You responded to my second post thusly,
What problems would those be?
The two problems I have now taken great pains to articulate in two rather lengthy posts to you which you are seemingly ignoring or playing dumb about.
Worst case senario, some apostles' and prophets' private (and nondoctrinal) interpretation of other doctrine and scripture is wrong. No harm, no foul.
Stop it. Just think and enter a discussion where the most obvious and banal of reasonable and rational conclusions can be conceded among you and I. I specifically am talking about the D&C (not a book written by an apostle giving his opinions) - revelation given in Modern times in Ohio to a believed by you actual and real prophet and oracle of God that initiated one of the most monumental events in the history of man corresponding to the Fall of Man and the sojourn of Christ on the earth, namely the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the latter days - which includes modern day revelation and real priesthood power and new revealed scripture brought forth for us in this modern post enlightenment day (non-trivial things). Wherein an explanation of past historical scripture (Revelations) steeped in a time and place and a culture is given by your actual and living prophet. His words explaining that other scripture that was written in a real time and place were for the express purpose of giving you and me cleared understanding and explanation of the myth and metaphor that are too far in time and place in our modern minds to understand (hence the need for his explanation). It is straightforward, plain and even placed in a simple question answer format (it is not metaphor). It says,
Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was asealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
Why on earth would a prophet today - speaking our culture and language simply steep the confusion of time and place in more confusing metaphor that would remain un-explained (even though it is an explanation in simple question and answer format) until BCSpace with the most unassuming nonchalant attitude comes along with a rather confusing itself explanation of the benign explanation? Or, in the alternative why can't you concede rational minds read those words in the common way a rational mind living and speaking the english language today would understand those words to mean? Further, if we have to accept you know better than the plain meaning of words in your method of reconciliation - what need for the prophet in the first place? Why not accept a Pope that at least speaks in the time and place we are in with him? Or a pastor, or a rabbi? What need for a prophet if more confusion is the result? That is a little worse than your proposed worst case scenario.
I am reminded of Thomas Aquinas who said, "one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason" - you obviously believe that because you accept science and the need for a reconciliation.
I have no problem with there being an beginning.
Please clarify and don't equivocate. As a believing Mormon I understand that you reject a doctrine of creation ex nihilo? So exactly what regarding a beginning do you not have a problem with. Remember the remarkable thing about Genesis is it was first contra position to ordering type of Deity - a deity strikingly similar to what I was taught by my CES employed Mormon father while growing up.
If you feel there are flaws in my modus operandi, then feel free to point out what necessary part or parts of my hypothesis is wrong or in conflict.
That is exactly what I am doing.
If you defend your faith with an elasticity of meaning that reaches to arbitrary levels with the most banal meaning of words and combined with the balancing act of "metaphor" and "figurative" and "symbolic" and prophets statements are waved off with a no big deal it would at least behoove you to explain why you can do so. You could explain how rational minds can know when to take serious spiritual roles such as prophets and seers writing modern day scripture seriously and when not too. I am taking your faith seriously as what it claims itself to be by its own scripture - you are not.
regards, mikwut