Creationism vs. Evolution: "...after its own kind"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You lose me on this one. Are you saying one doesn't use one's intellect in understanding the scriptures?

No, only that an intellectual approach will not yield spiritual understanding.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And here's the crux, we know LDS only accept the Hebrew Bible insofar as it's been correctly translated. The "historical" tradition of the Amalekite account has neither been confirmed nor contradicted by modern apostles or prophets. So how is somebody receving a personal revelation in contradiction?

As I said, contradiction is not the only problem.

Originally Posted by Archaea

You make a quantum leap right there. Just because it's in the Hebrew Bible doesn't make it accurate, especially on such a fringe issue.

I have a very strong impression that the Amalekite tradition is NOT accurate.

It's not a quantum leap to assume that passage "x" in the Bible is true, and work from there.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I also categorically disagree with you that a person is not entitled to personally interpret the scripture through the Spirit. In fact, that is what we are commanded to do.

When talking about application to our lives, families, and stewardships, I'm right there with you.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The Jews clearly took the Promised Land by force. There is archaeological evidence to back that up. Thus, I think it's not unreasonable to think that the Amalekite account is literal. Additionally, I don't think using a "that's not the God I know" approach is the way we reconcile what is literal and what is symbolic in the scriptures.

I know I am way late on this conversation, but I think that you are making a great point here that has value for the full spectrum of us on this board. So many of the assumptions we make and conclusions we draw, me included, are rooted in "that isn't the God I know." I think this is particularly interesting in the LDS context where we believe in everything God has revealed, reveals now and may yet reveal.

The concept of what may yet be revealed is such an enormous one that it really can encompass just about anything. I'm thinking of the recent Elder Christensen interview where he was asked (as I recall) about women and the priesthood and he very candidly said something to the effect of "we believe in continuing revelation and so God could do that or almost anything."

If that is true, then can any of us really say based on what God has done or said in the past (assuming that we actually know this, which is at least somewhat in doubt for anything you read in the Bible) that this thing or that thing is right or wrong based on that context? Isn't it really true that for LDS the context is of limited value because we believe in so few principles that actually define God, and believe that much is changable?

I have been chewing on this and is undescores to me the centrality of the belief in revelation. If you believe in a prophet with access to it then you almost have to accept that anything is possible. If you don't accept that, then you find yourself in the more traditional christain quandry of trying to figure out what the scriptures really say or mean and judging what you see before you in that context. But the more I think about this the more I think it neatly ties up any lose ends about current doctrines or practices being different from former ones, so long as you believe in revelation.

Thoughts?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I know I am way late on this conversation, but I think that you are making a great point here that has value for the full spectrum of us on this board. So many of the assumptions we make and conclusions we draw, me included, are rooted in "that isn't the God I know." I think this is particularly interesting in the LDS context where we believe in everything God has revealed, reveals now and may yet reveal.

The concept of what may yet be revealed is such an enormous one that it really can encompass just about anything. I'm thinking of the recent Elder Christensen interview where he was asked (as I recall) about women and the priesthood and he very candidly said something to the effect of "we believe in continuing revelation and so God could do that or almost anything."

If that is true, then can any of us really say based on what God has done or said in the past (assuming that we actually know this, which is at least somewhat in doubt for anything you read in the Bible) that this thing or that thing is right or wrong based on that context? Isn't it really true that for LDS the context is of limited value because we believe in so few principles that actually define God, and believe that much is changable?

I have been chewing on this and is undescores to me the centrality of the belief in revelation. If you believe in a prophet with access to it then you almost have to accept that anything is possible. If you don't accept that, then you find yourself in the more traditional christain quandry of trying to figure out what the scriptures really say or mean and judging what you see before you in that context. But the more I think about this the more I think it neatly ties up any lose ends about current doctrines or practices being different from former ones, so long as you believe in revelation.

Thoughts?

Interesting points, Dan. And I certainly agree that God can do anything He wishes and that revelation changes the equation.

Partly this boils down to how one views the Old Testament. Is it a divine document dictated word for word directly from God (similar to how many view the BOM and D&C) or is it an ancient document passed down through thousands of years with the resultant amalgamation of myth, cultural history, literal history, and divinely inspired writings? If you take the former view, then a Tex-like dogma regarding an unquestioning belief in God-sanctioned genocide makes more sense. But good luck explaining things like Genesis. And asses talking to humans. And God making bets with Satan. Etc. If you take the latter view, it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to sift through the OT and ponder what is truth and what is not. In that context, the "Is this the God I know" question is perfectly valid. Genocide does not seem to square at all with basic gospel principles. And keep in mind that SoonerCoug claimed that he had a personal spiritual witness that God does not condone genocide. Thus, he is not relying solely on an academic or common sense approach. He is combining the concept of personal revelation, i.e., search, ponder, and pray. How can one fault that?

