Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 3 hours ago, snowflake said: 11 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And I, God, said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. 16 And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word. 17 And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Since we know the book of Moses to be the word of God (according to the Articles of faith), how would it be possible that the plants and grasses and fruit trees could survive before the Sun was created? We find the same sequence of creation in Genesis 1 and Abraham 4, as well as in the Assyro-Babylonian creation story (Enuma elish). The twist in the Book of Moses is that the creative sequence was spiritual rather than physical (3:5,7). It may be that we should understand all twin creation stories as (1) a laying down of a spiritual template, which (2) is then naturally embodied.
Kevin Christensen Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Kevin, I think that this is part of what we lose in the shifts in the temple presentations over time. In Nauvoo, there seems to have been a part of the garden scene where participants ate fruit (real fruit, handed out). The closer we are to participating in the drama - to becoming part of it ourselves, the more we can see the narrative as metaphor (at least in part). The films moved us away from this, making it seem more documentary (and thus more factual and less metaphorical). How we consume the content sometimes matters more than just a little bit. True.. although one of the nice things about the recent release of a set of new and different versions of the films, (several at once), with different stagings and readings of familiar material, is a timely and important reminder that it is a drama, and few slight changes in expression, silences, a tear, a whisper, can tell us something we had overlooked. I'm thinking of one version that highlights that Eve's choice was not just a naive blunder, but a sacrificial choice, made in a moment of clear awareness of the importance. But then, it also helps for me to read things like Cosmos and History, or The Power of Myth, or Nibley and Barker and John Welch and Ostler and others, that better prepare my mind for the seeds we get. When I do that sort of thing, changing my own awareness, I don't have to wait for the drama to change to show me new things. Best Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
snowflake Posted October 13, 2017 Author Posted October 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: We find the same sequence of creation in Genesis 1 and Abraham 4, as well as in the Assyro-Babylonian creation story (Enuma elish). The twist in the Book of Moses is that the creative sequence was spiritual rather than physical (3:5,7). It may be that we should understand all twin creation stories as (1) a laying down of a spiritual template, which (2) is then naturally embodied. Does this creation sequence listed above agree with current "scientific thought" as to how the earth, moon and sun were created. From what I have read the Genesis account would be out of order right?
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, snowflake said: 11 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And I, God, said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. 16 And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word. 17 And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Since we know the book of Moses to be the word of God (according to the Articles of faith), how would it be possible that the plants and grasses and fruit trees could survive before the Sun was created? Proof that scriptures are not science and that is not what God is talking about. You left out verse three conveniently where God creates light. Glad to know you now take the book of Moses to be God's word, though. If Joseph was a fraud do you think he would make such a stupid mistake? This is just totally inconsistent, ridiculously so. No credibility to this argument whatsoever. And deliberately distorted for leaving out verse 3. Edited October 13, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
snowflake Posted October 13, 2017 Author Posted October 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Proof that scriptures are not science and that is not what God is talking about Glad to know you now take the book of Moses to be God's word, though. If Joseph was a fraud do you think he would make such a stupid mistake? This is just totally inconsistent, ridiculously so. No credibility to this argument whatsoever. Wow......such insight....thanks MF!
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 43 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: True.. although one of the nice things about the recent release of a set of new and different versions of the films, (several at once), with different stagings and readings of familiar material, is a timely and important reminder that it is a drama, and few slight changes in expression, silences, a tear, a whisper, can tell us something we had overlooked. I'm thinking of one version that highlights that Eve's choice was not just a naive blunder, but a sacrificial choice, made in a moment of clear awareness of the importance. But then, it also helps for me to read things like Cosmos and History, or The Power of Myth, or Nibley and Barker and John Welch and Ostler and others, that better prepare my mind for the seeds we get. When I do that sort of thing, changing my own awareness, I don't have to wait for the drama to change to show me new things. Best Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Not to mention that folks tend to sleep through the part where it clearly says "We will now proceed with the Presentation of the Endowment" "PRESENTATION" The whole thing, to me, is clearly a story. The Endowment is a gift of blessings from God with covenants- the presentation is the story And of course those of us endowed before 1990 remember clearly that it was explicitly stated that the portion concerning "the man and woman" was figurative. 1
strappinglad Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 Somewhere in my spider-web covered memory, I recall that there was a suggestion/speculation by BY??? , that the earth was created spiritually and physically near the throne of God and had lots of light around. When Adam and Eve fell, so did the Earth figuratively and literally . It moved into its present orbit. Anyone recall such heretical teaching ? So far, no one in science has observed the formation of a planet or a moon in any stage. Star formation probably yes.
