More scientists express doubts on Darwin

[m1911owner]

Even though I kinda just beat to death the subject of "translated correctly," I want to directly address a couple things on this subject.  There are places where Joseph Smith has said, under direct revelation from the Lord, that something is specifically wrong in the Bible.  An example of that is where Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with the stone tablets, sees the Children of Israel covorting around with their new idol, breaks the tablets, and goes back up the mountain and gets another set.  The Bible says that the second set was the same as the first.  Joseph Smith said that later priests changed that passage, that it originally said that the second set was not the same as the first, that the Lord had removed the higher (Melchizedek) priesthood from among the people, and that the second set of tablets did not have the ordinances pertaining to the higher priesthood.

This was given to Joseph though revelation, so it's not a case of "Joseph interpreted these verses over here to mean thus-and-so, and that's where he gets this from."  However, one can argue from other scripture that what he said is plausible.  Shortly after obtaining the second set of tablets, Moses instituted the priesthood of Aaron.  That was necessary because the higher priesthood had been taken from among the people.  And Paul discusses the Melchizedek priesthood, I believe in Hebrews; there clearly was an understanding by Paul that there is a higher priesthood that was available in the time of Melchizedek, and that was also held by Christ.

Conversely, regarding Genesis 1, I'm not arguing that the text has been tampered with.  I would say that it could be translated into English better, but that the English isn't so bad that really obscures what's going on, unless you try to read minutia into the text that just isn't there.  For example, at some point in time, the Christian clergy decided that "created" had to mean "created ex nihilo", that is, created out of nothing.  In contrast, if I say that I created a business, no one is going to insist that I meant that I stood on a steet corner, waved my arms and said "Abracadabra", and poof, a business appeared on the corner.  In that vain, the LDS understanding of the creation, taken from the sum total of our texts, is that this world was created out of materials what were already in existence.  In the context of that understanding, I wouldn't say that Genesis is mistranslated, only that people are reading into the translation more than what's there.

[RevDisk]

Still waiting.

I hear this charge repeated all the time, and I would like for someone to show me where the originators of ID, Demski, Behe, et al, have shown in their research that they were influenced by the Creation Science movement, or by Christian scripture.  I believe this is nothing more than a smear without basis in fact.  Prove me wrong.

Still waiting on an answer for this one.

Not sure why you're still waiting, back in post #72, I showed ya the proof.  

http://www.revdisk.net/Wedge_Document.pdf

The Discovery Institute is the main driving force behind ID.  Not saying they're the only ones pushing ID, but they're a big name in the ID movement.  They spelled out their beliefs fairly clearly.

Here's the first paragraph.

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

[Perd Hapley]

I'll get back at you soon, 1911owner.

Proof, RevDisk?  That's an awfully low standard of proof.  If the document has "proof" that touches on my question, I hope you'll point it out to me.  Please read my question again, though, so you'll know what I was asking.  

I would like for someone to show me where the originators of ID, Demski, Behe, et al, have shown in their research that they were influenced by the Creation Science movement, or by Christian scripture.

The social, political and religious views of the researchers are not in view here, generally speaking, especially since we don't know if these views caused the ID theory or vice versa.  In any case, scientific research cannot be impeached on the personal views of the researcher.  The charge is that the founders of ID, not the members or directors of an "institute," have always been closet creationists, refashioning creationism into a psuedo-scientific mold called ID.  It's usually expressed as something like, "ID is creationism in disguise," or as Sindawe put it:  "Intelligent design derived from Christian mythos."  My question is, when and where did these ID theorists show any influence by creation science, or "contaminate" their research with some religious point view?  I'm not saying they haven't, but I doubt the ones making this charge can back it up.


For your convenience, reprinted from post #107:

 

Intelligent Design,...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  translation "We can't figure this out, so the Gods musta done it!"

Not quite.  Try, "We have figured out that this stuff is far too complex to have just happened, so someone must have done it."
Sounds fairly scientific.

