Evolution

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

there was no death before the Fall of Adam is absurd.   

Holy ....

This teaching is currently on LDS.org

I had heard that some leaders taught this years ago (and had written it off as an odd or uninformed opinion), but the current LDS Bible Dictionary (death) clearly states that physical death was introduced to the world by the fall of Adam!

This is the official position of our church?!?!  Nothing died before Adam did?  How did plants grow without organic decay?  How did cells of ingested plants not get stripped of their nutrients to feed the consuming organisms?

I am trying so so so hard to stay in “Old Ship Zion.”  Would my faith be stronger if I just accepted this teaching, and rejected biology basics?

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Holy ....

This teaching is currently on LDS.org

I had heard that some leaders taught this years ago (and had written it off as an odd or uninformed opinion), but the current LDS Bible Dictionary (death) clearly states that physical death was introduced to the world by the fall of Adam!

This is the official position of our church?!?!  Nothing died before Adam did?  How did plants grow without organic decay?  How did cells of ingested plants not get stripped of their nutrients to feed the consuming organisms?

I am trying so so so hard to stay in “Old Ship Zion.”  Would my faith be stronger if I just accepted this teaching, and rejected biology basics?

This is why I think the belief that there was no death before is absurd, IMO, death occured hundreds of thousands/millions of years before the Fall of Adam; there is evidence that substantiates this as well.  

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/genetics-rewrites-history-early-america-and-maybe-field-archaeology-180967745/

Below is FAIR's response, which states that the "Church teachings appear to contradict science."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall#Question:_What_does_the_Church_teach_on_the_subject_of_death_before_the_Fall_of_Adam.3F

"There is overwhelming archaeological evidence of death having occurred on the earth for many millions of years. For example, oil deposits are formed from the decomposed remains of ancient plants and animals. This is where Church teachings appear to contradict science, since many Latter-day Saint leaders and Church manuals have taught that there was no physical death on the entire earth prior to the fall of Adam. For example, this view is taught in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 6:48). ^[2]"

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Could be. But that is not stated in D&C 77.

Where is this doctrine of the earth’s spiritual transformation taught?

I’m sorry, but the easier, more simple answer is that this section is not revelation, and that Joseph Smith was incorrectly espousing common Judeo-Christian beliefs of the time.

SoutherMo, don't tie yourself up in knots trying to make sense of this.  What is clearly stated in Section 77 is just  plain wrong. Also the scriptures and many teachings of church leaders stating that there was no death before the fall are also wrong.  Unless of course we want to push back the time of Adam and Eve many hundreds of thousands of years.  This is not just a problem for LDS. It is a real problem for any fundamentalist church that takes a very literal view of the Bible.  Of course, the extra problem we have is that get this all to work, we not only have to discount Biblical scriptures, but also some BoM and D&C passages, and all the many teachings of the prophets.    One hundred or so years ago we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  But what usually happens is that when scientific knowledge advances, religious beliefs have to be modified or jettisoned. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This is my problem. I don’t know what we Mormons are supposed to believe.  Because my beliefs do not align with scriptures we Mormons sustain, I’m wondering if there is room for my beliefs.

Big tent, but big enough for me?

The Church's current official position is there is no position on evolution.  

Sounds to me you can believe what you want.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

To me it means that God placed Adam on Earth 7000 years ago. We are Sons and Daughters of Adam and Eve. It doesn't mean no one was here on Earth when God placed them here.

PS it seems like I read somewhere that Joseph Smith thought the world was 4.5 billion years old. Does anybody else have knowledge of this?

All life has a spirit body placed in it.  Dogs, cats, horses have their own spirit.  Apes and even the Neanderthals have a spirit.  The difference between us and them is that we are the sons and daughters of God.  Our spirits are different than there.  The sons and daughters of God started on this world with Adam and Eve and their habitation on this planet is 7000 years.  Though the Neanderthals are considered early man in a secular point of view, they are not the sons and daughters of God.  No temple work will ever be done for them.  They may receive some level of salvation just as dogs and cats do but exaltation is not for them.  The difference between the secular world  and us is that the secular world looks at bones, fossils, biological stuff.  We look at the core component of life which is the spirit that inhabits those bodies.   Spirits do not leave fossil evidence behind  nor can one do a DNA test on a spirit.