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: That's pretty much how I handled the problem too. And it reminds me every time i read it that the creation account in Genesis is not a literal account. I'm not saying that none of it is literal but it's definitely not all literal. Parts of it, such as the part about separating light and darkness is symbolic. I see it more as being about how we create categories with language and that through the Word ( the Messenger/Message- the Good News ) all things were created. Days are defined into existence by being "Called" Day 1, Day 2 etc. Genesis, with punctuation and underlining added: Quote 5 And God called the light "Day," and the darkness he called "Night". And the evening and the morning were the "first day." That is my postmodern interpretation. All communication and all human knowledge is linguistic- it is text when not spoken. Just as for me there can be no "death" before there was language to define it, therefore we say "no death before the fall" But more about that later. Edited October 13, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Kevin, I think that this is part of what we lose in the shifts in the temple presentations over time. In Nauvoo, there seems to have been a part of the garden scene where participants ate fruit (real fruit, handed out). The closer we are to participating in the drama - to becoming part of it ourselves, the more we can see the narrative as metaphor (at least in part). The films moved us away from this, making it seem more documentary (and thus more factual and less metaphorical). How we consume the content sometimes matters more than just a little bit. I agree, and I think we lose a lot of that with the films today. I've enjoyed reading about W. W. Phelps and how serious he was about playing his role of the Satan character. Here is a good post on the topic. http://www.withoutend.org/costume-drama-early-endowment-ceremony/ One quote when talking about W. W. Phelps performance says this: Quote After Orson receives the curse from Brigham [in the role of God], he gets down on his belly and crawls round on the floor a few times, and finally drags himself out of the room. I can only imagine how interesting all of the performances must have been. Edited October 13, 2017 by hope_for_things 1
Stargazer Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: One of Nibley's last published essays was "Abraham's Creation Drama" wherein he makes a case for reading the Abraham story as a dramatic text complete with stage directions. Seeing things that way means that fussing over differences in staging or presentation misses the point that we are watching drama, something artistically representative, a pedagogical tool, something designed to teach about creation and our place in it in a ritual setting. Not a scientific analysis. Margaret Barker's Temple Theology makes a similar point by showing how the Genesis account parallels the erection of the Desert Tabernacle. Day One, Holy of Holies, Day Two, the Veil, Basin representing the waters, Menorah representing lights in the heavens, bread offerings representing plant life, the sacrificed animal on the altar, and finally, the high priest, Adam. The way to create the world in six days is to create a model, a representation. And once we realize we are dealing with symbolic drama, rather than science texts, then the differences aren't differences in views of reality in conflict with science, but differences in teaching something about our place in the cosmos that science doesn't consider. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Margaret Barker's point is well-taken, of course, but another interpretation of the Genesis story is available. That from science. Genesis chapter one seems to be accurate in terms of the order of creation, at least where it comes to the creation of the solar system and the earth. In the beginning there was darkness. The primordial nebula is forming, and rotating faster and faster, beginning to condense into a protoplanetary disk, with a protostar at the center, and protoplanets starting to firm up in the inner parts of the disc: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. (Gen 1:2) Then the center of the primordial nebula has condensed until it has sufficient mass and the sun ignites: Let there be Light. (Gen 1:3) The protoplanetary disk continues to condense and firm up, and planets, including the Earth, take form: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (Gen 1:6) The Earth starts out in a molten state, but over the course of a billion years or so cools down sufficiently to allow liquid water to collect and thus the early oceans form: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (Gen 1:9) Ocean formation makes possible the earliest forms of life, single- and multi-cellular organisms, some of which migrate to the dry land, and the first forms of vegetation are seen: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (Gen 1:11) By this time the increasing activity of the sun has blown out most of the remnant gas and dust from the original nebula, making the stars fully visible in the night sky: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. (Gen 1:14) Animals are created in all their varieties, both in the oceans and on the dry ground, and they evolve into the forms that God intended, as prelude to the coming forth of Man: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven... And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. (Gen 1:20-25) The final crowning achievement of creation occurs: the rise of Man: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:27) Science has confirmed that all of the above occurred, and in the same order as presented in Genesis. Genesis chapter two, on the other hand, is simply a summarization of chapter one followed by the rest of the story, being the introduction of Adam and Eve into the Garden. We read: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Gen 2:4). Chapter one talks about six days of creation; chapter two talks about one day. I'm pretty sure we're talking about "creative periods", not 24-hour days. Genesis One covers stepwise the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth from primordial nebula until the creation of man, and Genesis 2 summarizes and recapitulates it in verses 4 through 7. An interesting thing we find in Genesis 2:5 is a possible hint that all of this was created spiritually before it was created physically. Although only plants are mentioned specifically. I once asked an atheist how he thought Moses managed to come up with a pretty accurate timeline of the creation of the solar system and the earth, given that he presumably lived something like 3,500 years ago -- or about 3,500 years before modern science could verify his creation account. The answer I got was: "Moses must have been very smart man." Which is kind of funny when you think about it. Lots of smart men lived over all those millennia, but only Moses, one of the early if not the earliest "smart man", came up with an accurate timeline? Yeah, sure. I've come to consider the Genesis account good evidence for the existence of God and God's willingness to reveal Himself to His children.