As another example, if the prophet announced tomorrow that we are reinstating polygamy, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be searching for some personal revelation to confirm that. And unlike Tex, I would keep open the possibility that he could be wrong.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Interesting points, Dan. And I certainly agree that God can do anything He wishes and that revelation changes the equation.

Partly this boils down to how one views the Old Testament. Is it a divine document dictated word for word directly from God (similar to how many view the BOM and D&C) or is it an ancient document passed down through thousands of years with the resultant amalgamation of myth, cultural history, literal history, and divinely inspired writings? If you take the former view, then a Tex-like dogma regarding an unquestioning belief in God-sanctioned genocide makes more sense. But good luck explaining things like Genesis. And asses talking to humans. And God making bets with Satan. Etc. If you take the latter view, it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to sift through the OT and ponder what is truth and what is not. In that context, the "Is this the God I know" question is perfectly valid. Genocide does not seem to square at all with basic gospel principles. And keep in mind that SoonerCoug claimed that he had a personal spiritual witness that God does not condone genocide. Thus, he is not relying solely on an academic or common sense approach. He is combining the concept of personal revelation, i.e., search, ponder, and pray. How can one fault that?

As another example, if the prophet announced tomorrow that we are reinstating polygamy, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be searching for some personal revelation to confirm that. And unlike Tex, I would keep open the possibility that he could be wrong.

With respect to the OT, I am comfortable with the ambiguity and uncertainty that exist in my mind. To me part of it are clearly meant to be historical record, other parts are allegorical, other parts may well be traditions and myths. I don't know what is what and that is okay with me. As we liken the scriptures to ourselves I think the OT should be last on the list. We have the example of the Saviour who told us to "go and do likewise" and for me there is little I read in the OT that gives me insight beyond His example.

Whether or not a genocide occurred at the direction of God is an interesting academic discussion which I come to the end of not being bothered by the fact the answer is beyondmy grasp.

I am with you that I would need personal confirmation if polygamy were reinstituted. I do think that one of the interesting ironies, however, is that it is easier to require something difficult of people than it is to require something easy. I think if this occurred you would be surprised how many people would suck it up and do it (to paraphrase Kennedy) not because it is easy but because it is hard. This was, and a lesser extent still is, part of the genious of the gospel.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Interesting points, Dan. And I certainly agree that God can do anything He wishes and that revelation changes the equation.

As another example, if the prophet announced tomorrow that we are reinstating polygamy, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be searching for some personal revelation to confirm that. And unlike Tex, I would keep open the possibility that he could be wrong.

Here is a point that appears missing.

Tex seems to be choosing an either or way of interpreting the OT, which by all accounts has not been handed as the literal work of God himself, but has passed through many hands, most unknown, revised, changed, added and midrashed.

How is the OT constructed?

It has the Pentateuch, the first five, which have been long recognized or considered to be the work of many. Even the Church recogizes this.

We have the prophets and the wisdom literature, and the historical narratives.

Why should any special credibility be given to the historical narratives?

Indy states, "we know Israel took it by force." I'm not certain even one of the foremost archaeologists of our time "knows" Israel took anything by force. We have evidence of conflict, but we can't know that. There are almost no independent records showing what happened to Israel post exodus and pre-United Kingdom. We don't know a damnable thing about that period, independently, except for the Hebrew tradition.

And when we compare an ostensibly contemporary record, the BoM, are there any similar episodes of God condoning genocide? None. In fact, Mormon leaders went out their way to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

In a theoretical world, could God order anything he wishes? Of course, but I do expect him to act consistently, and if the record is inconsistent, then I expect that perhaps the record is incorrect.

Some take the position, naive in my mind, that religious records are perfect. I've never seen the recorders of such records to make such claims, only the modern readers thereof.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here is a point that appears missing.

Tex seems to be choosing an either or way of interpreting the OT, which by all accounts has not been handed as the literal work of God himself, but has passed through many hands, most unknown, revised, changed, added and midrashed.

How is the OT constructed?

It has the Pentateuch, the first five, which have been long recognized or considered to be the work of many. Even the Church recogizes this.

We have the prophets and the wisdom literature, and the historical narratives.

Why should any special credibility be given to the historical narratives?

Indy states, "we know Israel took it by force." I'm not certain even one of the foremost archaeologists of our time "knows" Israel took anything by force. We have evidence of conflict, but we can't know that. There are almost no independent records showing what happened to Israel post exodus and pre-United Kingdom. We don't know a damnable thing about that period, independently, except for the Hebrew tradition.