Edited December 10, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In a few places, I’ve seen that the LDS church has no official views on evolution.

Joseph Smith is supposed to have received revelation in 1832 that the earth is 7,000 years old (D&C 77:6).

How are we to sustain the D&C as true revelation, yet officially reject that teaching?  Are there other scriptural teachings LDS officially reject?

I think the Church has no "official view" on evolution because if they did, it would be the obviously wrong one. 

As others have shown, there is no degree of creativity that won't be brought to bear to try and reconcile the scriptures and teachings of the Church with the biological, geological and anthropological evidence.  In the end, the defenses are essentially saying "The Church says ABC, but if it instead said XYZ, then there wouldn't be a problem.  Therefore, I believe XYZ."

So, yeah.  If the Church being true depends on the Church leaders' teachings about evolution, the primacy of Adam and Noah in the human timeline, and the scope and literalness of "no death before the fall" being "true", then yeah, the Church isn't true.  Therefore, we can't believe those teachings, and anything they've said (and continue to say) to that effect has to be explained away.

So explain away.

[Ouagadougou]

13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The sons and daughters of God started on this world with Adam and Eve and their habitation on this planet is 7000 years.

I'm sorry, but our species (Homo sapiens) have been around MUCH longer than just 7,000 years.  

"Our species is an African one: Africa is where we first evolved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fossils of recognizably modern Homo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated. Learn more about Early Human Milestones

According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. 

Around 20,000 years ago a small group of these Asian hunters headed into the face of the storm, entering the East Asian Arctic during the Last Glacial Maximum."

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In a few places, I’ve seen that the LDS church has no official views on evolution.

Joseph Smith is supposed to have received revelation in 1832 that the earth is 7,000 years old (D&C 77:6).

How are we to sustain the D&C as true revelation, yet officially reject that teaching?  Are there other scriptural teachings LDS officially reject?

As others note D&C 77 doesn't say the earth is 7000 years old but rather was an explanation of the seven seals in Revelation. It doesn't say the earth is only that old but that the "book which John saw" "contains...the hidden things of [god's] economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance or its temporal existence." So in other words it's an explanation about John's revelation which deals with a portion of the earth's history. It makes zero claims about the age of the earth nor that there was no death before the fall.

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

If someone has a reference on this, that would be AWESOME. Please share.  If correct, Joseph Smith would have nailed the approximate age of the earth about a hundred years before scientific consensus on this. Many years before radio-carbon dating made this possible.

It's from W. W. Phelps in a letter to Joseph's brother William in 1844. It read

Christ kept his first estate-Lucifer lost his by offering to save men in their sins on the honor of a God, or on his father's honor.-Christ hated sin, and loved righteousness, therefore he was anointed with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things! In fact the Jews thought so much of his coronation among Gods and Goddesses; Kings and Queens of heaven, that they broke over all restraints and actually began to worship the "Queen of heaven," according to Jeremiah.

Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity: and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years;-it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!

The big debate is over what "system and not the world" means. McConkie, going by memory, took it to mean the solar system and not earth. He was a no death before the fall kind of guy. Others note that 2.5 billion years is near the rise of eukaryote cells. (Technically 2.1 - 1.8 but people making this argument usually suggest the capture of mitochondria was complete by then but that the evolution into modern life likely happened before) Others noted photosynthesis evolves around 2.6 billion.  Finally critics note that the figure almost certainly comes from gematria (numeric calculations in Judaic texts) and is more tied to 1 day = 1000 years calculated out.

I'm partial to the quote myself, although it's not at all clear what Phelps is talking about. But it seems tied to something going on during the Abraham work. And of course the 1 day = 1000 years is in Abraham 3.

Edit: weirdly the forum won't let me post the full quote.

