Shut Your Mouth and Fake It

[_jon]

Edited to provide clarity as to the nature of what Dr. Peterson means by "disputed."

Correction: Frivolously edited to misrepresent my view because, as is typically the case with Chip, he has nothing substantive to say.

Incidentally, just for the record:

I've learned at various places on the Internet that I'm a young-earth creationist, and, although my first university major was mathematics with an eye toward cosmology, opposed to science. This is fascinating. I never knew it.

I spent most of last week in Rocky Mountain National Park, where I bought two books on the geology of the area -- something I've done in several places -- and spent several days examining different formations and different kinds of rock there, the ages of which vary widely between 1.8 and 2.2 billion years for the Silver Plume granite and other types of rock over in the Longs Peak area on the east and a mere 25-30 million years for the volcanic phenomena over on the west (associated with the Never Summer Mountains and, specifically,

I believe the earth to be roughly 4.54 billion years old. That's fairly young compared to the age of the universe as a whole, which appears to be not quite fourteen billion years, and it's quite young compared to Chip's schtick. But, by most standards, its pretty old.

Daniel, in light of your recent study of rocks (I'm assuming you didn't have a hat handy and no further scripture was forthcoming) and statement that you believe the earth to be...well...not young....where do you stand on the Church's published chronology (Bible dictionary of LDS scriptures) that Adam 'arrived' on the planet circa 4,000 bc and that the worldwide - less than a dozen people saved - all animals wiped out except those on the ark - flood that covered the whole earth happening sometime after Adam 'arrived' but before Christ was born 2,000 ish years ago?

[_harmony]

I think DrW's position on the Book of Abraham is essentially wrong, and that the ordinary teachings of the Church on the topic are essentially right.

Now granted, I spent the first 30+ years of my life in the church doing the regular Mormon mommy stuff... raising kids, cleaning house, putting meals on the table, etc., so maybe I missed it when I was out changing a diaper or discipling a misbehaving adolescent, but I do not remember ever being taught that the scroll was really a funeral text.

Ever.

I had to find that out at about the same time I found out about Joseph and Fanny.

Blame it on me being a convert and thus never having seminary lessons.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, in light of your recent study of rocks (I'm assuming you didn't have a hat handy and no further scripture was forthcoming) and statement that you believe the earth to be...well...not young....where do you stand on the Church's published chronology (Bible dictionary of LDS scriptures) that Adam 'arrived' on the planet circa 4,000 bc and that the worldwide - less than a dozen people saved - all animals wiped out except those on the ark - flood that covered the whole earth happening sometime after Adam 'arrived' but before Christ was born 2,000 ish years ago?

I have no settled view on the matter, though plenty of ideas.

This is a huge topic, and I'm not inclined to invest the time or effort to discuss it adequately here.

[_why me]

Being christian is not authentic living for everyone. Being christian is not best done in Mormonism for all people. Mormonism is a whole hell of a lot more involved than following the New Testament.

The early christians at the time of peter, james and paul were all about living authentically according to the teachings of Christ. They separated themselves from the authenticity of the pagans and chose a different path. Both groups were living authentically according to their beliefs. But what side was more correct? Many pagens found chritian authenticity quite attractive and they joined the christians. Some christians however returned back to paganism and its own version of authenticity.

How many christians at the time of Paul were faking it to preserve their marriage? Who knows...maybe a few.

[_Buffalo]

Edited to provide clarity as to the nature of what Dr. Peterson means by "disputed."

Correction: Frivolously edited to misrepresent my view because, as is typically the case with Chip, he has nothing substantive to say.

Incidentally, just for the record:

I've learned at various places on the Internet that I'm a young-earth creationist, and, although my first university major was mathematics with an eye toward cosmology, opposed to science. This is fascinating. I never knew it.

I spent most of last week in Rocky Mountain National Park, where I bought two books on the geology of the area -- something I've done in several places -- and spent several days examining different formations and different kinds of rock there, the ages of which vary widely between 1.8 and 2.2 billion years for the Silver Plume granite and other types of rock over in the Longs Peak area on the east and a mere 25-30 million years for the volcanic phenomena over on the west (associated with the Never Summer Mountains and, specifically,

I believe the earth to be roughly 4.54 billion years old. That's fairly young compared to the age of the universe as a whole, which appears to be not quite fourteen billion years, and it's quite young compared to Chip's schtick. But, by most standards, its pretty old.