See, I'm not a biologist, nor do I hold a degree in biology or science.  (A CS degree is closer to a divinity degree.)  Tis ok, neither do the folks that run the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.   From their own website:

Also from their website, showing that your assertion was based merely on prejudice and ignorance (i.e., bigotry):

Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.

The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.

The Center's Associate Director is Dr. John G. West, who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Claremont Graduate University and a B.A. in Communications from the University of Washington.

The fellows and their credentials are linked here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

Faith by its very definition is believing without logical proof or material evidence.

No, that's foolishness.  Blind faith, some call it.  Faith is belief in something that you know to be true, even when evidence temporarily appears to point the other way.

[RevDisk]

What?  Their own words are a low standard of proof?  Okey doke, their funding comes from folks like Howard Ahmanson Jr., Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the MacLellan Foundation.   These folks use their money to spread Christian teachings and influence.   Nothing wrong with that, it's their money.  However, the bulk of the funding (two thirds) come from groups/individuals with explicitly religious missions and I sincerely doubt that the Discovery Institute is not influenced by the folks that provide the cash.

Okey.  Their own words and their funding are not concrete.  So, let's examine what the Courts think.  This is actually amusing, because Dover, PA is a stone's throw from me.  

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Boards ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.


Judge John E. Jones III, Dover decision

Bit of a re-cap.  Back in Oct 04, the Dover school board required ninth grade biology students to hear a statement at the start of the semester saying that there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, that intelligent design was an alternative and that students could learn more about it by reading a textbook "Of Pandas and People," available in the high school library.  Dover school board was sued, ID was put on trial, judge ruled it inseperably linked to creationism, and thus the parents won the suit.  All of the ID school board members were voted out of their positions back in Nov 2005.  

Pat Robertson warned Dover that be struck by disaster due to the local voters "voted God out of your city."   Thus far, Dover has not been hit by disaster.  Aside from being in York, of course.  


As for my "prejudice and ignorance" for saying the top two folks at the CSC don't have science degrees...   To the best of my knowledge, history, philosophy, goverment and communications are not science degrees.  Again, that's to the best of my knowledge.   Are they considered science degrees at said universities?


I miss anything there?

[Perd Hapley]

Your turn, 1911owner.  

Where are you reading that in Genesis 2?  I only see that statement in relation to the man, in verse 7.  But I may need to polish my glasses.    Regarding the creation of the man, our understanding from the Endowment is that that description of the creation of the man and the woman is only figurative.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

I'm not sure what a figurative creation of the man and woman would mean, and I don't know why you bring it up.  Did someone address that earlier?


When you say the Endowment is "closer to the source, do you mean closer than the other LDS writings, or closer than Genesis?

What Joseph Smith said is that the Bible is true, insofar as it's translated correctly.  I think in our venacular, "transmitted" better captures the sense of what he meant when he said "translated."  Given your comments about the textus receptus, you are clearly familiar with the changes that occur in documents that are transmitted over the course of thousands of years.  These changes are both accidental and deliberate; the deliberate changes include both well-intentioned changes, and those intended to destroy part of the message.

The "deliberate changes...intended to destroy part of the message," I've never heard of.  I'm aware there have been slight copying errors and well-intentioned edits that have been corrected by comparison with other manuscripts.  Apparently, Joseph Smith felt he could do some well-intentioned editing, but whence his authority to do so?  

In a very real sense, all translations of any non-trivial text are mistranslations.

Why should that be?  

More to come.

[Strings]

>I'm aware there have been slight copying errors and well-intentioned edits that have been corrected by comparison with other manuscripts.<

And some that haven't been corrected, because we can't be sure what the original intent is. Case in point: the fate of Lot's wife...

 According to the Bible, she was turned into a pillar of salt. Trick is, the Aramaic word for "salt" is the same word for "steam". It's a minor detail, but would change the story just a bit: from God just being capricious ("you didn't do EXACTLY as I said, so you're screwed") to a "I DID have a reason for telling you this"...

[Perd Hapley]

>I'm aware there have been slight copying errors and well-intentioned edits that have been corrected by comparison with other manuscripts.<

And some that haven't been corrected, because we can't be sure what the original intent is. Case in point: the fate of Lot's wife...

