How do the Mormons do it?

[BartBurk]

Parker,

Thanks for allowing us to see how your mind works to some extent. You must be willing to reject the mountain of evidence offered by the sciences of geology, astronomy, physics, and mathematics to accept a young-earth theory.

Of course, your entitled to believe whatever you want, but just as a contrast:

“In his encyclical* Humani Generis*, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

—Pope John Paul II

Peace.

And yet we Catholics believe Adam and Eve were literal persons and the fall was a real event. Not many scientists would accept that either. But you are right that Mormons generally believe if science conflicts with their scriptures that it is because science hasn’t figured it out correctly yet.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Thanks for allowing us to see how your mind works to some extent. You must be willing to reject the mountain of evidence offered by the sciences of geology, astronomy, physics, and mathematics to accept a young-earth theory.

Of course, your entitled to believe whatever you want, but just as a contrast:…

Peace.

Campeador,

I had thought I might be misunderstood, which was why I had added the parenthetical note in my comment that I was referring specifically to the 6000 years after the fall of Adam and Eve, which has nothing to do with a “young earth theory” since the Creation indeed can be believed and assumed to have taken millions of years and yet still one can have a belief that Adam and Eve entered mortality because of their fall at about 4000 BC.

I don’t hold to a “young earth theory” at all for the age of this earth.

 

[BartBurk]

Campeador,

I had thought I might be misunderstood, which was why I had added the parenthetical note in my comment that I was referring specifically to the 6000 years after the fall of Adam and Eve, which has nothing to do with a “young earth theory” since the Creation indeed can be believed and assumed to have taken millions of years and yet still one can have a belief that Adam and Eve entered mortality because of their fall at about 4000 BC.

I don’t hold to a “young earth theory” at all for the age of this earth.

The question is were there humans prior to Adam and Eve who weren’t created in God’s image, but might have had mtDNA like us, etc. In the article I cited the scientist came up with a 6000 year old Eve when they ran the mitochondrial clock, but dismissed it because it didn’t line up with the prevailing belief that humans are much older than that. So scientists have their own agenda which they will protect, and generally it’s an agenda that takes God out of the equation. This has significance for our understanding of the Biblical record and for Mormons I would say it has significance for what they believe about the Book of Mormon. Scientists will tell you their is no evidence for a world wide flood for example – do we then decide it was just a localized event or do we stick with the Biblical story which says it was a world wide event? Was the Tower of Babel a real story or just a myth? If it’s a myth the Book of Mormon story of the Jaredites is false, but the Bible has the tale too so do we just determine the Bible is not literal? And how do we make a decision about what is literal and what isn’t? A Bible that isn’t literal to some degree is not worth a whole lot. Does a pre-Adamic man cause problems for the Bible? Is the whole Christian religion at risk if the fall wasn’t literal? It’s not a question about how the Mormons do it – it’s a question of how Christians do it. It’s not surprising that a large number of Mormons reject Mormonism and then decide that Christianity has as many problems as Mormonism and toss it out as well. As an ex-Mormon I’ve decided to accept the Biblical record on faith and I guess that is how Mormons do it with their religion.

 

[banarick]

And yet we Catholics believe Adam and Eve were literal persons and the fall was a real event. Not many scientists would accept that either. But you are right that Mormons generally believe if science conflicts with their scriptures that it is because science hasn’t figured it out correctly yet.

BB; Look up mitochondiral Eve in the American Journal of Human Genetics and you will be very suprised at the ongoing research. Perhaps it is hard nowadays to discern real science from popular propaganda. I still think the journal represents real science without bias. I am finding that I trust scientists from non western countries to be without bias. Certainly the western media is not a reliable source in general.

 

[Miriam1947]

BB; Look up mitochondiral Eve in the American Journal of Human Genetics and you will be very suprised at the ongoing research. Perhaps it is hard nowadays to discern real science from popular propaganda. I still think the journal represents real science without bias. I am finding that I trust scientists from non western countries to be without bias. Certainly the western media is not a reliable source in general.

