DiscussMormonism.com

The enlightened Daniel C Peterson scoffs at the idea of taking Genesis literally in his latest blog post:

I’m irresistibly reminded of Doctrine and Covenants 1:24: “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.”

“To begin with, virtually no one objects to the observation that the Bible is not a science textbook. This means that the Bible’s objective is not to give us a scientific understanding of the world. “

But doesn’t the temple ceremony ask us to do exactly that?

It’s essentially a recreation of Milton’s Paradise Lost, and the entire premise is that family lines all the way from Adam and Eve must be bound together in a very real literal sense.

If we take the scientific consensus seriously, there is no Adam and Eve and the transition between man and non-man is a smooth and continuous one without a clear delineation. Tying families together begins to make no sense as we go back hundreds of thousands of years. On which person/non person do we stop performing ordinances for the dead?

It's not just the temple ceremony. There are numerous texts in the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price that treat Adam and Eve as if they were literal beings. I do tend to agree with DCP's use of D&C 1:24, but its not like there isn't plenty of material for the literally minded to insist on the existence of a literal Adam and Eve?

But your question does raise a fascinating mythologiical possibility. Why stop at any particular person/nonperson when performing ordinances for the dead? The scientific consensus can tell us that we linked to all life everywhere on earth. Continuing the chain beyond whatever we want to call the "first" person could be a powerful symbolic representation of that fact.

To begin with, virtually no one objects to the observation that the Bible is not a science textbook. This means that the Bible’s objective is not to give us a scientific understanding of the world

Yet his favorite biologist author is Micahel Behe. So I find it hard to believe he doesn't take the Bible as a science text, because that kind of fundamentalism goes along with pretty much everything he posts.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 01, 2023 4:21 pm

To begin with, virtually no one objects to the observation that the Bible is not a science textbook. This means that the Bible’s objective is not to give us a scientific understanding of the world

Yet his favorite biologist author is Micahel Behe. So I find it hard to believe he doesn't take the Bible as a science text, because that kind of fundamentalism goes along with pretty much everything he posts.

I wonder if Behe is still sore over Kitzmiller vs Dover?

Brigham Young said no, and it is one of the few areas where I agree with him.

April 2015 General Conference, Jeffry Holland told everyone "there was an actual Adam and Eve" and "I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

Is Dan really saying that Adam and Eve were not actual people?

tapirrider wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:25 pm

April 2015 General Conference, Jeffry Holland told everyone "there was an actual Adam and Eve" and "I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

Is Dan really saying that Adam and Eve were not actual people?

Dan didn’t make a distinction between what is obviously metaphor and what is obviously literal in genesis.

Shocking that Daniel can’t develop a consistent apologetic argument, I know. Maybe we will get his objective standard for determining these in his new books!

drumdude wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:27 pm

Dan didn’t make a distinction between what is obviously metaphor and what is obviously literal in genesis.

Shocking that Daniel can’t develop a consistent apologetic argument, I know. Maybe we will get his objective standard for determining these in his new books!

Thanks!

drumdude wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:27 pm

tapirrider wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:25 pm

April 2015 General Conference, Jeffry Holland told everyone "there was an actual Adam and Eve" and "I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God".
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

Is Dan really saying that Adam and Eve were not actual people?

Dan didn’t make a distinction between what is obviously metaphor and what is obviously literal in genesis.

Shocking that Daniel can’t develop a consistent apologetic argument, I know. Maybe we will get his objective standard for determining these in his new books!

Not really, his apologetic pretty much follows the Brethren's fart in the winds and move goal posts when he knows they will continue smiling down upon him patting his head for being such a good boy for them.

“DCP” wrote: Eric Larson: "I am of the opinion that the Zelph story actually reflects Joseph's humor on a worn-out day."

Not impossible. A similar thought has occurred to me sometimes with regard to his comment to Oliver Huntington about men living on the moon who dress like Quakers.

Speaking of moving goal posts. We now have:

Speaking as a prophet
Speaking as a man
Speaking as a comedian

There are so many tools in the “explain it away” toolbox now.