I'm sure you're intentionally missing the point. Just in case you're being genuine for once, the point is that no serious scholars/thinkers dispute that the earth is billions of years old, just as no serious scholars/thinkers dispute that the papyrus used to translate the Book of Abraham are funerary documents and having nothing to do with Abraham.

[_jon]

Daniel, in light of your recent study of rocks (I'm assuming you didn't have a hat handy and no further scripture was forthcoming) and statement that you believe the earth to be...well...not young....where do you stand on the Church's published chronology (Bible dictionary of LDS scriptures) that Adam 'arrived' on the planet circa 4,000 bc and that the worldwide - less than a dozen people saved - all animals wiped out except those on the ark - flood that covered the whole earth happening sometime after Adam 'arrived' but before Christ was born 2,000 ish years ago?

I have no settled view on the matter, though plenty of ideas.

This is a huge topic, and I'm not inclined to invest the time or effort to discuss it adequately here.

Shouldn't you be toeing the party line?
If the Church has stated within it's scriptural collection that Adam arrived in 4,000 BC and the flood happened after that...well...hasn't the thinking been done? Do you believe you have the latitude to be able to believe something different to this?

[_Fence Sitter]

Reasonably well.

I think DrW's position on the Book of Abraham is essentially wrong, and that the ordinary teachings of the Church on the topic are essentially right.

Does 'Reasonably well' mean you think most members are aware there are issues or that there aren't really any issues to be concerned about?

I am not trying to drag you through an in depth discussion on those problems but I would suggest most members don't even know much about the papyri from which it was produced and the questions they raise.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There are serious scholars, Chip, who do dispute your claim.

There is no "party line," Jon, on the age of the earth.

I think, "Fence Sitter," that the issues are peripheral to the concerns of most Latter-day Saints, and too much up in the air to justify taking limited church time to discuss them.

I do not remember ever being taught that the scroll was really a funeral text.

Ever.

I'm very happy to hear it.

I don't think that disputed academic theories should be taught in church.

[Guest]

There are serious scholars, Chip, who do dispute your claim.

There is no "party line," Jon, on the age of the earth.

I think, "Fence Sitter," that the issues are peripheral to the concerns of most Latter-day Saints, and too much up in the air to justify taking limited church time to discuss them.

I do not remember ever being taught that the scroll was really a funeral text.

Ever.

I'm very happy to hear it.

I don't think that disputed academic theories should be taught in church.

Dr. Peterson,

On what possible basis can you claim that the papyri from which Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham were other than an example of an Egyptian funerary text known as the Book of Breathings / (from the) Book of the Dead, several other copies of which exist and have been translated by credible and authentic Egyptologists. How can you claim that such texts have anything whatsoever to do with the biblical Abraham?

On what possible basis can you state that this issue in any way represents an actual "disputed academic theory"? (The only "academics" who dispute this are Mormon apologists who are uncomfortable with the truth. The fact that these "academics" can't get closer than a country mile to an credible academic journal with their disputations should be a flashing red light to anyone looking into this issue.)

Your characterization of a the provenance of the papyri as a "disputed academic theory" is scientifically on par with the creationist's cry to "teach the controversy" when it comes to evolution.

And we all know how that turned out.

________________

If you wish, I am sure that I can find the thread over MADB, where you made the statement to which I referred in the earlier post. You will see that my comments reflected accurately your statements on that thread. My wife recognized the artful dodge when she saw it.

[_jon]

There are serious scholars, Chip, who do dispute your claim.

There is no "party line," Jon, on the age of the earth.

I think, "Fence Sitter," that the issues are peripheral to the concerns of most Latter-day Saints, and too much up in the air to justify taking limited church time to discuss them.

I do not remember ever being taught that the scroll was really a funeral text.

Ever.

I'm very happy to hear it.

I don't think that disputed academic theories should be taught in church.

Daniel, I thought your phrase 'I have no settled view on the matter etc' referred to Adams arrival date and that of the flood. Both of which the Church has a stated view on, and therefore that must also be your view, must it not...?