 According to the Bible, she was turned into a pillar of salt. Trick is, the Aramaic word for "salt" is the same word for "steam". It's a minor detail, but would change the story just a bit: from God just being capricious ("you didn't do EXACTLY as I said, so you're screwed") to a "I DID have a reason for telling you this"...

If Wikipedia can be trusted on this point, Moses (and certainly Lot himself) predate the first known sample of written Aramaic by at least a few hundred years.  In any case, I don't know why you would think that Aramaic would have any bearing on the Pentateuch, as it is written entirely in Hebrew (so far as I know).  

I also fail to grasp the theological or practical difference between salt and steam.  Can you elaborate?

And how could God be capricious in punishing a violation of His direct commandment?  

And why can't we know the original intent?

[Strings]

>I also fail to grasp the theological or practical difference between salt and steam.  Can you elaborate?<

Bear in mind that I'm trying to remember something I read a LONG time ago, by a linguist: the original language (supposedly) uses the same word for both "steam" and "salt"...

 If you think about it, turning her into salt really doesn't make much sense: it's an arbitray punishment for looking back. However, think of the method that was used to destroy the city: raining fire and brimstone out of the sky. If she stopped at the crest of a rise to look back at her home (logical: for a last glimpse before it was out of sight), she might have been caught in the "blast", vaporizing her (that's what steam is: vapor).

>And how could God be capricious in punishing a violation of His direct commandment?<

 It reads that way to me: "deny human nature (to take a last look at your home), or be struck down". Changing that one word (to "steam") changes it to a safety warning: "don't stop to look back, because it may cost you your life"...

>And why can't we know the original intent?<

Because we weren't there, to speak to whomever wrote the original piece. Regardless of belief (and who's to say whom's belief is correct?), we can NOT know what the person who wrote the original passage might have meant. We can only take our best educated guess...

 Remember in Genesis, the whole thing of "there were giants in those days"? Find the original word for those "giants" (it's hebrew: "nefilhim", or similar). Now find a literal translation of the word: it's quite different from "giant"...

[m1911owner]

I'm not sure what a figurative creation of the man and woman would mean, and I don't know why you bring it up.  Did someone address that earlier?

I digressed.  

When you say the Endowment is "closer to the source, do you mean closer than the other LDS writings, or closer than Genesis?

I mean that, as I understand it, the ordinance of the Endowment was dictated word-for-word by the Lord.  None of the other accounts of the creation--Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, are of the "Thus saith the Lord" sort of nature.  Not that they aren't heavily inspired writings.  Also, the provenance of Genesis and Abraham is rather iffy--we don't know where they've been.  And while the Book of Moses is a revealed restoration of a text written by Moses, I don't claim to know what that means--is it the English that Moses would have written if he were an Oxford PhD in science, or is it, "here are the places where the King James translation is really, really off base?"  I think it's somewhere between those two extremes, but probably closer to the latter.

I suppose that it's unfair of me, really, to argue from an ordinance that is not available outside the temple.  I brought it up simply to state that the Mormon position on the origin of life is that it was "placed" here, as it has been on other worlds.  That's probably a lot more than most people would say outside the temple about a temple ordinance, and I have to say that I'm a bit uncomfortable about discussing this outside the temple.

The "deliberate changes...intended to destroy part of the message," I've never heard of.  I'm aware there have been slight copying errors and well-intentioned edits that have been corrected by comparison with other manuscripts.

OK, here's one take on the subject, by Margaret Barker, a Methodist scholar with no connection to the Mormon position: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/barker.htm  The Reader's Digest version: The Old Testament was edited by the Jews during the rise of Christianity to remove references to Christ.  She has also written about major changes in the scriptures in the sixth or seventh century B.C.

Apparently, Joseph Smith felt he could do some well-intentioned editing, but whence his authority to do so?

In the Spring of 1820, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and called him to the work that he was to do.  Part of that calling was the responsibility to restore ancient scripture.

