moksha wrote:In defense of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, they were not trained in the sciences and were from a century where much magical thinking still occurred. So, if their speculations seem off by today's understanding, we should cut them some slack.
bcspace wrote:Sethbag says on the MADB:Everyone else - the notion that this Earth came from somewhere else a few thousand years ago and joined this Solar System after the "fall" of Adam, does not agree with scientific observation and theories of solar system development and the history of this planet, that are well supported. If you guys wish to believe Brigham Young instead of the scientists, that's your prerogative, but I have to ask: why draw the line at disbelieving BY about Moon Quakers, but believe him on Earth zipping out of Kolob's orbit to our Sun? It's obvious he was wont to pronounce on matters beyond his ken. Why believe him on this one?
Indeed, why should we believe isolated (and therefore nondoctrinal) statements of the prophets when the Church says we shouldn't? But, you might point out, it's printed in the Ensign which is a doctrinal work. True enough. But it also has to be presented as doctrine. Such is not necessarily the case here.
[And so on .... see above]
In other words, no need for Sethbag to get his panties in a knot and no need for LDS of scientific bent to be worried.
bcspace seems to be on autopilot here, as he runs through the old 'none of that is doctrine' routine. But he totally misses the point.
We are talking about something quite bizarre here - the fact that in the early 21st century a person with a computer at his or her disposal, and apparently literate, coming from a country with compulsory schooling for all, can still give any credence to the nonsensical ideas about the earth lurching from one star to another put forward in the quoted post, and that they can apparently find support for this point of view in an Ensign article published only eleven years ago.
What kind of mental world do such people inhabit? And let us recall that they all have the vote (please note, I am not saying they should NOT have the vote - just wondering with some apprehension on what kind of basis a person like that will choose to allot his or her influence on the body politic - messages from the fairies?)
This doesn't appear to be any type of prophecy.
It doesn't appear that way to you, but that's only because you know more about astronomy than the Lord's moutpieces did. It appeared that way to the prophets themselves and everyone in their audience.
It's really been around since at least D&C 107 wherein we find that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. This forms the basis for the long standing LDS concept of official doctrine. They all have to agree.The FP and the Qo12 all agreed on the "Fall from Kolob" thing, so according to your logic it is, indeed, official doctrine. So we're back to square one.
No such thing as "internet Mormons" by the way.Oh really?
Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet Earth, or didn't it?
bcspace seems to be on autopilot here, as he runs through the old 'none of that is doctrine' routine. But he totally misses the point.
We are talking about something quite bizarre here - the fact that in the early 21st century a person with a computer at his or her disposal, and apparently literate, coming from a country with compulsory schooling for all, can still give any credence to the nonsensical ideas about the earth lurching from one star to another put forward in the quoted post, and that they can apparently find support for this point of view in an Ensign article published only eleven years ago.
bcspace wrote:bcspace seems to be on autopilot here, as he runs through the old 'none of that is doctrine' routine. But he totally misses the point.
Nothing new under the sun. Just the same old counter mo's not wanting to understand what doctrine is.We are talking about something quite bizarre here - the fact that in the early 21st century a person with a computer at his or her disposal, and apparently literate, coming from a country with compulsory schooling for all, can still give any credence to the nonsensical ideas about the earth lurching from one star to another put forward in the quoted post, and that they can apparently find support for this point of view in an Ensign article published only eleven years ago.
He simply reported BY's opinion.
I think this is beautiful. I believe it to be totally plausible and see no problem with it [emphasis added], and in fact it seems only natural since God is a being who uses symbols so often. Some questions:
When will the earth return?
When did the innitial move occur?
Was that the ice age?