Well now I just looked and this is interesting:

Mitochondrial Eve is generally estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens (“anatomically modern humans”) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.

from: ask.com/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

[campeador]

Campeador,

I had thought I might be misunderstood, which was why I had added the parenthetical note in my comment that I was referring specifically to the 6000 years after the fall of Adam and Eve, which has nothing to do with a “young earth theory” since the Creation indeed can be believed and assumed to have taken millions of years and yet still one can have a belief that Adam and Eve entered mortality because of their fall at about 4000 BC.

I don’t hold to a “young earth theory” at all for the age of this earth.

Sorry I misrepresented your beliefs. However, it does seem you were advocating a 6,000 year old earth in this post:

One who reads the Bible, needs to decide if for them it is some kind of allegory with an allegorical or fictional timetable for its events, or if it has literal meaning. For me, I believe it has literal meaning for Adam and Eve being the first flesh on the earth, and that occurred just before 4,000 BC. But for those who don’t accept that kind of timetable (not saying the creation was in six days, but after the fall of Adam and Eve the mortal timetable begins), then anything goes, I suppose.

That’s the reason for my confusion. Again, if that’s not what you believe, I apologize for misrepresenting it.

Peace.

 

[sallybutler]

No, unless you include “the same as Jesus Christ Himself was once as we are now” (which I don’t consider to be a true statement since He was never “as we are now”, other than that He looked and ate like a mortal person but He was perfect and He was God the Son).

.

Have a good evening.

This is the one of the first heresy practiced by people in the early days after Christ. Jesus only “seemed” to be human. Unfortunately, it has been around for a long time and seems to have been repackaged under Mormanism (if Parker’s statement is representative of the LDS theology).

I think this is one of those subjects that requires the understanding that only comes from the Holy Spirit working on one’s heart and mind. It is hard for the intellect to wrap one’s mind around the truth (I also don’t understand theory of gravity or the theory of relativity, but I’m pretty sure they are true )

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry I misrepresented your beliefs. However, it does seem you were advocating a 6,000 year old earth in this post:

That’s the reason for my confusion. Again, if that’s not what you believe, I apologize for misrepresenting it.

Peace.

Campeador,

It’s OK. I was conversing with BartBurk in that conversation, who would be very familiar that “six days of creation” is taken to mean millions of years in Latter-day Saint beliefs, in that they were six “times” or six “periods” during which those events described were created, or organized, to occur. The parenthetical statement was intended to show that I was not talking about the Creation time period, at all–just the mortal time period.

 

[Michael19682]

And yet we Catholics believe Adam and Eve were literal persons and the fall was a real event. Not many scientists would accept that either. But you are right that Mormons generally believe if science conflicts with their scriptures that it is because science hasn’t figured it out correctly yet.

Does anyone anymore believe in a literal Adam and Eve? For me the thought/concept is contradicted by science. Nevertheless, at Easter especially, it is right there center stage and we really get our minds on the ancientness of our faith and its connection with Judaism. It’s good to get the mind out of its everyday and often lapsing thought patterns and refocus it on the transcendence of God and Christ; by focusing on something that is a likely impossibility (Adam and Eve) we have as result a more flexible mind when considering the doctrines of others because we are in a ‘speculative mood’ of our own. We can use and reason with the progenitor concept, yet understand that this is for the purpose of drawing the mind to the central mystery of our faith–the Incarnation of God’s only Son. Or the incarnation of our spirit in a body; a real mystery! (Teaching members about the mystery of faith and keeping ourselves united as church is in the order of miracle and is an unprecedented achievement. Taken as ‘religious science’, Catholic instruction is the standard instruction among all offshoots of the Christian body. Taken as the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it cannot fail.)