Edit2: finally got it in but in a weird font.

Edited December 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

This is where Church teachings appear to contradict science, since many Latter-day Saint leaders and Church manuals have taught that there was no physical death on the entire earth prior to the fall of Adam. For example, this view is taught in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 6:48). ^[2]"

There's definitely been some unfortunate manuals though the years. However that gets into the normative vs. descriptive senses of doctrine I've brought up before. Heaven knows manuals are very imperfect. While they're useful for deciding sociologically what Church teaching is, I'm not sure they're good for discerning what is defensible doctrine tied to revelation. the Bible Dictionary was largely written by McConkie and reflects his theological views. It's extremely dated and really needs a significant rewrite. I've honestly been surprised they haven't done it yet. Lots of problematic parts. However I don't think you can necessarily say what is contemporary orthodoxy on the basis of the Bible Dictionary.

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I had heard that some leaders taught this years ago (and had written it off as an odd or uninformed opinion), but the current LDS Bible Dictionary (death) clearly states that physical death was introduced to the world by the fall of Adam!

This is the official position of our church?!?!  Nothing died before Adam did?  How did plants grow without organic decay?  How did cells of ingested plants not get stripped of their nutrients to feed the consuming organisms?

I am trying so so so hard to stay in “Old Ship Zion.”  Would my faith be stronger if I just accepted this teaching, and rejected biology basics?

No death before the fall is, as you note, a problematic claim. It was largely introduced by JFS & BRM on the basis of Seventh Day Adventist apologetic. There are lots of problems with the idea not the least of which that scripture says Adam was cast out of Eden to the lone and dreary wilderness not that Eden became the lone and dreary wilderness. Indeed Eden was still there so God had an angel guarding the entrance. So I don't think NDBF is scriptural in the least. Proponents almost always push it by quoting 20th century figures who believed in it. To me the better scriptural reading is that there was a terrestrial world where Adam and Eve lived and they were cast out into an already existing telestial world which is this one. The goal is to ascend back to the still existing Eden as part of a heavenly ascent.

The two oft quoted verses, 2 Ne 2:22 & Moses 6:48 don't remotely teach no death before the fall or the fall of all Eden. The death of Moses 6:48 is contextually clearly the death of Adam and his descendants but says nothing about it in general. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

The Bible Dictionary is not considered doctrinal or official by leadership:

”Bible Dictionary 

This dictionary provides a concise collection of definitions and explanations of Bible topics. It is based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works. A variety of doctrinal, cultural, and historical subjects are treated, and a short summary is included for each book of the Bible. Many of the entries draw on the work of Bible scholars and are subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light. This dictionary is provided to help your study of the scriptures and is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine or an endorsement of the historical and cultural views set forth”

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/introduction.html?lang=eng

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So if the age of the earth is 7,000 years, we can still believe that dinosaurs evolved into lizards and birds within this 7,000-year period?

Now you're conflating dinosaurs evolving into lizards and birds with the processes of evolution in general. We can observe the evolution of bacteria, for example, over just a few years. You may relate these concepts (evolution and the age of the earth) in your head, but they are not coterminous, and one is not necessarily a proxy for the other.

On the issue of 7,000 years divided into seven 1,000-year periods, check standard Bible commentaries. There you'll find that the Hebrews used a number of figures as 'round' or 'indeterminate' quantities. Thousand was one of these, meaning a very long period of time or a great immensity. I know we think we don't do things like that anymore, but hundreds (!) of times I've heard native English speakers say something like, 'There are a couple of people in the room', when, in fact, there might be three or five people in the room, and they're not even together. Couple in contemporary English has become one of those indeterminate numbers that doesn't carry its literal meaning: two people or things of the same sort considered together.

If, for example, I asked you to 'give me a couple of examples', would you automatically understand that I'd asked for exactly two examples of the same sort, or would you understand this request to be the equivalent of 'give me a few examples' of possibly various sorts?

The revelation in the D&C explicitly states its intertextuality with Revelation, which is filled with the usage of round, indeterminate numbers, often intended to convey immensity or a long time.

