- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi GB SMITH Sorry I referred to you as JB in the last post I was for a moment back in SL going to JB’s for breakfast my keyboard has a life of its own sometimes, just another thought about your post, as we are all spirit children with the same parents, then we are to a certain extent all inbreeding, this would only apply to Adam’s children marrying each other, then the next generation could be pared up together as cousins, then half cousins etc. Just a thought hope it helps Jeff Walsh I’m a little late on this in the comment stream, but wanted to make a small point: When Joseph Smith or other early leaders talked about things being accurate as long as they were “translated correctly,” they were NOT talking about academic, technical language translation. They had a more magical and spiritual view of the word “translation.” To them, it meant more about making hidden things revealed, or to improve upon existing “truths” through a process similar to Jewish Midrash tradition (although I am not sure they understood the differences we are talking about).
The best example of how they understood this was the Joseph Smith
Translationof the Bible. This was one of JS’s great passions. We all know that he wasn’t working on source manuscripts or with ancient languages. It is an open historical story even in our Correlated version of Church history. He was reading the King James English Bible, and then riffing on it via revelation from “The Spirit.” He was translating English to English 😯 and adding what he thought were corrections to make the meaning more clear (or to fit into his theology better). This was “translation” to him.The Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and to a large extent The Book of Mormon were “translated” in similar ways.
It leaves the door wide-open to further diversity of thought, IMHO.
Well Jeff, that is interesting. You sound like a very fundamental and traditional Mormon. I have no problem with your faith, and your belief in a literal Adam and Eve and the whole Noah’s Flood thing. But you won’t answer my question. Do I have to believe it? Is there room in this church for those like Wayfarer and myself who just cannot accept a literal translation of the Bible stories you have mentioned, and perhaps see it as only mythology meant to teach man spiritual truths about the nature of humans and their relation with the gods?
I’ll let Jeff answer for himself, but my own answers and short commentary: Quote:Do I have to believe it?
No.
Quote:Is there room in this church for those like Wayfarer and myself who just cannot accept a literal translation of the Bible stories you have mentioned, and perhaps see it as only mythology meant to teach man spiritual truths about the nature of humans and their relation with the gods?
Yes.
I say that for two reasons:
1) There certainly is room in the Church for me;
2) There certainty has been room in the Church for apostles and Prophets who would have and did state their views in very similar terms.
cwald wrote:Well Jeff, that is interesting. You sound like a very fundamental and traditional Mormon. I have no problem with your faith, and your belief in a literal Adam and Eve and the whole Noah’s Flood thing. But you won’t answer my question.
Do I have to believe it? Is there room in this church for those like Wayfarer and myself who just cannot accept a literal translation of the Bible stories you have mentioned, and perhaps see it as only mythology meant to teach man spiritual truths about the nature of humans and their relation with the gods?
I remember an Ensign article in the last 10-12 years on the flood and at one point the author said something to the effect that no true Latter-Day Saint would not believe in a literal world wide flood. Well, I didn’t then and I don’t now and I realized that believing this sort of thing has precioius little to with staying LDS. It doesn’t get the home teaching done or a roof on someone’s house or food for a single mom or dad that’s out of work. It doesn’t get the girls to girls camp or boys to their summer 50 miler or comfort someone who’s lost a spouse, a child, or a parent. It has nothing to do with trying to be a decent person or a good neighbor or a better spouse or parent. So until someone tells me I have to believe in this version of things, I won’t and if possible try to be what I’m supposed to be, that is an LDS version of a Christian. I’ve not made it yet but then I’m still above ground and there’s still daylight.
Thanks Ray. Perhaps a better question would be to folks who believe like Jeff, and have a traditional literal interpretation would be, “is there room for members like myself and Wayfarer and others who have a much more unorthodox belief system, to exist in your wards and fully participate in callings and Temple worship?
I mean, should the church approach this kind of an issue with a “big tent” ideal, or does the church shrink in on itself and hunker down in it’s insistence on conformity of ideology?
Jeff, I am going to say this very directly: 1) You are making the same mistake many people make when it comes to discussions of evolution with members of the Church. “Evolution” is a word that describes a process that, in and of itself, says NOTHING about God and spirits. If someone believes in an evolutionary process for the development of our physical bodies, that does NOT mean they automatically deny God’s role in our creation and the exsitence of pre-mortal spirits.
