientific and other bents responsibly so as not to interfere with that. Just because the same language may be used to convey “contradicting” spiritual, and historical, and scientific ideas while the methods for forming these ideas varies greatly, this only allows greater room for overlap and synthesis where possible and of course freedom of expression. If your whole point is that Elder Renlund appears to be confused to you, what’s the big deal? I wasn’t there, and for all I know he views these things as I do, and I do not consider myself confused. From a certain perspective, prophecy is a kind of spiritual history and science. It gets to that old question of, “What is real?” Since your point also covers all other Church leaders from the start, which is like saying “everyone’s wrong but me (and maybe some LDS that have adopted a broader view—oh-kaaaay…),” it seems you simply have your own “certain” perspective. It is unreasonable to expect them to share their responsibly-managed thoughts on history and science in carrying out their ministry as a condition for receiving the fruits of their ministry. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, CA Steve said: ........................................ I do not understand what category mistake Cinepro is making when he is quoting Joseph Smith on an event Joseph said happened? The problem seems to be the conflict of Biblical myths with a declarative statement on a historical event (the whole Adam-ondi-Ahman story) by the prophet. Are you saying that Adam-ondi-Ahman was also not intended to be taken as actual history? It is as much a category mistake to take one of Jesus' parables as a historical account (news report, real biography, etc.) rather than as a parable, just as it would be utterly silly to consider one of Aesop's fables to be an account of the actual experiences of animals, and just as it is missing the point to take a ritual as a historiographical account of an event. That does not mean that there were no Adam and Eve. Heck, I went to an endowment session a week ago and was really there, fully participating, on behalf of someone else. He wasn't really there, but I acted for him by proxy. Characters played by actors were not really there, but were portrayed according to the proper ritual words and gestures. Of course an actual ritual took place long ago at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, and real people took part, just as they always have in temples and other sanctuaries, on sacred occasions. Some people do have trouble reading Gen 1 - 3 as ritual, and with understanding adam and eve as generic terms rather than names. They cannot see past the outward appearances, worlds without end. Edited February 23, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 4 hours ago, CV75 said: I think “one” is the better phrase because don’t think you can look to the Prophets and Apostles and insist that they are the only ones who mustn’t be confused and presume that you are not. It applies to all. They are speaking from a particular perspective, and yes, we are counseled to look to them for spiritual lessons and priorities. In order “to look,” we align our spiritual perspective and take responsibility for receiving spiritual understanding while managing our personal historical, scientific and other bents responsibly so as not to interfere with that. Just because the same language may be used to convey “contradicting” spiritual, and historical, and scientific ideas while the methods for forming these ideas varies greatly, this only allows greater room for overlap and synthesis where possible and of course freedom of expression. If your whole point is that Elder Renlund appears to be confused to you, what’s the big deal? I wasn’t there, and for all I know he views these things as I do, and I do not consider myself confused. From a certain perspective, prophecy is a kind of spiritual history and science. It gets to that old question of, “What is real?” Since your point also covers all other Church leaders from the start, which is like saying “everyone’s wrong but me (and maybe some LDS that have adopted a broader view—oh-kaaaay…),” it seems you simply have your own “certain” perspective. It is unreasonable to expect them to share their responsibly-managed thoughts on history and science in carrying out their ministry as a condition for receiving the fruits of their ministry. Not sure I understand any of what you are saying here, but it seems clear that cinepro is playing the blame game instead of taking responsibility for wrongly seeing a founding ritual as a science and history text. However, it is both a ritual reenactment, as well as a set historical archetype based on real events. 1
sunstoned Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 It seems all the Cinepro did was quote a prophet. If you don't agree with what the prophets say concerning the location and the time frame of the garden of Eden then be up front about it. Don't shoot the messenger. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Wherever it was it isn't there now, and if God wants to bring it back who am I to object.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 On 22/2/2016 at 6:59 PM, cinepro said: The "issue" is that this contradicts just about everything anthropologic evidence tells us about human history (including the location and time frame for human origins). For what it may be worth, I was a student at the University of Wisconsin when an emeritus professor of physical anthropology (and the discoverer and namer of a certain presumed human ancestor) publicly announced in an interview in one of Madison's newspapers that he simply didn't believe the narrative of human origins that he'd helped construct. The evidence, he asserted, was so thin that people would never believe it if they weren't so desperate to have an alternative to the religious narrative they find so distasteful. (I clipped the article at the time but sadly left it behind in America.) So I guess one could infer that Latter-day Saints may not be the only ones to view 'everything anthropologic[al] evidence tells us about human history' with some reservation. 4