Beyond all this, the Latter-day Saints had canonised scripture (Abraham) that taught us the relativity of time decades before Einstein.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[SouthernMo]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As others note D&C 77 doesn't say the earth is 7000 years old but rather was an explanation of the seven seals in Revelation.

So your claim is that the LDS position is that Joseph Smith asked what the meaning of a metaphor (seven seals) is from the book of Revelation, and God answers him with another metaphor (seven thousand years)?

[SouthernMo]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

On the issue of 7,000 years divided into seven 1,000-year periods, check standard Bible commentaries. There you'll find that the Hebrews used a number of figures as 'round' or 'indeterminate' quantities. Thousand was one of these, meaning a very long period of time or a great immensity. I know we think we don't do things like that anymore, but hundreds (!) of times I've heard native English speakers say something like, 'There are a couple of people in the room', when, in fact, there might be three or five people in the room, and they're not even together. Couple in contemporary English has become one of those indeterminate numbers that doesn't carry its literal meaning: two people or things of the same sort considered together.

If, for example, I asked you to 'give me a couple of examples', would you automatically understand that I'd asked for exactly two examples of the same sort, or would you understand this request to be the equivalent of 'give me a few examples' of possibly various sorts?

Your claim that this revelation is just a ‘round number’ is quite a stretch.

Your point is understandable that sometimes we will use “couple” when we could really mean 2-4 times that. But, to use this logic in our understanding of this scripture, we’d have to assume god is just ‘rounding’ he really means a figure 600,000-650,000 times what he actually said.

Or, put differently, your logic indicates that I’d need to accept that if god revealed through a prophet that there are about 9,500 people on this earth, I’d have to just accept that God and the prophet are just rounding.  He’s not wrong, I am for being a literalist.

Maybe your rounding explanation helps your faith.  It only tears mine down and teaches me that to be a believing member of this church, you have to start with the immovable belief that things taught by LDS leaders are true, and fit all other logic and data around that in a way that cannot refute, but only support those immovable beliefs.

[Kevin Christensen]

In the Book of Moses we have worlds without number in an ongoing process of creation and destruction, and then a shift in focus to one among numberless.  In the Book of Abraham, things take "until", which means take as long as it takes.  Watch a process, e.g., preparing the waters to bring forth great whales does not say create whales on the spot, but initiate processes and watch until.  In Abraham we are told that the creates are "very obedient" to the command to reproduce after their own kind, and "very" leaves room for variation. 

Nibley noticed this about times in Before Adam:

Quote

The questions most commonly asked are: When did it happen? How long did it take? Our texts make it very clear that we are not to measure the time and periods involved by our chronometers and calendars. Until Adam underwent that fatal change of habitat, body chemistry, diet, and psyche that went with the Fall, nothing is to be measured in our years, “for . . . the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.” (Abraham 5:13.) Until then, time is measured from their point of view, not ours. As far as we are concerned it can be any time, and there would be no point to insisting on this again and again if all we had to do to convert their time to our time was multiply our years by 365,000. Theirs was a different time. The only numbers we are given designated the phases of periods of creation: “and this was the second time” (Abraham 4:8), “and it was the third time” (4:13), and so on. The periods are numbered but never measured. The Gods called them “days,” but the text is at great pains to make clear that it was day and night from their point of view, when our time had not yet been appointed. “And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And . . . from the evening until morning they called night; . . . and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.” (Abraham 4:5.) Doctrine and Covenants 130:4—5 explains that “the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time [is] according to the planet on which they reside.” That implies different time schemes at least. In moving from one system to another one also changes one’s timing. “There are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.” (D&C 130:5.)

“It was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.” (Abraham 4:23.) How long is such a time? In the “fourth time,” we read, “the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.” (Abraham 4:19, 18.) That important word “until” tells us two things: (1) that they took all the time that was necessary, no matter how long it might have been, measuring the period in terms not of a terminal date but in terms of the requirements of the task; (2) “until” means up till a certain time, but not thereafter. When things were running smoothly, they were left on their own, which implies a shift from one time-scale to another. When, for example, “the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth” (Abraham 4:24), after they had prepared the waters to do the same long before, how long do you think that took? Again, the record is deliberately vague.