The Mormon religion has apparently used in a more extensive fashion the mind’s ability to become ‘unhinged’. I wonder what books fill the libraries of Brigham Young’s University on the subjects of comparative religion and the psychology of religion. Be interesting to see what these folks regard as heretical, liberal, and conservative ideas within their own faith and how, given the relative newness of their faith and its temporally broken lineage, they view the unsupportable parts of their doctrine from a psycho spiritual standpoint. Iow, what function do they ascribe to the logically untenable parts of their faith.

If having Adam and Eve as the background radiation of our faith universe, whose active heavenly core is only focused on intensely during Easter vigil, helps us all throughout the year, then perhaps the Mormons have a similar ‘ether’ in their genetic arguments–to what effect on their Church? Is too much of a good thing a liability for their faith indoctrination and retention of members? Does their in-house center-piece appear a costly white elephant to outsiders?

 

[Stephen168]

Does anyone anymore believe in a literal Adam and Eve? For me the thought/concept is contradicted by science.

BartBurk’s point is the Catholic Church teaches there was a literal Adam and Eve not what an individual Catholic believes.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

 

[broallenjoseph]

Kathleen,

It’s called freedom, which is “something to be grateful for”. Of course there are different religious beliefs encountered within the United States–freedom leads to that kind of situation.

Grateful? I am not in agreement with that statement. Should we have the “freedom” to go and come as we choose? yes! Should we be able to be the person God has called us to be, without restriction, yes! But! Does freedom include dividing what Jesus began, “…my Church” (Mt 16:18)?
I am glad that you are grateful for your “freedom” to be Mormon, I am glad that Henry VIII found freedom in starting his own church, since the Catholic church would not allow his divorce. I am glad that Martin Luther had the freedom to break away from the Catholic Church, and then throw off parts of the Bible because they verified Catholic teaching, (Maccabees; purgatory). I am glad that you are grateful for the “freedom” to destroy the Church founded by Christ.I am glad that you grateful to all of these things. Because by your gratefulness, you are glad that Satan can continue to destroy the church founded by Christ.
We (Christians) are divided,!!! A friend of mine pointed out that new denominations, or non denominations, begin by the hundreds, just because they disagree with the denomination they broke from. This, my dear sister, is not cause to be grateful. We should be in tears because we are divided. We are divided which is the opposite of what Jesus prayed for " … may they be one as we are" (Jn 17:11)

I am a retired transit bus driver and at one point in my driving career I fought the company in trying to force me to drive a bus with planned parenthood ads on the side of the bus. When I began to search out “fellow” Christians to help with the fight, I found so called churches that “don’t have a problem with this” .: DONT’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ABORTION?? ( Through the grace of God I did win the “freedom” from having to drive the buses with the baby murder ads on them).

There are churches to that accommodate the sins of homosexuality, there are churches that accommodate divorce, there are churches that accommodate polygamy etc. When you look at the reasons for the separations of churches it becomes an extreme selfishness of saying that “MY INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IS CORRECT”. One time I went to a church called “Living Hope”, with a friend. The minister would quote scripture passages to get a point across to his followers that had nothing to do with (and at times opposed) that which he was trying to teach. When he was questioned about misquoting scripture, his response was that it was his way of getting his (?) point across.

We do have freedoms here in America that I am grateful for, but just think what this world would be like if all Christians were one. If we could all stick together in the one body that Christ prayed for. Would we have seen 911? Would we have seen Oklahoma bombing, or guns in schools, or a president that does not acknowledge the National Day of prayer?
What you appreciate in “freedom” makes me sad.