On May 15, 1829, a resurrected John the Baptist ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to the Priesthood of Aaron, by the laying on of hands, with the words: "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

A couple months later the resurrected apostles Peter and James, and the apostle John, ordained Joseph Smith to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Joseph was subseqently commanded by the Lord to organize His church on April 6, 1830.

Some time later, the Church was commanded to build a temple in Kirtkand, Ohio.

On April 3, 1836, an open vision in the Kirtland Temple appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.  Jesus Christ appeard, and accepted the temple.  After him came the following:

Moses appeared, and committed unto them "the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north."

Elias appeared, and committed unto them "the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed."

Elijah then appeared and said, "Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi--testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come--To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse--Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors."  (For any Jews who may be reading this, I note that April 3, 1836 happened to be Passover. )

(You may note that the events and the cast of characters here were very much like the Mount of Transfiguration.  We believe that these events had the same purpose--to commit unto Christ in his time, and Joseph in our time, the keys of their dispensations of the Gospel.  (In reading this, it reads like I'm making a parallel between Christ and Joseph Smith--I'm not, except that both were heads of a dispensation of the Gospel, along with Moses, Adam, and I believe one or two others.))


I donno, perhaps Joseph needed a bit more authority for the job.  

In a very real sense, all translations of any non-trivial text are mistranslations.

Why should that be?

That's another hour of typing, and I'm tired.  I'll call it a night, and see if I get back to that question, or we drift off in other interesting directions.

[Perd Hapley]

As for my "prejudice and ignorance" for saying the top two folks at the CSC don't have science degrees...   To the best of my knowledge, history, philosophy, goverment and communications are not science degrees.  Again, that's to the best of my knowledge.   Are they considered science degrees at said universities?

I miss anything there?

I think you may be missing the 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science that I already mentioned.  http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php  If you don't think they have anything to do with "running" the Center, then perhaps it is a difference of opinion.  I did dig up this little bit on the Center's director, though:

[Dr. Meyer] worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.

That's degrees with an s, both of them in science, apparently.  Still, it is a bit odd to imply that someone with "only" a doctoral degree in the history and philosophy of science (from Cambridge no less) is clueless about science.  Odder still when you then appeal to a court as some sort of final authority on the scientific merits of a particular model.  The judges may have no degrees in science, either, but at least we know they're impartial, right?  Odder than them all is that nut, Pat Robertson.  Now there's your anti-intellectual evangelical.  Fortunately, American Christianity is beginning to outgrow that little phase.

What?  Their own words are a low standard of proof?

Who's words they are matters little if they don't speak to the point.  The paragraph you provided from the Wedge Plan simply did not address the influence of Christian creationism on ID or how religious ideas might have corrupted ID research.  Nor did the balance of the document.  Now show me where Dembski, Behe and other actual ID scientists (not merely proponents) have participated in, or been significantly influenced by, Christian creationism prior to their research in ID or where Christian beliefs have caused them to skew or bias their work.  Then show me how pointing out alleged weaknesses of evolutionary theory is identical to the "Thus saith the Lord" of Creation Science.  Again, the smear I referred to was not that they're all Christians, but that ID is just a remodeled creationism.

[Guest]

Wait guys, I need some popcorn before the fun starts.

I think life started out as tiny grains floating in oil, heat from the sun was added and life just popped up in a series of big bangs.

[Lee]

I've never really understood why religion (a creator) and Darwinism are mutually exclusive.  Both beliefs are somewhat credible, yet both have serious flaws.  Once upon a time, questioning the reality of God was a punishable crime, now.. Darwinism has replaced that...at least in higher education.  Some folks believe that life was not CREATED just  because life forms CHANGE and ADAPT?  That's silly...perhaps even sillier than the idea of God being a European-type King sitting on a throne in the sky.    
I certainly have my doubts in the biblical version of world events, but I doubt that life as we know it is totally a result of evolution.  Why are there still apes around?  Why are there many TYPES of apes still around.   Why would a fish lose it's eyesight, glow in the dark, and be built to withstand great pressures and depths, when it would be so much easier to live in shallow water? What advantage drove those fish to those dark, deep waters and forced them to adapt?  Why haven't cockroaches or mosquitoes changed all that much?  
Oh well, when I learn the true answer I'll let you know LOL.