The relative times are clearly shown when “the Gods organized the lights in the expanse of the heaven.” From our position that is just what they are—lights, nothing more. “And caused them to divide the day from the night. . . .” Such a division had already taken place at the beginning, but this was a new time-system for this earth.” . . . And organized them to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years.” (Abraham 4:14.) A sign is a symbol, a mark, an arbitrary indicator, a means of measuring. It is only a sign relative to a particular observer. These lights were not originally created as markers of time, but they could be used as such, they could be “organized for” such. The moon was not created for my convenience; but just the same, from where I stand it can be made to serve a number of special purposes. Aside from

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1101&index=7

And in Temple Theology, Barker observes that the creation account in Genesis follows the pattern of the erection of the Tabernacle in Exodus, and that the Tabernacle itself is a model of universe.  So one way to create a world in six days it to ritually erect a model, that is, erect the portable temple.  And if everything is symbolic, including time, don't get your panties in a twist.

And I do notice that Joseph Smith's one and only discourse on John's Revelation (the Nauvoo discourse in which he famously said "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine", he never references D&C 77, and indeed, I think he contradicts it.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[SouthernMo]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

The Bible Dictionary is not considered doctrinal or official by leadership:

”Bible Dictionary 

This dictionary provides a concise collection of definitions and explanations of Bible topics. It is based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works. A variety of doctrinal, cultural, and historical subjects are treated, and a short summary is included for each book of the Bible. Many of the entries draw on the work of Bible scholars and are subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light. This dictionary is provided to help your study of the scriptures and is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine or an endorsement of the historical and cultural views set forth”

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/introduction.html?lang=eng

I’ve been studying this for the last 12 hours (and gotten a little sleep, too).  This claim is taught in many, many places in our LDS writings.

It is amazing to me how in this church we are taught in multiple places, multiple times, and told so dogmatically that we have and are led by prophets, and that we have the truth (in this case, no death before Adam’s fall).

When one of these dogmatic claims is shown to be suspect or false, we back away from them, claiming that it is not, nor was it ever official LDS teaching.

I think it’s time we stop putting so much into the “truth cart” (to use a Patrick Mason analogy), and admit that we’re all (leaders included) just guessing.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And I do notice that Joseph Smith's one and only discourse on John's Revelation (the Nauvoo discourse in which he famously said "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine", he never references D&C 77, and indeed, I think he contradicts it.

Thanks for the insights.

How are we to view what is taught in the Doctrine and Covenants in light of Joseph Smith later contradicting those revelations?

With faith & belief?  Skepticism?

Onto what revelation do we hold as truth?

[CV75]

12 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You’re teaching something that is not stated at all in that section. Where are these teachings that you’re claiming coming from?

I think ”teaching” is a bit of a stretch 😊

But from the scripture references I provided do you have a question?

The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines “continuance” in a number of ways that might help understand these passages:

1. A holding on or remaining in a particular state [in this case, temporal, or relating to the measurement or reckoning of time], or in a course or series [the seven seals]. Applied to time, duration; a state of lasting [in this case, 7,000 years].

5. Progression of time [which is a human construct, in this case one constructed by God and given to Adam].

6. In law, the deferring of a suit, or the giving of a day for the parties to a suit to appear. After issue or demurrer joined, as well as in some of the previous stages of proceeding, a day is continually given, and entered upon record, for the parties to appear on from time to time [in this case, the 7,000 years is for our probation preparatory to our final judgement].

8. Continuity; resistance to a separation of parts; a holding together [in this case, the binding covenants].

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks for the insights.

How are we to view what is taught in the Doctrine and Covenants in light of Joseph Smith later contradicting those revelations?

With faith & belief?  Skepticism?

Onto what revelation do we hold as truth?