As I said in my last comment, apostles have believed in both– since they have been able to separate “physical, earthly evolution” from “spiritual creation”. They even have used the term “evolve” to describe our spiritual progression. Finally, as I pointed out in a previous comment, the official statement of the LDS Church on the origin of man leaves open the possibility that our bodies were created through an evolutionary process. If the First Presidency of the LDS Church could leave open that possibility, so can I. I believe in God; I believe in the traditional Mormon definition of man and woman being a unique combination of pre-mortal spirit and mortal body; I believe God was the creator of BOTH of those parts of my soul; I believe God used physical evolution as the process by which he created that body; in that belief, I am joined my multiple apostles and prophets and faithful Mormon scholars and scientists and regular lay members.
2)
This is not the first time you’ve used insulting terms to speak of those who disagree with you. In this case you said, “ a little sane thinking brings us to a realisation that if you take God out of creation man has to come up with wild and crazy ideas such as evolution.” You imply those who believe in evolution sans God are “insane” and then call the beliefs of those who accept evolution “wild and crazy” – without even distinguishing between those who still believe God was the author of their creation but simply used an evolutionary process to create their physical bodies. As an admin here, I am asking you to stop insulting those with whom you disagree. You might not undertand or even realize that you’re doing it, so I am pointing it out now. Please respect the way we try to discuss things here.
GBSmith wrote:cwald wrote:Well Jeff, that is interesting. You sound like a very fundamental and traditional Mormon. I have no problem with your faith, and your belief in a literal Adam and Eve and the whole Noah’s Flood thing. But you won’t answer my question.
Do I have to believe it? Is there room in this church for those like Wayfarer and myself who just cannot accept a literal translation of the Bible stories you have mentioned, and perhaps see it as only mythology meant to teach man spiritual truths about the nature of humans and their relation with the gods?
I remember an Ensign article in the last 10-12 years on the flood and at one point the author said something to the effect that no true Latter-Day Saint would not believe in a literal world wide flood. Well, I didn’t then and I don’t now and I realized that believing this sort of thing has precioius little to with staying LDS. It doesn’t get the home teaching done or a roof on someone’s house or food for a single mom or dad that’s out of work. It doesn’t get the girls to girls camp or boys to their summer 50 miler or comfort someone who’s lost a spouse, a child, or a parent. It has nothing to do with trying to be a decent person or a good neighbor or a better spouse or parent. So until someone tells me I have to believe in this version of things, I won’t and if possible try to be what I’m supposed to be, that is an LDS version of a Christian. I’ve not made it yet but then I’m still above ground and there’s still daylight.
Yes. Excellent point. I wish more folks in our tribe would understand this.
Ray you have certainly made your point and I think I have made mine, so maybe it is time for me to say goodbye, thanks Jeff jeffwalshgen wrote:Ray you have certainly made your point and I think I have made mine, so
maybe it is time for me to say goodbye, thanks Jeff Why?
In my previous post, I really was asking a legit question. I’m interested in how you or your Bishop would approach a guy like myself if I was in your Sunday School class. I know in my branch and stake, some folks consider me an apostate at worse, and a heretic at best …. and a threat to other church members. As a true believer in the LDS faith — I’m interested in your take on all this and hope you don’t disappear just yet. I’m trying to understand you Jeff, and the other church members who believe. I’m really trying.
Hi cwald I seem to be ruffling too many feathers jeff Jeff, I want you participating here. All I asked was that you not use insulting words. I ask that of everyone who participates here. It wasn’t meant to be personal in any way. Really, that’s all.
jeffwalshgen wrote:Hi cwald I seem to be ruffling too many feathers jeff
Yeah maybe, but we’re being patient. I think you should stick around a bit because I have tried to have these conversation on sites like LDS.net, and they just kick me off because I have a different opinion. I don’t think anyone here wants to do that. You can have a different opinion here, and I think it is important to have folks who are a tad bit more “tradition” than myself to make me think and keep things in perspective.
Ray is just trying to keep things civil here which is always a good thing. Ray and Brian have chewed me out many many times — it’s just the ugly part of being a moderator on the bloggernacle.
🙂 Quote:Ray and Brian have chewed me out many many times
Yeah, Jeff, you’re nowhere near where cwald has been here in the past.
Cwald I am sorry I did not get the whole message there must have been a time delay, all I got was why, to answer your question, I am the high priests group leader in my ward, and if you were a member of our ward I would welcome you with open arms, we have great followship in our ward, we are woring with many young people from China who are attending the univercity in York. so we have many wonderful dicussions. I would welcome the chance to get to know your take on doctrines of the Church and I would tell you mine and we could then explore areas of agreement and from this common ground we could discuss things together and if there were areas we could learn from each other I would find this very uplifting and valuable. We have a group of ward who like hiking and we go regularly into the Yorkshire Dales an discuss doctrine and learn from each other we have not come to blows yet and never will because we are all trying to find our way along the gospel road. Jeff
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.