Bazooka wrote:Interestingly, Joseph Smith received a revelation articulating that the earth is 'young'. We now know it as section 77 of the Doctrine & Covenants
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832. Joseph Smith’s history states, “In connection with the translation of the Scriptures, I received the following explanation of the Revelation of St. John.” 1–4, Beasts have spirits and will dwell in eternal felicity; 5–7, This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years; 8–10, Various angels restore the gospel and minister on earth; 11, The sealing of the 144,000; 12–14, Christ will come in the beginning of the seventh thousand years; 15, Two prophets will be raised up to the Jewish nation.
Now, answer me this. If the Earth is to have a temporal existence of 7,000 years and Christ is to come at the beginning of the seventh thousand years, wouldn't that mean the earth had only existed temporally for six thousand years at that point? Also, given that Christ came at the start of the seven thousandth year of earths seven thousand year temporal existence, doesn't that mean the earth ended its temporal existence about a thousand years ago?
Like I said, you are making circular assumptions that the 7,000 years is literal.
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard
So quoting the plain English of the prophet of the restoration, the mouthpiece of god is a circular assumption, assuming he meant what he wrote, and wrote what he meant?
Got it!
What other scripture can I view as not meaning what it says, especially the modern stuff where the lost in translation excuse does not apply?
Do I immediately disqualify anything that disagrees with modern science?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Themis wrote: by the way You would be hard pressed to find many who have a young earth view and would also interpret the story as a local flood. It just doesn't read that way in both the Bible and Book of Moses, and the story falls apart in a local setting. The Book of Mormon references it as well. A literalist has no reason to interpret it as global if it really is so vague, and only those who reject a young earth and accept most of the sciences will feel a need to reinterpret the story. I do think it is at least a good thing you do accept the sciences and reject the flood as a global event.
I've spoken with two Mormon economists, both with PhDs from top-five institutions, who have no idea what evolution has to do with their lives, let alone their salvation. They don't necessarily disbelieve it, but they don't know what the fuss is all about.
I'm a passionate evolutionist, but I don't blame Mormons for not caring.
Certainly many don't care about these and other issues, but I fail to see how this changes how the flood story actually reads. I have said it is secondary and that one need not believe even that Noah was a real person to be considered a member in good standing in the LDS church.
Nelson Chung wrote: Consider this picture. The man sitting is the god Osiris. Joseph Smith said that this is Abraham sitting on the Pharoah's throne. In ancient Israel, kings became gods, so we know that Abraham is becoming a god.
Actually, we don't know that. What we know is that Joseph Smith said that was Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne, and that Joseph thought that is what the facsimile said. We also know that Joseph Smith is the only person who interpreted the image that way based on what the facsimile says.
What you are saying is that you believe Joseph when he said this is Abraham sitting on Pharaohs throne, but that you don't believe Joseph when he said he was translating off of the actual papyri.
The evidence shows that Joseph was claiming that the papyri contained both Abraham and Joseph stories, and that he claimed to translate part of the Abraham story. I am not sure whether the missing papyri theory or Catalyst theory has more problems. I don't see why God would be deceptive with Joseph and everyone else, or allow Joseph to make stuff up. Where does Joseph get the idea the papyri contained Abraham's and Joseph's story?
Themis wrote: The evidence shows that Joseph was claiming that the papyri contained both Abraham and Joseph stories, and that he claimed to translate part of the Abraham story. I am not sure whether the missing papyri theory or Catalyst theory has more problems. I don't see why God would be deceptive with Joseph and everyone else, or allow Joseph to make stuff up. Where does Joseph get the idea the papyri contained Abraham's and Joseph's story?
That's because you're examining the issue through modern paradigms of copyright. Allow me to quote James Charlesworth, the world's authority on Old Testament pseudepigrapha:
These Pseudepigrapha usually bear the names of Old Testament heroes and carry such titles as the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Elijah, the Testament of Job, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Abode of the Rechabites. These and other similar writings were part of the large group of documents from which first the Old Testament, and then the New Testament, were eventually collected and canonized. However, they made their way neither into the Hebrew Old Testament nor into the larger collection of the Greek Old Testament, called the Septuagint. It is misleading to state that the documents are falsely attributed to Abraham, Elijah, Job, or Solomon; they were written under the inspiration of these figures and there seems to be little question that many of these authors thought that they were writing as Abraham, Elijah, Job, or Solomon. The principle of solidarity in the Semitic world linked the son with the father and the father with his father and he with his fathers. Therefore, the Jew living in the intertestamental period believed that he was indeed part of Abraham.
Joseph Smith was not making stuff up. I don't doubt some of the book allowed for his participation and input, but he hit the jackpot on a lot of things.
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard
Nelson Chung wrote:That's because you're examining the issue through modern paradigms of copyright. Allow me to quote James Charlesworth, the world's authority on Old Testament pseudepigrapha:
These Pseudepigrapha usually bear the names of Old Testament heroes and carry such titles as the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Elijah, the Testament of Job, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Abode of the Rechabites. These and other similar writings were part of the large group of documents from which first the Old Testament, and then the New Testament, were eventually collected and canonized. However, they made their way neither into the Hebrew Old Testament nor into the larger collection of the Greek Old Testament, called the Septuagint. It is misleading to state that the documents are falsely attributed to Abraham, Elijah, Job, or Solomon; they were written under the inspiration of these figures and there seems to be little question that many of these authors thought that they were writing as Abraham, Elijah, Job, or Solomon. The principle of solidarity in the Semitic world linked the son with the father and the father with his father and he with his fathers. Therefore, the Jew living in the intertestamental period believed that he was indeed part of Abraham.
I have no idea what you mean. I am evaluating the evidence of what Joseph and others claim is the relationship between the papyri and Abraham. I don't have a problem with the idea that Joseph may have thought he was actually providing a translation of Abraham's words and thoughts. We just know he was incorrect. If you want to make unsupported claims he was still inspired, fine, but don't expect to many to follow suit. I do have a problem with why God would inspire in such a terrible fashion, involving deceit on God's part. If it was just Joseph making some of it up, I still don't know why Joseph would feel a need to make stuff up if he is really getting revelation anytime he wants from God. It also doesn't make sense that God would not correct Joseph so as to avoid obvious problems later. I could make this kind of claim with anything I want to believe. Doesn't mean much to me.
Joseph Smith was not making stuff up. I don't doubt some of the book allowed for his participation and input, but he hit the jackpot on a lot of things.
I don't think I can let my mind delude myself to make this assumption. It allows me to discard what ever I don't like as Joseph's input. I couldn't be honest and do this. I am not sure what you think he got right. I see he got almost everything wrong, and there is a good thread on the dangers of parallelisms. We get an F when we get most things wrong on a test.
Themis wrote: I don't think I can let my mind delude myself to make this assumption. It allows me to discard what ever I don't like as Joseph's input. I couldn't be honest and do this. I am not sure what you think he got right. I see he got almost everything wrong, and there is a good thread on the dangers of parallelisms. We get an F when we get most things wrong on a test.
Did you read the Charlesworth quote? He is the world's authority, pay close attention.
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard
Themis wrote: I don't think I can let my mind delude myself to make this assumption. It allows me to discard what ever I don't like as Joseph's input. I couldn't be honest and do this. I am not sure what you think he got right. I see he got almost everything wrong, and there is a good thread on the dangers of parallelisms. We get an F when we get most things wrong on a test.
Did you read the Charlesworth quote? He is the world's authority, pay close attention.
I read the quote, but I fail to see what significance you are getting from it that pertains to this issue. perhaps you could elaborate.