I mentioned one section, D&C 77, not the entire Doctrine and Covenants.   One thing to be wary of is "all or nothing" thinking.  In another thread I posted this list of cognitive distortions:

Quote

Common Cognitive Distortions

A partial list from Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland, and Lata K. McGinn’s Treatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders (2012).

1. Mind reading. You assume that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts. “He thinks I’m a loser.”

2. Fortune-telling. You predict the future negatively: things will get worse, or there is danger ahead. “I’ll fail that exam,” or “I won’t get the job.”

3. Catastrophizing.You believe that what has happened or will happen will be so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it. “It would be terrible if I failed.”

4. Labeling. You assign global negative traits to yourself and others. “I’m undesirable,” or “He’s a rotten person.”

5. Discounting positives. You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial. “That’s what wives are supposed to do—so it doesn’t count when she’s nice to me,” or “Those successes were easy, so they don’t matter.”

6. Negative filtering. You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives. “Look at all of the people who don’t like me.”

7. Overgeneralizing. You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. “This generally happens to me. I seem to fail at a lot of things.”

8. Dichotomous thinking. You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms. “I get rejected by everyone,” or “It was a complete waste of time.”

9. Blaming. You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself. “She’s to blame for the way I feel now,” or “My parents caused all my problems.”

10. What if? You keep asking a series of questions about “what if” something happens, and you fail to be satisfied with any of the answers. “Yeah, but what if I get anxious?,” or “What if I can’t catch my breath?”

11. Emotional reasoning. You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. “I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out.”

12. Inability to disconfirm. You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts. For example, when you have the thought I’m unlovable, you reject as irrelevant any evidence that people like you. Consequently, your thought cannot be refuted. “That’s not the real issue. There are deeper problems. There are other factors.”

I personally like the Doctrine and Covenants and am very impressed.  I frequently quote D&C 1 on "mine authority and the authority of my servants:

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

So I neither expect perfection, nor do I suppose that I am so knowledgeable and reliable that I can infallibly detect decisive and telling imperfections myself.

I just have some personal open, unresolved questions about whether D&C 77 is actually a revelation, or whether it is just a working paper that ended up being taken as revelation.  I can't resolve the issue with the evidence at hand, but in my view, this is not on my list of the most important questions to resolve.  At best, it is, as Clark points out, not the chronology of the universe, but a few comments on a New Testament book. 

If I obsess over this one, that means I have less time and attention to consider something like the recent Interpreter essay on whether there is any evidence of the drought mentioned in Helaman.  And that, I think, is something that I can resolve based on the new information, and it is something that belongs on my personal collection labeled "cause to believe", and that is eye opening, mind expanding, tasty, and promising.

But as to what to hold onto as truth, I've been wrestling and publishing on that for several decades.  As have many others. 

One thing is that the Big Picture is made of lots and lots of bits, so no single bit needs be decisive in the overall assessment.  Another is that there are more bits to be concerned with than any of us can master, so I ought to at least be self conscious of my own selection and evaluation processes.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 10, 2018 by Kevin Christensen

[CV75]

I sometimes conceptualize The Fall as the point where the physical laws as we understand them took over the terrestrial laws that were in operation for the paradisaical world until Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. In other words, the Edenic creation was destroyed and everything had to be organized from scratch (via the bang bang or rival alternative theory) over billions of years as our scientists observe. Some 6,000 years ago Adam and Eve, the only survivors of the Fall, having been "taken up" until a world was suitable for their habitation as covenant-bearers, returned to the scene. The rest is our religious history on a 7,000 year timeline without insult or injury to the theories of evolution.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

a literalist.

Just a tip, my opinion, take it or leave it.  But a literalist approach to scripture (of any tome) is always a mistake.  The amount of literalism in scripture, overall, could fit on the head of a pin.  One must become comfortable with symbolisms, templates, and levels of understanding (there are always more than one way to see scripture, because that's how scriptures works, to cover more ground, and to be helpful to people at their various stages of progression--i.e. milk to meat).