[Perd Hapley]

 I've never really understood why religion (a creator) and Darwinism are mutually exclusive.  Both beliefs are somewhat credible, yet both have serious flaws.  Once upon a time, questioning the reality of God was a punishable crime, now.. Darwinism has replaced that...at least in higher education.  Some folks believe that life was not CREATED just  because life forms CHANGE and ADAPT?  That's silly...perhaps even sillier than the idea of God being a European-type King sitting on a throne in the sky.

Now that much I agree with.  Christianity is not compatible with Darwinism, but other religions might be able to adapt to evolutionary theory.  My only other slight disagreement would be that atheism is probably still legally punished in some parts of the world.  Although we take it for granted these days, mankind is not progressing.

[Preacherman]

I've tried to stay out of this thread, so as to let arguments develop - and boy, have they ever!  I'd suggest that those who are passionate about their positions should relax, take a chill pill, and remember that the purpose of APS is friendly, courteous debate, not mutual acrimony.  The religion thread ("If this is TRUE?") shows what I mean.

As for evolution, Darwinism as originally postulated is now fairly thoroughly discredited - no question about that.  However, "evolution" is no longer considered to refer only to Darwinism.  See Les Jones' blog for a very good summary of the current position - http://www.lesjones.com/posts/003464.shtml .  I agree with his perspective, and I don't think it rules out creation as a beginning at all.

Also, I'd like to point out that all such theories are precisely that - theories.  None of us were around when these things happened.  We can make a more or less educated guess as to how things went down, but we'll never know for sure.  I'm comfortable with that, just as I'm comfortable with knowing that a large chunk of the Old Testament describes events that took place many centuries before they were written about.  We know for sure that the ancient myth about Moses writing the Pentateuch is false - those books came centuries after his death.  (And who ever heard of a writer describing his own funeral in the past tense? )

We live in the midst of uncertainty about where we came from, and where we're going.  We live in today, not yesterday or tomorrow.  If we can't handle uncertainty, then we're going to have a pretty torrid time of it . . .  Who knows what tomorrow will bring?  If global warming is real, and the forecasts of the most alarmist scientists turn out to be correct, most of us in the lower half of the USA will be moving to Montana, the Hudson's Bay area of Canada will turn into the world's next grain basket, and we'll be growing vines and making wine in Alaska.  OK - if that happens, we deal with it.  If it doesn't happen, we deal with that, too.  If the religious faith on which we've based our lives turns out to have mistakes, I guess the best we can do in life is try to live up to all that is good in what we believe.  Rabbi and I may have an interesting afterlife discussing whether we've ended up in the right place or not!

[Perd Hapley]

I'm comfortable with that, just as I'm comfortable with knowing that a large chunk of the Old Testament describes events that took place many centuries before they were written about.  We know for sure that the ancient myth about Moses writing the Pentateuch is false - those books came centuries after his death.  (And who ever heard of a writer describing his own funeral in the past tense? )

Folderol.  I guess Jesus didn't know what he was talking about?

Matthew 19

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.

[Preacherman]

Fistful -

Your comment doesn't invalidate what I said.  The Gospels were written by eye-witnesses to Jesus' life, or those who were their intimate associates.

What are you trying to say?

[Perd Hapley]

Isn't Christ attributing the Pentateuch to Moses?  And why do you claim to "know for sure"?  More precisely, why do you talk as if every scholar agrees with your view?  I'm sure there are some that do, but surely you are aware that there are Bible scholars far more qualified than either of us who hold my view.

I'd like to point out that all such theories are precisely that - theories.  None of us were around when these things happened.  We can make a more or less educated guess as to how things went down, but we'll never know for sure.

[Perd Hapley]

1911owner, first of all let me say that you seem a little hung up on the King James Version.  It is only of many English translations, you know.  If we are to compare the Mormon writings to anything, it would be to the Bible itself.  That is, the text in its original languages.  


