FaithBased: Refining Mormon Cosmology

Post by **_moksha** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:11 pm

My guess is the Creation story was fine in its day but now that we understand God's handiwork a bit better, it can be appreciated as allegory. Perhaps religion can be like coffee and the Creation story can be like sugar. You can take it straight or with superstition.*

*sorry for the mangled metaphors. The aforesaid coffee was of course Decaf.

What do you think?

.

Post by **_Blixa** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:20 pm

I think it's a provocative and useful suggestion. But I balk at the designation "faith based" for the thread, and thus I must bow out now. (I think your suggestion can be interestingly discussed from both a secular and a believing angle---in fact I think that can be done simultaneously. But the new "parental warning" stickering system, or maybe its more akin to the frightful hollywood code, strikes me a preventing the most complex and meaningful investigations of such things.)

Post by **_bcspace** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:46 pm

Whose "faith" is this anyway?

I say we can take the creation story as a historical event. One must anyway to be consistent with LDS doctrine. However, lacking further details, I think one may freely speculate on the reality and meaning of the tree, the fruit, the dates, etc.

Post by **_moksha** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:52 am

Blixa wrote:I think it's a provocative and useful suggestion. But I balk at the designation "faith based" for the thread, and thus I must bow out now.

Blixa, you are the opposite of a poster who should bow out. However, when one considers the fate of such threads whose meaning can and will be ravaged without restraint, I am glad those type of posters may be hesitant. That however is not you Blixa. You listen to what is being said.

BCspace: Whose "faith" is this anyway?

I say we can take the creation story as a historical event. One must anyway to be consistent with LDS doctrine. However, lacking further details, I think one may freely speculate on the reality and meaning of the tree, the fruit, the dates, etc.

We can talk about our faith, although the same Creation story is shared by many.

Historical eh? Okay, the tree was a ginko biloba, the fruits were lingon berries, there were also dates, figs and nuts. Is that speculative enough? I think an allegorical interpretation best suits the needs of LDS people seeking a cosmology more consistent with a scientific understanding.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:21 am

Historical eh? Okay, the tree was a ginko biloba, the fruits were lingon berries, there were also dates, figs and nuts. Is that speculative enough? I think an allegorical interpretation best suits the needs of LDS people seeking a cosmology more consistent with a scientific understanding.

I don't see why it can't be both historical (as an event) and allegorical (as to the details).

Post by **_moksha** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:29 am

bcspace wrote: I don't see why it can't be both historical (as an event) and allegorical (as to the details).

That sounds intriguing, could you elaborate?

Post by **_Blixa** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:19 pm

I'm sorry to have responded so snarkily to your thread, Moksha. I shouldn't have taken my frustrations with this board out on you.

Post by **_karl61** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:14 pm

I think it's nice to know who the one is who is giving his/her theory of creation. If someone who teaches astro physics has a theory then that can be tested. The issues with Genesis is that you have multiple theorys: a J theory mixed in with an E theory surrounded by a Priestly theory which was reviewed and put together as one theory by someone five hundred years later -likely Ezra or part of his group.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:30 pm

I don't see why it can't be both historical (as an event) and allegorical (as to the details).

That sounds intriguing, could you elaborate?

Not much more than that as I really don't have an opinion one way or the other except that it must be historical at least. There must have been an Adam and Eve who precipitated some kind of event. Some have said the eating of the fruit represents another action, such as sex. i have no problems if that were the case but I really don't see any evidence for it.

But there is precedent for the details being allegorical. In Lehi and Nephi's vision, the tree of life represents the love of God. The trees and fruit in the garden may also simply be representational.

Post by **_moksha** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:49 am

BC, do you think that the metaphor of Adam and Eve could be extended to the first progenitors of Modern Man to have evolved on the plains of the Serengeti?