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle. - Brigham Young JD 3:319 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, strappinglad said: Somewhere in my spider-web covered memory, I recall that there was a suggestion/speculation by BY??? , that the earth was created spiritually and physically near the throne of God and had lots of light around. When Adam and Eve fell, so did the Earth figuratively and literally . It moved into its present orbit. Anyone recall such heretical teaching ? So far, no one in science has observed the formation of a planet or a moon in any stage. Star formation probably yes. https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2015/07/observing-the-birth-of-a-planet.html It's one of those funny issues, similar to the more recent observation of a star's gravitational field warping light. It was something Einstein predicted in his general theory, but it was also something that he pessimistically noted would probably never be provable, because it would be nearly impossible to get all of the parameters to line up to make the observation possible. Of course, time passes and brings better technology, and voila: https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/07/astronomers-einstein-stars-warp-light/ So with many of these things, it is merely a matter of time, as our observation technology improves, and our ability to predict where to look gets better, these kinds of things simply become a matter of time. And as the first link suggests, we have now observed the formation of a planet. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: ...................................... And of course those of us endowed before 1990 remember clearly that it was explicitly stated that the portion concerning "the man and woman" was figurative. The word "similitude" is still used, but you have to listen for it. In any case, the Brethren still emphasize the symbolic and figurative nature of a number of aspects of the story. It is in the nature of formal liturgy. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle. - Brigham Young JD 3:319 Quote “True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.” Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund (First Pres), “The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov 1909, page 80. Edited October 14, 2017 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Margaret Barker's point is well-taken, of course, but another interpretation of the Genesis story is available. That from science. Genesis chapter one seems to be accurate in terms of the order of creation, at least where it comes to the creation of the solar system and the earth................................................ Science has confirmed that all of the above occurred, and in the same order as presented in Genesis. You failed to cite your source(s) on this solar system and terraforming sequence, Stargazer. 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Genesis chapter two, on the other hand, is simply a summarization of chapter one followed by the rest of the story, being the introduction of Adam and Eve into the Garden. We read: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Gen 2:4). Chapter one talks about six days of creation; chapter two talks about one day. I'm pretty sure we're talking about "creative periods", not 24-hour days. Genesis One covers stepwise the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth from primordial nebula until the creation of man, and Genesis 2 summarizes and recapitulates it in verses 4 through 7. An interesting thing we find in Genesis 2:5 is a possible hint that all of this was created spiritually before it was created physically. Although only plants are mentioned specifically. Moses 3:5,7 makes it explicit that the initial creation sequence was spiritual, forming a template for the physical creation (examine one endowment film in particular for that), which throws the scientific approach into a cocked hat, and placing a heavier burden on Gen 2 -- if, and only if, we are speaking of the Creation stories as historical narrative, which they are clearly not. Non-Mormon scholars insist that they are temple texts, i.e., liturgy. 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: I once asked an atheist how he thought Moses managed to come up with a pretty accurate timeline of the creation of the solar system and the earth, given that he presumably lived something like 3,500 years ago -- or about 3,500 years before modern science could verify his creation account. The answer I got was: "Moses must have been very smart man." Which is kind of funny when you think about it. Lots of smart men lived over all those millennia, but only Moses, one of the early if not the earliest "smart man", came up with an accurate timeline? Yeah, sure. I've come to consider the Genesis account good evidence for the existence of God and God's willingness to reveal Himself to His children. However, the sequence is already older than Moses, and is present in the Mesopotamian (Assyro-Babylonian) creation story, which was reenacted annually at New Years in their temples.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 5 hours ago, strappinglad said: .................................................... So far, no one in science has observed the formation of a planet or a moon in any stage. Star formation probably yes. Here is a theoretical reconstruction of the sequence from Big Bang to solar system:
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 Here is a powerful computer simulation of the over 13 billion years of cosmic evolution of our universe: http://www.illustris-project.org/ . Explained variously here: http://www.iflscience.com/space/visualizing-13-billion-years-cosmic-evolution/ , and here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13316.html?foxtrotcallback=true (article in Nature)