 

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I think it’s time we stop putting so much into the “truth cart” (to use a Patrick Mason analogy), and admit that we’re all (leaders included) just guessing.

Those aren't the only two choices. There is always more truth ahead, based on our growth individually and collectively, and thus making old truths--not.

I myself am not a fan of truth, and I am not searching for truth.  My object in life is to embody love and integrity and to, simply put, be alive and find that aliveness precious and of great worth.  I am not interested in landing on the "correct concept", because concepts DO always change. 

And they ought to.  I'd be ashamed of myself if I carried the same conceptual structure I had even five years ago, much less from when I was a child.  No danger of that--my conceptual structures of the world and of the gospel/church have been shattered multiple times, all by the touch of God. 

I don't think God is a big fan of concepts either (my opinion).  He's a big fan of breathing and he keeps sending his children, to do just that.  My conceptual structure, to the degree that I place any importance on it at all, ought to have has much room as possible to account for as much of human experience as possible.   Thus, when I am reading the Qu'ran and the Vedas, it is as if I am reading the Bible.  All the idioms work together for me and lead me to a greater whole. 

The Book of Mormon is a little different for me, because I feel its power in my life whether or not I 'believe' it.  In fact, in reading the Book of Mormon by the end of the year, as we have been invited, never in my life have I been so angry at the words and finding so much that I consider mistake; but I know what it does to bless the energy and time of my life regardless of that.  For example, in Alma 5, he talks a lot about the second coming, or as I took it, which I thought could not be right for Alma, but who could live without the glorious gem: "his image in our countenance" and how that changes my mind about my purpose on this earth and the way I interact with others.  It doesn't matter if it is in time or out of time--I'm just glad it's there at all, where I can read it.

Our Father's revelation is ongoing, and we simply haven't got all of it yet, which means we have the lesser portion.  We are not to follow the prophet necessarily in lock step, although we can be blessed by keeping those commandments, but rather we are to come to a point where we are taught of the Lord.  Which necessarily means that we won't all be understanding the same things, but again, the conceptual revelations are of far lesser worth than the revelations of how to radically love and how to radically forgive and how to be perfectly clean.  Real time stuff, not book learnin'.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So your claim is that the LDS position is that Joseph Smith asked what the meaning of a metaphor (seven seals) is from the book of Revelation, and God answers him with another metaphor (seven thousand years)?

No. The original is metaphoric but the answer is historic (7000 years of temporal existence).

I'd second Kevin's point too that some of these sections are taken from fragmentary notes during teaching sessions. The nature of that problematizes them, although I personally accept them as having a revelatory base. I do think pushing the language too far is problematic since they weren't texts Joseph approved. 

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

How are we to view what is taught in the Doctrine and Covenants in light of Joseph Smith later contradicting those revelations?

With faith & belief?  Skepticism?

I think you need to be more specific to get an answer here. It rather depends upon the text it question.

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I think it’s time we stop putting so much into the “truth cart” (to use a Patrick Mason analogy), and admit that we’re all (leaders included) just guessing.

The fact we don't know everything exactly doesn't mean that it's all just guesses. That's a false dichotomy.

That said I think the imagery in apocalypses typically shouldn't be taken to be a kind of 1:1 key predicting specific events in an unambiguous fashion. Many read them that way as if it always was specific and just "encrypted." I typically think that wrong. I think they're usually referring to general ideas and patterns in a particular style.

9 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Just a tip, my opinion, take it or leave it.  But a literalist approach to scripture (of any tome) is always a mistake. 

Hopefully people won't mind me being overly pedantic here, but I really hate the term literalism because it's never quite clear what people mean by that. Often it's used (as above) to be opposed to metaphor, but that usually doesn't work (and often so-called literalist texts have metaphors). What I think people typically mean is that the interpretation of scripture is simple and is to be taken at face value independent of the original context. That is we should read the text as if the English text was spoken by our neighbor to us and interpret it in that light. When explained like that it becomes clear the issue isn't metaphor but clarity and context.

Edited December 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Holy ....