 

[SteveVH]

Grateful? I am not in agreement with that statement. Should we have the “freedom” to go and come as we choose? yes! Should we be able to be the person God has called us to be, without restriction, yes! But! Does freedom include dividing what Jesus began, “…my Church” (Mt 16:18)?
I am glad that you are grateful for your “freedom” to be Mormon, I am glad that Henry VIII found freedom in starting his own church, since the Catholic church would not allow his divorce. I am glad that Martin Luther had the freedom to break away from the Catholic Church, and then throw off parts of the Bible because they verified Catholic teaching, (Maccabees; purgatory). I am glad that you are grateful for the “freedom” to destroy the Church founded by Christ.I am glad that you grateful to all of these things. Because by your gratefulness, you are glad that Satan can continue to destroy the church founded by Christ.
We (Christians) are divided,!!! A friend of mine pointed out that new denominations, or non denominations, begin by the hundreds, just because they disagree with the denomination they broke from. This, my dear sister, is not cause to be grateful. We should be in tears because we are divided. We are divided which is the opposite of what Jesus prayed for " … may they be one as we are" (Jn 17:11)

I am a retired transit bus driver and at one point in my driving career I fought the company in trying to force me to drive a bus with planned parenthood ads on the side of the bus. When I began to search out “fellow” Christians to help with the fight, I found so called churches that “don’t have a problem with this” .: DONT’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ABORTION?? ( Through the grace of God I did win the “freedom” from having to drive the buses with the baby murder ads on them).

There are churches to that accommodate the sins of homosexuality, there are churches that accommodate divorce, there are churches that accommodate polygamy etc. When you look at the reasons for the separations of churches it becomes an extreme selfishness of saying that “MY INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IS CORRECT”. One time I went to a church called “Living Hope”, with a friend. The minister would quote scripture passages to get a point across to his followers that had nothing to do with (and at times opposed) that which he was trying to teach. When he was questioned about misquoting scripture, his response was that it was his way of getting his (?) point across.

We do have freedoms here in America that I am grateful for, but just think what this world would be like if all Christians were one. If we could all stick together in the one body that Christ prayed for. Would we have seen 911? Would we have seen Oklahoma bombing, or guns in schools, or a president that does not acknowledge the National Day of prayer?
What you appreciate in “freedom” makes me sad.

Freedom is not the choice to do what we want, rather it is the choice to do what we ought. We were given free will by God so that we might choose to love him and keep his commands, not so that we may choose evil. However, the fact that we have freedom always affords the possiblity that we may make the wrong choices. I would never, however, take away one’s freedom to worship in the manner they choose. God does not take that choice away from us and frankly, seeing as America has its roots in Protestantism, without the freedom to worship as we choose the Catholic Church would never have been allowed in this country. It was persecuted terribly in this country as it was.

 

[Michael19682]

BartBurk’s point is the Catholic Church teaches there was a literal Adam and Eve not what an individual Catholic believes.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

As a candidate for confirmation in RCIA I was taught that the Genesis story was really a monotheistic Judaic adaptation of the pagan Babylonian creation myth, ENUMA ELISH. I meant no authority on the subject. It is simply what I was taught as an adult. Sorry for the confusion. Judaism is still judaism.

 

[mwok]

Can anyone explain to me how “The Brother of Jared” ocean crossing could actually happen?

If I remember correctly it took one year to get pill shaped barges filled with people, livestock and food for both from one coast to another?

The physics of it confuse me, being tossed and turned in a vessel full of food, people and animals seems unsanitary and painful. The stench and disease would do me in.

Is there a lesson that the reader is supposed to gain from this story?

 

[ParkerD]

Can anyone explain to me how “The Brother of Jared” ocean crossing could actually happen?

If I remember correctly it took one year to get pill shaped barges filled with people, livestock and food for both from one coast to another?

The physics of it confuse me, being tossed and turned in a vessel full of food, people and animals seems unsanitary and painful. The stench and disease would do me in.

Is there a lesson that the reader is supposed to gain from this story?

MWOK,

The eight vessels were built “tight like unto a dish”, but they had a deck with a door that could be opened from inside the vessel and a good seal around the door so that the vessel could sometimes totally submerge in the water.

Using easy logic, one can understand that when the vessels were above water, the door was opened and the necessary cleaning was completed, and that the animals were in a different part of the vessel than the people except when someone had the assignment to clean the stalls or compartments where the animals were housed.

