Beck talk

[woot]

Originally Posted by Solon

I think it highly inaccurate to call the ancient mind "primitive." The writer(s) of Genesis wasn't writing history in the modern sense, with its pretense to objective fact. I don't think anybody can dispute that many of the stories in Genesis are myth - myth in the sense of how the story operates in a society, not (necessarily) how "true" it is. These myths served an important role in ancient Hebrew society, a role only tangentially concerned with anachronistic categories of "fact," "historicity," and "truth".

Etiologies aren't always about believability or credibility. Rather, they perform some type of function in the society. Ancient Hebrews (or Greeks or Egyptians) didn't always have the same notion of "belief" in their myths that we seem to crave in ours. Sure, there were free-thinkers who questioned the mythic tradition (e.g. Xenophanes, Palaephatus), but their opinions were, for the most part, beside the point.

Oh I agree with all of that. I think the problem is that now that we have a much fuller body of information from which to draw conclusions, the existence of organizations wishing to perpetuate these obviously inferior explanations, and the existence of people willing to continue to believe them in the face of said body of information, troubles me. I have no doubt that the writers didn't actually think what they were writing had any actual resemblance with reality, but most Americans (According to the polls) actually think that Genesis is historical fact.

[woot]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

just curious, you're not a scientist right? Scientists believe all species had a common ancestor.

Yes, all species have a common ancestor that lived 3 or so billion years ago. I'm not sure how this applies to what I said.

BoM does mention other people; you need to read it more closely.

I'll need chapter and verse on that one.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

"pure" and "white" were used interchangeably in the OT. You're deliberately withholding information.

No, I'm not.

I don't know all the details, comparanda, etc. of why this was changed. I just stated my opinion, clearly indicated by the words "I'd say" and "probably" on this example.

At any rate, this is the BoM - not the Old Testament. That argument isn't going to fly for me in explaining this change.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by woot

Oh I agree with all of that. I think the problem is that now that we have a much fuller body of information from which to draw conclusions, the existence of organizations wishing to perpetuate these obviously inferior explanations, and the existence of people willing to continue to believe them in the face of said body of information, troubles me. I have no doubt that the writers didn't actually think what they were writing had any actual resemblance with reality, but most Americans (According to the polls) actually think that Genesis is historical fact.

Then that means modern Americans are the "primitive" ones - not the ancients.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

I speak out when one of the following two points are made (or implied):

1. The priesthood ban existed in defiance of God's will.
2. Racism among the prophets is the only or primary reason the ban wasn't lifted sooner.

I don't know if you intended either one of those, but outside of that, I'm willing to entertain a broad set of possibilities about the dynamics of church leadership. To believe otherwise is, in my opinion, a direct challenge to the prophetic office.



How is it they caught that passage and not 2 Nephi 5:21? Oversight?

Good point. I honestly don't know. I have never heard a good explanation for why the one was changed (not that I've spent hours looking). Does anyone know the entire story?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

I really do find this surety amusing. You are absolutely convinced the flood didn't happen, as if it were truly within your power to divine.

Well, I'm afraid it actually is within our power to divine. Rather than spell it out, I recommend the succinct, if not exhaustive, explanation found here:

http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2...and-flood.html

The flood is not compatible with evolution, it makes no sense from a logistical standpoint, and is impossible due to the physical mechanics of an impossible amount of water raining down during an impossibly short period of time, all while conveniently leaving no evidence of its existence. That article is really quite good as an introduction.

After knowing all of that, anyone who chooses to is welcome to believe that the flood still happened, but I'm afraid that such individuals are completely immune to reason regarding their beliefs. Sure, if God is all powerful it's possible that he intentionally arranged things so that it will be mandatory to choose between his book and the evidence, but such a god doesn't sound very nice to me. Why would he give us such incredible powers of observation and cognition and then expect us to not use them?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Solon

Then that means modern Americans are the "primitive" ones - not the ancients.

Well my point is that one of religion's habits is the institutionalization of obsolete ideas. These ideas weren't obsolete at the time, but have long since become so. That so many people still believe in them is the fault of religion. "Primitive" here isn't used as a pejorative, but rather as a description of people who lacked the tools or sophistication necessary to enlighten themselves. I'd like to think that isn't true of modern Americans, and the trends seem to confirm that assumption.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by woot

Yes, all species have a common ancestor that lived 3 or so billion years ago. I'm not sure how this applies to what I said.

excuse my poor word choice (I hope the SL Trib doesn't report a frenzy over it). Each specie has a common ancestor, which scientists call "Eve."

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Every species has a common ancestor. It's a scientifically proven fact that all humans descended from a single female in Africa (who scientists also term "Eve"), and that's no big surprise.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Solon

No, I'm not.

I don't know all the details, comparanda, etc. of why this was changed. I just stated my opinion, clearly indicated by the words "I'd say" and "probably" on this example.

At any rate, this is the BoM - not the Old Testament. That argument isn't going to fly for me in explaining this change.

well, since Indy and other Mormons believe Semites wrote the BoM...

[woot]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

excuse my poor word choice (I hope the SL Trib doesn't report a frenzy over it). Each specie has a common ancestor, which scientists call "Eve."

Ah I see. Yes, it's true that the members of each species do generally come from a single group of individuals that split off from the parent group. Such a group is called a "clade." The latest research that came out only a couple months ago traces all of Homo sapiens back to a single group. As apes and humans (with the exception of Orangs) are all very social animals, I don't think it's likely that there was a single individual or couple that is ancestral to all of humanity, however. That would suggest that it was only 1 couple that split from the parent group, experienced climate change or other selective pressures that caused them to adapt, etc. Such a situation is unlikely not only because that would be unusual behavior for a primate, but also because it would necessitate a mass amount of inbreeding, which even in nature is highly taboo. It is much more likely that we are the descendants of a single group, rather than a single individual.

One more thing: Yes, I've heard several anthropologists referring to the "search for Eve" or the "garden of eden," which are generally euphemisms for the common ancestor of pan and homo (chimps and humans) and the place they lived (very likely East Africa, but recent discoveries of 5-6 million year old hominins in West Africa leave that in doubt). I haven't heard anyone use those terms in actual reference to the Biblical figures, and indeed these ancestors looked much more like chimps than humans, so I doubt anyone would want to apply "Eve" to them.