I'm still quite baffled by your statement that the Endowment is "closer to the source."  You say it was dictated directly from God.  But certainly there was no human observer to record the first five and a half days of creation, so God must have dictated Genesis 1 as well.  Some theorize, and I agree, that he gave it to Adam and that Genesis was a compilation of already-ancient inspired texts, of which Moses was the inspired editor.  But you take the more common opinion that Moses received it directly from God.  What makes you think that Moses received it in any less authoritative a manner than that in which Smith received his Endowment?  I base this on the following comments.

Rather, in my opinion, the purpose of Genesis 1 is to tell us something about how this world came to be, how we got here, and what our relationship is to God.  The text was given to Moses, in his language, according to the understanding of a people who had just escaped from four hundred years of slavery....

In that context, I don't think that Lord was terribly concerned with telling this band of runaway slaves.  His point was to tell them where they came from, not to instruct them on how to create a world....

I mean that, as I understand it, the ordinance of the Endowment was dictated word-for-word by the Lord.  None of the other accounts of the creation--Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, are of the "Thus saith the Lord" sort of nature.  Not that they aren't heavily inspired writings.

That's probably a lot more than most people would say outside the temple about a temple ordinance, and I have to say that I'm a bit uncomfortable about discussing this outside the temple.

I hope you will not be too greatly offended by this question, but it is a hard one to ask nicely.  Doesn't this secrecy seem a little cult-ish to you?  What is the reason for it?

[Marnoot]

I hope you will not be too greatly offended by this question, but it is a hard one to ask nicely.  Doesn't this secrecy seem a little cult-ish to you?  What is the reason for it?

Allow me to jump in here, although I know you were addressing m1911owner. I'm personally not offended by the question, because I know that that's how alot of people see us re: the temples. The fact is, that all who so desire, have accepted the gospel (yes, that implicitly implies membership in the church), and keep themselves worthy may enter the temple. It's not a matter of secrecy, it's a matter of sacredness. The temple ceremony involves sacred covenants and ordinances that we do not discuss outside the temple, even in private with others who have been through the temple.

I've heard all kinds of laughable rumors from people about what goes on in the temple, ranging from "they sacrifice chickens in there" to all kinds of strange improprieties that are supposed to occur during the marriage(sealing) ceremonies. What goes on in the temple is sacred and beautfully simple. No, we don't discuss it in any detail outside of the temple, but as stated it's not because we don't want others to learn of it, but because the Lord has told us that the things taught there, and the covenants taken should be held sacred, and revealed only to those who are prepared to understand them. And that right there is why we might appear to hold to secrecy (though, again, I find sacred more accurate). It's one part not revealing things to someone until they are prepared to understand it, and one part not "casting pearls."

[m1911owner]

Thank you Marnoot for jumping in there.  That is exactly what I would have tried to say, and you expressed it much more clearly than I would likely have done.

I'll make a brief aside about an interesting irony.  One of the subthreads in this conversation is about the accuracy or lack thereof of translations.  Yet here we have a conversation between people who speak the same language, yea, who are extremely fluent and competent in that language, having spoken it since around the age of two, yet we have to go back and forth to clarify what people meant in comments they made.  And this is normal--we're not having a hard time communicating, it's just a difficult task to take big concepts that live in our brains and try to convert them to a few words.  Then compare that to the task of accurately rendering what was in the mind of an author three thousand+ years ago, speaking a language that we no longer really know what many of the words meant, in a cultural context that we don't understand, and from a copy of the text that has thousands of years of scribal errors and deliberate changes.

Regarding my first attempt to address my "closest to the source" comment: I didn't answer that very well.  

Firstly, I need to correct a mistake on my part.  In my attempt to clarify my comment, I said that the Genesis account of the creation isn't of the "Thus saith the Lord" nature.  That was an incorrect statement on my part; that section of Genesis was indeed dictated by the Lord to Moses while he was on Sinai.

Here is another attempt to convey what was originally in my mind when I made the statement that the Endowment is "closest to the source."

