- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My daughter asked about the creation of plants and animals this morning. I got about 2 sentences in regarding what some scientists thought (life started in the ocean before it spread to land), and what people before scientists thought (that God created everything) before I was cut off so that my daughter could champion her own theory (different then either presented so far). I mentioned it to my husband in case he wanted to build upon it when she gets home today (which I am fine with even if it is a variation on Creationism – because I believe at the core, we don’t know a lot about the way things came into being, and we know less then we think we do on the subject). So we have been having an email dialog that deals with what I can teach our children based on what I currently believe. I think this is great because it is causing us to think and to explore boundaries. It is good for us to balance each other out in this area – he can teach strongly official church doctrine/belief system and I can teach what I understand, and what is good of church doctrine (including positing some non-churchy reasons for commandments). I just wish I wasn’t so beat up in the process. I made it clear that I was depending on him to teach the more orthodox view, and that if/when they have faith transitions of their own I could help them better.
Even though at the end, my answer wasn’t descriptive enough, and did not delineate the divinity of Mankind in the creation – my answer was doctrinally correct (because there is no official doctrinal stance AND I was able to provide lds.org doctrinal evidence), and because she was asking about the plants and animals, culturally correct (even in our household) because the soundbite I was able to deliver was not the standard soundbite – assuming pre-transition that I was able to find and deliver it (whatever that is – when you prepare a statement for your 8 year old on plant and animal creation in advance?). And yet, I still feel like my teaching competancy is now discarded/minimized…
Here is the kicker: If there was a right/wrong doctrinal belief championed here – I would be doctrinally correct even if my sound bite did not include the divinity of Man in the statement.So the heretic [agnostic non-conformist] gets burned for following the letter of the law doctrinal statement instead of the spiritual/figurative version.:clap: :clap: :clap: I will feel less bruised about it in a while. Plus, it seems that this true pattern is now being followed:
First they get mad at you, then they laugh at you, then they join you…
In either case, it is kinda hilarious…
My children ask me about these sorts of questions all the time. I usually present a variety of schools of thought on the subject. I encourage them if they have their own theories (I figure, “can’t be any crazier than what everyone else believes”). I 10 year old son is on the autistic spectrum and is very literal. Lately he has been stuck on the 7 “days” of the creation story and feels (a little too smugly) that the existence of dinosaur bones demonstrably prove the creation story wrong. I remind him that some people believe that the “days” may refers to 1000 years, still others believe it to refer to a period of time – possibly eons.
I think that is great and I am for presenting to children similarly… I just got burned because I did not fulfill my husband’s unstated more traditional belief soundbite version and tried to teach “incorrect doctrine” because of my faith transition.
AmyJ wrote:
I just got burned because I did not fulfill my husband’s unstated more traditional belief soundbite version and tried to teach “incorrect doctrine” because of my faith transition.
Even if what you shared is the official church policy your comment will sometimes be seen through the lens of what others expect to be your motives based on what they think they know about you. It comes with the territory.
Like tithing. You share the church’s official position:
Quote:The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.
If people look at you and think “bishop” or “really orthodox person” they’ll nod their head and appreciate the authoritative source. If people look at you and think “doubter” or “apostate” they’ll interpret your comment as “person trying to get out of paying on gross.”
Humans gonna human.
Both: Creationism through evolution For me, the issue is in (2) parts: 1. is it necessary for me (or anyone) to know exactly how this world was created? My answer is: no.
2. is there evidence that this world was created by design? My answer is: yes.
The last question I have is: If you were going to write a story describing the creation process that would be understood
by all races, creeds and nationalities throughout the world over thousands of years (or more), what would the story look like?
What would you include or leave out? How specific would it be & still be understood by all?
Another 2 cents.
Niel Degrass Tyson wrote:“Every great scientific truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they’ve known it all along.”
I’m also in the creationism through evolution camp. Part of the resolution of my faith crisis (a very important part) was the recognition that all of this didn’t just come into being. I don’t know how God did it and I don’t need to know – I do believe God did it though. Recently I’ve been reading through the parables in scripture. It is estimated that Jesus taught between 33-35% of his teachings using parables. Parables aren’t necessarily a true depiction of something that really happened. It is a depiction of gospel
principles in story format. Would it be wrong or less than accurate if the creation story was a parable? There are many situations
especially depicted in the old testament that could be in this category.
The key element of the gospel is Jesus Christ.
Looking at Creationism and Evolution solely for what is useful, not as true: Evolution-Better healthcare (antibiotics, epidemic predictions, medication testing, etc)
-Guided evolution (better crops, better livestock)
-Able to cope with changes to the world and environment (by better understanding the biological history of the earth)
-A greater understanding of why things are the way they are (behavioral and physiological attributes of all creatures)
-Breaks our dependence on religious authority as the sole, infallible source of truth (even if it was an allegory, it was taught as an absolute fact for thousands of years; heretics be burned at the stake and damned to hell).
Creationism-Gives life meaning and purpose
-Grants us comfort and hope (due to a divine, loving creator having a plan)
Evolution is as much of a scientific fact as there ever was on earth. Learning about evolution (back at BYU, no less) greatly expanded my understanding of why things are the way they are. It is one of my favorite subjects, and has so many real life applications. Creationism, on the other hand, isn’t so much as a rational theory. Evidence of creationism comes mostly from a really old book with extraordinary, supernatural claims, that has been heavily edited over the years. All other sources tend to reference that book.
I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t know how life started on earth, or how the stars and the planets came into being. I’m not sure I fully buy the Big Bang theory. Science changes as we gain more information, and there is still quite a bit we are missing. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find a god-like entity behind the creation. But as far as the creation in Genesis and the Abrahamic God is concerned, I admit I don’t “know”, but the evidence just isn’t there for me to believe in it. As for the benefits to believing in Creationism (meaning, purpose, comfort, hope), I understand why so many people choose to, and I respect that. But I also feel like I have all those things in my life, without Creationism. It’s not as useful to me.
I can believe in the concept of divine creation through evolution. Young Earth creationism is stupid. Well, actually, it is assinine. Close-mindedly idiotic.
One of these days I will tell you how I really feel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.