The major “lessons” from the Jaredite ocean crossing are that (1) the brother of Jared had great faith such that he asked for sixteen molten stones to be touched by the finger of the Lord and become lighted for lighting the inside of each vessel, showing how faith and prayer work hand in hand, and (2) there was a “promised land” for those people through their faith in being led away from their homeland and trusting in God to lead them and guide them, and that their posterity would be blessed so long as they followed the teachings of the gospel of peace and love through following and serving Jesus Christ, whose coming and mission on earth had been revealed to the brother of Jared.

 

[mwok]

MWOK,

The eight vessels were built “tight like unto a dish”, but they had a deck with a door that could be opened from inside the vessel and a good seal around the door so that the vessel could sometimes totally submerge in the water.

Using easy logic, one can understand that when the vessels were above water, the door was opened and the necessary cleaning was completed, and that the animals were in a different part of the vessel than the people except when someone had the assignment to clean the stalls or compartments where the animals were housed.

The major “lessons” from the Jaredite ocean crossing are that (1) the brother of Jared had great faith such that he asked for eight molten stones to be touched by the finger of the Lord and become lighted for lighting the inside of each vessel, showing how faith and prayer work hand in hand, and (2) there was a “promised land” for those people through their faith in being led away from their homeland and trusting in God to lead them and guide them, and that their posterity would be blessed so long as they followed the teachings of the gospel of peace and love through following and serving Jesus Christ, whose coming and mission on earth had been revealed to the brother of Jared.

Okay, thanks for explaining the lessons. I can see where that could be taught.

I have to disagree on using easy logic to understand how this journey functioned. I remember seeing the videos by Lex D. Ezevedo and one of the scenes shows the vessels being slammed by waves, the thought of animals, people and supplies being tossed around the inside comes to mind as I doubt these things were built like a nuclear submarine. Also, how big would these vessels have to be to contain just the supplies to sustain a year long journey.

 

[ParkerD]

Okay, thanks for explaining the lessons. I can see where that could be taught.

I have to disagree on using easy logic to understand how this journey functioned. I remember seeing the videos by Lex D. Ezevedo and one of the scenes shows the vessels being slammed by waves, the thought of animals, people and supplies being tossed around the inside comes to mind as I doubt these things were built like a nuclear submarine. Also, how big would these vessels have to be to contain just the supplies to sustain a year long journey.

MWOK,

I haven’t seen the videos. The vessels were built to sustain their horizontal position whether on top or under the water. There would have been two to three hundred square feet of “floor space” per person or animal (excluding fowls), and perhaps fifteen feet of vertical space per person or animal, so that is ample room to envision them having enough space for food such as grains, plus they would of course have been able to catch fish along the way when not submerged, for part of their food supply.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So, why didn’t they continue to use this marine technology?

 

[ParkerD]

So, why didn’t they continue to use this marine technology?

RebeccaJ,

The logic suggested by this question would lead to the question of why there aren’t hundreds or thousands of “Noah’s Arks” in the historical past of our known world, since the issue of “marine technology” applies just as well in that case. Answer that, and you’ll have your answer.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,

The logic suggested by this question would lead to the question of why there aren’t hundreds or thousands of “Noah’s Arks” in the historical past of our known world, since the issue of “marine technology” applies just as well in that case. Answer that, and you’ll have your answer.

ParkerD,

I suppose this would be a problem if you read the story of Noah as literal. I don’t. It is a story of God’s Saving grace, a prefiguration of Jesus Christ, and Baptism.

As for arks, it matches to the technology of the day. People were building ships then, and continued to do so. The story itself builds on the technology people were already using, it is not an introduction of a new technology.

So my question is still, why weren’t people in the new world using this marine technology, or something like it? Come on ParkerD, where are the pre-Columbian submarines? With this technology, it is they who should have “discovered” Europe.