1.  By far the biggest idea in my mind was that the text of Genesis has been through thousands of years of transmission, with an unknown level of changes--they may have been minimal, or there could have been major changes along the way.  We just can't tell by looking at the text that we now have.  That is mostly what I meant by "closest to the source"--the text we now have is much closer in a "chain of custody" sense to when it left the mouth of the Lord.  (And I emphasize that this in no way says that the Genesis account is somehow unworthy, only that it has potentially accumulated more "noise" than the Endowment.)

2.  The Endowment was given to us in English, so there aren't the issues with translation from a 3000+ year-old language where we don't even know what many of the words mean.

3.  It was given in our cultural context, according to our understanding.

These things said, my comment about the Endowment being "closest to the source" wasn't  important to my argument--remove that clause from the sentence, and nothing changes.

Some theorize, and I agree, that he gave it to Adam and that Genesis was a compilation of already-ancient texts, of which Moses was the editor.  But you take the more common opinion that Moses received it directly from God.  What makes you think that Moses received it in any less authoritative a manner than that in which Smith received his Endowment?

Regarding sources, the Book of Moses says that the Lord gave the creation account in Genesis to Moses when he was on Sinai.  The Book of Abraham says that the Lord revealed a very similar account to Abraham.  I also believe that Adam and probably others were given accounts of the creation.

The numbered list above is what I originally had in mind when I said that the Endowment is "closest to the source."  But, the idea of one account being "better" than the others wasn't really what I was trying to communicate--that point was largely irrelevant to what I was attempting to say.   Rather, my point was that the different accounts, while telling largely the same story, have different bits of information in them, which give us additional insights into the creation process.

1911owner, first of all let me say that you seem a little hung up on the King James Version.  It is only of many English translations, you know.

I refer to the King James Bible because for centuries it was the English Bible upon which much of the discussion by English-speaking people about biblical subjects was based.  Specifically in this case, regarding the creation.  In many or most cases, newer versions of the English Bible reflect the same theological biases as does the King James text.  For example, I mentioned earlier that reasonable people have suggested that a perfectly good translation of the beginning of Genesis is, "In the beginning, the gods formed and organized the heavens and the earth.  And the earth was empty and desolate."  Yet, no version of the Bible that I know reads that way.  Because Hebrew and English are different languages, one unavoidably must choose one way or the orther (or probably 99 others) to render the passage into English.  The King James translators made a choice that was consistent with their theological understanding.  Subsequent English Bibles have pretty much fallen in lock step with those choices.

In its laziest sense, I say "King James translators" simply because that is the phrase I often see in my reading when people are talking about the English text of the scriptures.


I'd like to return for a moment to the point I originally made when I entered this thread.  The account of the creation presented in the temple shows God the Father commanding Jehovah to "place" the various plants and animals here, "as we have done in worlds we have heretofore formed."  (I  note on the other hand that the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham both reflect the language of Genesis 2:19, that Jehovah formed all these things out of the ground.)

Why are the accounts different?  I don't know.

Earlier, I suggested that a full account of the creation would fill the Library of Congress for just the first chapter.  The accounts that the Lord has given to us are much shorter than lot, so He has clearly has omitted a great deal from those accounts.  My belief about the differences in the accounts is that He has, for whatever reason, chosen different pieces of the whole to present in the different accounts.  Is life being "formed out of the ground" incompatible with it being "placed" here?  Perhaps, or perhaps not.  I don't have a problem with considering "formed out of the ground" as metaphorical.  He had a lot of information to convey, and this may have been the shorthand he used to describe populating this world with life.  On the other hand, I don't claim to know what the Hebrew that we now read as "formed out of the ground" meant to Moses; there could well be an understanding that he had of those words that we lack.  Am I saying that this is the case?  No.  I'm simply pointing out that there are many reasons why an ancient text that appears to be at odds with another text may not be at odds with it at all.  Joseph Smith certainly doesn't appear to have been uncomfortable with bringing forth two accounts that say "formed out of the ground", along with one that says "placed."

Ultimately, the point of my original post was to consider the possibility that perhaps life was neither evolved here nor created ex nihilo, but placed here from elsewhere by the Lord.