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 6 hours ago, snowflake said: Does this creation sequence listed above agree with current "scientific thought" as to how the earth, moon and sun were created. From what I have read the Genesis account would be out of order right? I have asked Stargazer to provide a source for his scientific claims about Gen 1. However, if we are speaking only about a spiritual creation (template) in Gen 1, then a scientific sequence would be irrelevant, and Gen 2 does not follow the same sequence. Biblical scholars consider Gen 1 and 2 to be separate creation stories -- aside from the fact that they consider them to be temple texts, and not historical narratives. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, snowflake said: Does this creation sequence listed above agree with current "scientific thought" as to how the earth, moon and sun were created. From what I have read the Genesis account would be out of order right? Really, anything can be read into the various Creation myths. Our sun is just a small star in a tiny solar system, about 3/4 of the way out in a medium sized galaxy. In a universe of over 300 billion galaxies. We just aren't the center the universe. But I believe we are important to God. Edited October 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint
Stargazer Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You failed to cite your source(s) on this solar system and terraforming sequence, Stargazer. Moses 3:5,7 makes it explicit that the initial creation sequence was spiritual, forming a template for the physical creation (examine one endowment film in particular for that), which throws the scientific approach into a cocked hat, and placing a heavier burden on Gen 2 -- if, and only if, we are speaking of the Creation stories as historical narrative, which they are clearly not. Non-Mormon scholars insist that they are temple texts, i.e., liturgy. However, the sequence is already older than Moses, and is present in the Mesopotamian (Assyro-Babylonian) creation story, which was reenacted annually at New Years in their temples. You seem to be disputing what I wrote, which actually surprises me. I will admit that to me, the sequence of the creation as found in Genesis matches so well with theories advanced by science that it isn't really arguable. I suppose I tend to assume that it's so obvious as to not require proof. Clearly I'm wrong about this. But since you ask, here you go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth I agree that the initial creation sequence was spiritual. No argument here. Whether the sequence is older than Moses or not, it's still evidence of God revealing his creation process to man.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: You seem to be disputing what I wrote, which actually surprises me. I will admit that to me, the sequence of the creation as found in Genesis matches so well with theories advanced by science that it isn't really arguable. I suppose I tend to assume that it's so obvious as to not require proof. Clearly I'm wrong about this. You may not have noticed that it was not clear to all responders on this thread that the creation sequence in Gen 1 comports with science. Indeed, most people do not know that. That is why it is always helpful to cite a good source. Creation scientists with the American Scientific Affiliation were making this point back in the 1950s, so it is not new to me, and I do not dispute it. 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: ............................................ I agree that the initial creation sequence was spiritual. No argument here. Whether the sequence is older than Moses or not, it's still evidence of God revealing his creation process to man. I take a Nibleyesque approach to such matters, observing that Moses comes along quite late in history, and that Gen 1 is not a science text, but liturgy. As for the late Joseph Campbell or H. von Dechend & G. de Santillana, much (if not most) of what we encounter in epic and myth is merely archaic knowledge packaged in symbol and metaphor -- to make it more palatable to our minds and memories. de Santillana, Giorgio, and Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (Boston: Gambit, 1969/ Godine, 1977). 2
Bobbieaware Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, snowflake said: 11 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And I, God, said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. 16 And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word. 17 And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Since we know the book of Moses to be the word of God (according to the Articles of faith), how would it be possible that the plants and grasses and fruit trees could survive before the Sun was created? This whole thread could have been brought to a quick and abrupt end if someone had the presence of mind to quote from Moses 3 which plainly states that the creation of the plants spoken of in Moses 2 is speaking of a spiritual and not a physical creation of the plants. 4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth. 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air. (Moses 3) Non-LDS people often fall into erronius perceptions of LDS belief because they lack a basic knowledge of certain important doctrines and principles peculiar to the LDS Church. Edited October 14, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 23 hours ago, snowflake said: Wow......such insight....thanks MF! You're welcome.
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I agree, and I think we lose a lot of that with the films today. I've enjoyed reading about W. W. Phelps and how serious he was about playing his role of the Satan character. Here is a good post on the topic. http://www.withoutend.org/costume-drama-early-endowment-ceremony/ One quote when talking about W. W. Phelps performance says this: I can only imagine how interesting all of the performances must have been. I am not sure that this will make sense to you but in film "B", the earliest with the Eve who cries, when Satan is cast out, he disappears and there is an audilble "thunk" as if he has fallen to the ground through the foliage. Almost humorous Edited October 14, 2017 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I am not sure that this will make sense to you but in film "B", the earliest with the Eve who cries, when Satan is cast out, he disappears and there is an audilble "thunk" as if he has fallen to the ground through the foliage. Almost humorous I haven't seen that one, but it sounds funny, do you think they intended the thunk sound to make it sound like he fell down after being cast out, or was it unintentional?
Recommended Posts