CV75 Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not sure I understand any of what you are saying here, but it seems clear that cinepro is playing the blame game instead of taking responsibility for wrongly seeing a founding ritual as a science and history text. However, it is both a ritual reenactment, as well as a set historical archetype based on real events. That's close enough for me! In another thread, There is discussion about overcoming our environment and what to do when one believes he has become more enlightened on one point or another than the Lord's servants, which can and does legitimately happen. Some people have learned more of eternity than their leaders. In this thread, it would be overcoming an environment of scripture stories, ritual and literalism with the transcendence offered by academia and science. I think if someone finds himself believing he has transcended his environment and believes the Lord’s servants haven’t, the only choice he has is to live his transcendence as evidenced by his charity and unity, or stand condemned for contention and enmity. That is the choice anyone is accountable for anyway, whether we have transcended anything or not. When we operate on light and knowledge from the Lord, we will abide in how He set things up, which is to have fallible people lead His Church (3 Nephi 11) through councils which we may or may not be be called to participate in, but are asked to sustain always, regardless (D&C). We are not responsible for mortal leaders who are prone to error, only ourselves who are just as prone to error. If we sense we have something the leaders don’t, we will recognize that the Lord hasn’t given it to them to convey to the masses, at least until we are called upon by them to mention it in a council of some kind. So far, the scriptures (as defined in D&C 68:4) seem to be the primary (if not the only) tool the Lord has given His servants to communicate and teach His message, offering the most common references the masses can understand. Edited February 23, 2016 by CV75 2
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: For what it may be worth, I was a student at the University of Wisconsin when an emeritus professor of physical anthropology (and the discoverer and namer of a certain presumed human ancestor) publicly announced in an interview in one of Madison's newspapers that he simply didn't believe the narrative of human origins that he'd helped construct. The evidence, he asserted, was so thin that people would never believe it if they weren't so desperate to have an alternative to the religious narrative they find so distasteful. (I clipped the article at the time but sadly left it behind in America.) So I guess one could infer that Latter-day Saints may not be the only ones to view 'everything anthropologic[al] evidence tells us about human history' with some reservation. There are outliers in every everything. Here the Cosmic Egg version of creation. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_egg
CA Steve Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is as much a category mistake to take one of Jesus' parables as a historical account (news report, real biography, etc.) rather than as a parable, just as it would be utterly silly to consider one of Aesop's fables to be an account of the actual experiences of animals, and just as it is missing the point to take a ritual as a historiographical account of an event. That does not mean that there were no Adam and Eve. Heck, I went to an endowment session a week ago and was really there, fully participating, on behalf of someone else. He wasn't really there, but I acted for him by proxy. Characters played by actors were not really there, but were portrayed according to the proper ritual words and gestures. Of course an actual ritual took place long ago at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, and real people took part, just as they always have in temples and other sanctuaries, on sacred occasions. Some people do have trouble reading Gen 1 - 3 as ritual, and with understanding adam and eve as generic terms rather than names. They cannot see past the outward appearances, worlds without end. Hi Robert, Do you think our Mormon ancestors who were persecuted in Missouri thought they were there to participate in an ongoing ritual? Or did they believe they were defending the actual ground on which Adam walked? Edited February 23, 2016 by CA Steve
cinepro Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course an actual ritual took place long ago at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, and real people took part, just as they always have in temples and other sanctuaries, on sacred occasions. Some people do have trouble reading Gen 1 - 3 as ritual, and with understanding adam and eve as generic terms rather than names. They cannot see past the outward appearances, worlds without end. Just curious Robert, but if you sat next to someone in Sunday School and during a lesson on the resurrection, they whispered to you "I don't believe in a literal resurrection. I think it's an allegory for the new life someone begins as a follower of Jesus. We're all resurrected when we get baptized. Some people have trouble reading it too literally", what would you think? And regarding "Adam" being a generic term rather than a name, let's consider Joseph Smith saying this: During an intimate meeting in Kirtland on December 18, 1833, the Prophet experienced a singular vision of the premortal Jehovah ministering to Father Adam in mortality. Oliver Cowdery noted that while Joseph Smith was setting apart his father, Joseph Smith Sr., as Patriarch to the Church, “the visions of the Almighty were open to his view,” and he beheld a great ancient council meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman held three years previous to Adam’s death. “The Lord appeared unto them,” Cowdery recorded, and “administered comfort unto Adam.” In July 1839, during a meeting with the Twelve and the Seventy, Joseph Smith briefly recounted the vision. “I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman,” he said. “The Lord appeared in their midst, and he (Adam) blessed them all.” The Visions of Joseph Smith If "adam" wasn't a real, specific person but is instead a "generic term", please explain what Joseph Smith was really saying. Edited February 23, 2016 by cinepro
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) I'd tell them "Interesting idea, but really not a discussion for Sunday School". Edited February 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint
CA Steve Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 31 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: I'd tell them "Interesting idea, but really not a discussion for Sunday School". You could also let him know there is an online forum where such ideas are openly discussed.
Recommended Posts