bcspace wrote:So how do you interpret this:
The same way the Church would.....
Generally speaking, those who accept the scriptural account subscribe to one of three basic theories about the age of the world. All three theories depend on how the word day, as used in the creation account, is interpreted.
[The three theories described]
While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.
OLD TESTAMENT STUDENT MANUAL GENESIS–2 SAMUEL Section 2-3 "How Old Is the Earth?"
Um, BC, we already know the age of the earth, and that evolution is a fact. We don't need FP statements not taking an "official stand". Which means, in essence, "we are waiting for science to tell us what to say in our next statement release".
But you don't see it, do you, BC? This is the
whole history of religion. "Revelation" that comes after the fact. And in this regard you don't understand Joseph Smith's progressive theology. You think he just got it from "heavenly father". In truth, Joseph was vigourously studying what scientists were saying, even down to his many worlds theology in the POGP, which Swedenborg was on to long before Joseph.
But indulge your fantasy that Joseph was "unique". His phraseology in the POGP reflected a sort of "scriptural genius", but it was nothing new. All of these ideas were entertained long before Joseph Smith. He just had the knack of making it appear it was "new revelation".