This teaching is currently on LDS.org

I had heard that some leaders taught this years ago (and had written it off as an odd or uninformed opinion), but the current LDS Bible Dictionary (death) clearly states that physical death was introduced to the world by the fall of Adam!

This is the official position of our church?!?!  Nothing died before Adam did?  How did plants grow without organic decay?  How did cells of ingested plants not get stripped of their nutrients to feed the consuming organisms?

I'll give this a whirl from my perspective. Refer back to D&C 77. It refers to "temporal existence." Define that. What does temporal mean? Does that define the earth before the fall? Why did man fall? I pose because God introduced the law or the knowledge of good and evil. Before that homo sapiens were not responsible to any law but were innocent like little children. Further, the earth had no "history" before the fall. There is no written history of the earth prior to 4000 BC. Homo Sapiens had no writing before 4000 BC and therefore couldn't make a written history. When God introduced his law, and man did not perfectly keep it, man fell, and temporal history began.

Quote

I am trying so so so hard to stay in “Old Ship Zion.”  Would my faith be stronger if I just accepted this teaching, and rejected biology basics?

I kind of gave up on "old ship Zion." Too many mistakes in my mind. So it was back to the scriptures. In New Ship Zion, homo sapiens preexisted Adam, but there was no spiritual death until God introduced His law. I don't find this in conflict with the Book of Mormon which clearly indicates that man suffered spiritual death in the fall. Note that in the Bible life was created in the order modern science theorizes - with life in the oceans first. Then comes land animals and last "man." Science agrees. Note further, the God makes all the animals so they bring forth after their kind. This does not negate evolution, which is still possible within this framework - God just created animals to bring forth after their own kind through the laws of genetics, and over time these allow life to mutate to fill all the niches of life which currently exist. The Bible does not make the same mistake as say... the Koran. 

As for the claim that Joseph Smith opined the earth is around 4.5 billion years old - not there. He did say that a generation is about 100,000 years I think. You should be able to find that in The Teachings of Joseph Smith. Here he is speaking of the generations of the earth. However, I don't know that I agree with this. To me it appears more like each generation is about a billion of our solar years... but who's counting

Edited December 10, 2018 by RevTestament

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Further, the earth had no "history" before the fall. There is no written history of the earth prior to 4000 BC. Homo Sapiens had no writing before 4000 BC and therefore couldn't make a written history. When God introduced his law, and man did not perfectly keep it, man fell, and temporal history began.

This partially depends upon what one means by writing. Ideographic writing goes back quite a ways to at least 5300 BC with the Vinca signs. Those are still somewhat controversial though. There's also ideographs in China that date to around 6000 BC. 

Scholars usually see writing as logographic in some sense - i.e. representing speech. I'm not sure that's a necessary in terms of semiotics. A lot here depends upon how you define terms. In any case I'm not sure written history is required to have history.

[Metis_LDS]

I have read all the posts and something bothers me but perhaps I am wrong.

I do not have any answers or truth to give on this subject.  What distresses me is

what if I really knew (I do not) what had happened with the earth etc... this whole topic.  The feeling

I get is that what I would tell you be rejected because it does not fit it with all the known

knowledge.  Is this an issue or is it just the way humans are???

[cinepro]

 

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The two oft quoted verses, 2 Ne 2:22 & Moses 6:48 don't remotely teach no death before the fall or the fall of all Eden. The death of Moses 6:48 is contextually clearly the death of Adam and his descendants but says nothing about it in general. 

Well, here's 2 Ne 2:22:

Quote

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (Emphasis added)

So the question is "which things that were created 'fell' at the Fall of Adam?" 

You seem to be saying "the things which were in the Garden of Eden fell."  Lehi seems to disagree.  He says all things.  Not "all humans."  Not "all neanderthals."  It's everything; all plants and animals.  All of it. 

Why would they have remained forever?  Because they never would have (physically) died.

Lehi may have been wrong, but I'm not going to throw McConkie and other 20th century LDS under the bus for taking the scriptures at their word.

Edited December 10, 2018 by cinepro