And when we compare an ostensibly contemporary record, the BoM, are there any similar episodes of God condoning genocide? None. In fact, Mormon leaders went out their way to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

In a theoretical world, could God order anything he wishes? Of course, but I do expect him to act consistently, and if the record is inconsistent, then I expect that perhaps the record is incorrect.

Some take the position, naive in my mind, that religious records are perfect. I've never seen the recorders of such records to make such claims, only the modern readers thereof.

I'm not sure that is fair to Tex. I think he is too intelligent not to recognize the various facets and ambiguites of the OT. I'm confident he does. I think he is just choosing to lean toward resovling those ambiguities in the direction of "these things are literally true." It is, IMO, a harmless thing to do.

If he is insisting that is the only approach then I disagree with him, but I haven't read the threads completely to know if that is the case.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Amen on all counts.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Indy states, "we know Israel took it by force." I'm not certain even one of the foremost archaeologists of our time "knows" Israel took anything by force. We have evidence of conflict, but we can't know that. There are almost no independent records showing what happened to Israel post exodus and pre-United Kingdom. We don't know a damnable thing about that period, independently, except for the Hebrew tradition.

There are two things that are as old as time itself:

1) Group A killing off group B in order to obtain resources.

2) Group A claiming that God is on their side and sanctions their actions.

I don't have any reason to believe that the genocide did not happen. There are plenty of reasons to question that such a genocide was sanctioned by God in the manner described in the OT.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Interesting points, Dan. And I certainly agree that God can do anything He wishes and that revelation changes the equation.

Partly this boils down to how one views the Old Testament. Is it a divine document dictated word for word directly from God (similar to how many view the BOM and D&C) or is it an ancient document passed down through thousands of years with the resultant amalgamation of myth, cultural history, literal history, and divinely inspired writings? If you take the former view, then a Tex-like dogma regarding an unquestioning belief in God-sanctioned genocide makes more sense. But good luck explaining things like Genesis. And asses talking to humans. And God making bets with Satan. Etc. If you take the latter view, it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to sift through the OT and ponder what is truth and what is not. In that context, the "Is this the God I know" question is perfectly valid. Genocide does not seem to square at all with basic gospel principles. And keep in mind that SoonerCoug claimed that he had a personal spiritual witness that God does not condone genocide. Thus, he is not relying solely on an academic or common sense approach. He is combining the concept of personal revelation, i.e., search, ponder, and pray. How can one fault that?

As another example, if the prophet announced tomorrow that we are reinstating polygamy, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be searching for some personal revelation to confirm that. And unlike Tex, I would keep open the possibility that he could be wrong.

Interestingly enough, I think a reliance on academic or common sense is more defensible in this situation (although still wrong, IMO) than the claim of personal revelation. I simply don't think God would reveal something as weighty as denying the validity of a scripture to one sole member. He would reveal it to the prophet, and the prophet would disseminate that knowledge among the membership. This is how the church has, to greater or lesser degree, worked for decades--I have been frankly surprised at the amount of resistance my reiteration of it has received.

Personal revelation is and always has been limited to the scope of influence and authority of the person seeking it.

Respecting the specific example of the Amalekites, I see the "not MY God!" line as simply a person retrofitting modern-day standards to soothe their consciences over difficult Bible passages. It's remarkable that people are so eager to cast mid-20th-century church leaders' apparent racism as victims of the era in which they lived, and yet those same biases are forbidden to be considered in this context.

To UtahDan's broader point, yes, that is the two-edged sword of revelation. One of the key lessons of Nephi's slaying of Laban is that whatever God wants is what is right. We can argue about how one goes about knowing what God wants, but setting that aside, God abides by his own laws.

As to the polygamy example, that is an "absurd hypothetical."

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...7&postcount=69

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not sure that is fair to Tex. I think he is too intelligent not to recognize the various facets and ambiguites of the OT. I'm confident he does. I think he is just choosing to lean toward resovling those ambiguities in the direction of "these things are literally true." It is, IMO, a harmless thing to do.

If he is insisting that is the only approach then I disagree with him, but I haven't read the threads completely to know if that is the case.

Actually Dan, I have not taken a strictly literalist approach here ... that position has been fabricated for me primarily by Arch, and to lesser extent by Lebowski.

I've simply advocated against God-given revelations to lay members that either enlarge upon or contradict doctrine set forth by "The Brethren."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually Dan, I have not taken a strictly literalist approach here ... that position has been fabricated for me primarily by Arch, and to lesser extent by Lebowski.

I've simply advocated against God-given revelations to lay members that either enlarge upon or contradict doctrine set forth by "The Brethren."

The Brethren haven't set forth the OT. That's the bullcrap.