FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun: Difference between revisions
< Book of Abraham | Astronomy
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The Book of Abraham quote cited in the criticism above has inspired both faithful attempts at explanation, as well as critical attempts, including the interpretation found on the web site where this criticism appeared. The wording of Joseph Smith’s explanation of Figure 5 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham is, in fact, very difficult to interpret. Let’s see what some of our options are. | The Book of Abraham quote cited in the criticism above has inspired both faithful attempts at explanation, as well as critical attempts, including the interpretation found on the web site where this criticism appeared. The wording of Joseph Smith’s explanation of Figure 5 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham is, in fact, very difficult to interpret. Let’s see what some of our options are. | ||
* On a fundamental level, light in the form of photons reacts with matter by being reflected or refracted after being ''absorbed''. When something heats up when it has been exposed to light, it is because it is absorbing the light energy and storing some of it as heat. | * Energy is never destroyed. It can only change form or be stored when it is absorbed in some fashion, or re-emitted as some sort of radiation. On a fundamental level, light in the form of photons reacts with matter by being reflected or refracted ''after'' being ''absorbed''. When something heats up when it has been exposed to light, it is because it is absorbing the light energy and storing some of it as heat. When heat is emitted, that is still light, but it is invisible, and is known as infra-red radiation. The only type of refraction on light that does not involve absorption is gravitational lensing, when gravity acts on photons in to distort their path. In the case of reflection, such as with a mirror, part of the light is reflected back out that hit the surface of the medium. ([http://www.telescope-optics.net/reflection.htm]). In the case of refraction, such as with water or with a lens of some kind, an image is distorted, or the light passing through is changed in its direction. In the case of a prism or a rain-drop, which are types of lenses, the light is split into into its spectra, because the photons are spread out in a bunch of different direction at different wavelengths. In the case of regular "things" that have one "color," light from a light bulb, or from the sun, is absorbed and re-emitted at only one certain wavelength. Now, with a classic light bulb, electric energy is fed into a filament made of some kind of metal. The energy passing through the metal causes it to emit the energy as both light and heat. In the case of a magnifying glass, where the light can burn something, the refraction causes a focusing of all the photons on one point. A laser works in a similar way where a stream of photons is concentrated using lenses and mirrors. The key here in ''all'' interactions between regular matter made of atoms and photons is that the light is ''absorbed'' into the matter, and then re-emitted as light photons once again. The photons never really ''bounce off'' the matter when reflected, nor does it ever really ''pass through'' the matter when refracted. It is always absorbed and re-emitted in some form. That is the key principle to focus on here, pun intended. | ||
*In the Solar System, we observe that planets and moons that do not give off their own visible light reflect the light that they receive from the Sun. That light has been absorbed by the surface of such bodies, and re-emitted. However, we note that Jupiter itself, being very large, and having other sources of energy internally gives off more energy than it receives from the Sun in the form of heat and so forth ([http://nineplanets.org/jupiter.html]). But this fact still does not stop it from being true that Jupiter does indeed receive visible light from the Sun. Jupiter, earth, and the other planets of the Solar System do indeed receive light from other stars, even though we receive ''most'' of our light from the Sun. Now, if we extrapolate further from these facts that we have just noted, it is also true that the Sun receives light from other stars, just like we do on earth, because they are visible to us in the night sky. But that light is miniscule compared to the light that the Sun puts out on its own power from its own internal sources (just as in the case of Jupiter). So, just because a celestial orb has its own power source internally, it ''still does borrow light from other celestial orbs''. Or in other words, when a photon hits the surface Sun, the matter in the Sun absorbs it, just like any other matter would when hit with a photon. So, just because the light the Sun receives from other stars is miniscule, ''it is still true that it does receive and absorb such light''. That energy that is absorbed from other sources is part of the sum of the output of the energy from the sun. The Book of Abraham may be referring only to the light that is reflected or borrowed, and is simply not focusing on the light or energy that is internally generated. | *In the Solar System, we observe that planets and moons that do not give off their own visible light reflect the light that they receive from the Sun. That light has been absorbed by the surface of such bodies, and re-emitted. However, we note that Jupiter itself, being very large, and having other sources of energy internally gives off more energy than it receives from the Sun in the form of heat and so forth ([http://nineplanets.org/jupiter.html]). But this fact still does not stop it from being true that Jupiter does indeed receive visible light from the Sun. Jupiter, earth, and the other planets of the Solar System do indeed receive light from other stars, even though we receive ''most'' of our light from the Sun. Now, if we extrapolate further from these facts that we have just noted, it is also true that the Sun receives light from other stars, just like we do on earth, because they are visible to us in the night sky. But that light is miniscule compared to the light that the Sun puts out on its own power from its own internal sources (just as in the case of Jupiter). So, just because a celestial orb has its own power source internally, it ''still does borrow light from other celestial orbs''. Or in other words, when a photon hits the surface Sun, the matter in the Sun absorbs it, just like any other matter would when hit with a photon. So, just because the light the Sun receives from other stars is miniscule, ''it is still true that it does receive and absorb such light''. That energy that is absorbed from other sources is part of the sum of the output of the energy from the sun. The Book of Abraham may be referring only to the light that is reflected or borrowed, and is simply not focusing on the light or energy that is internally generated. | ||
Revision as of 02:14, 30 June 2011
| Answers portal |
| The Book of Abraham |
 RESOURCES
|
|---|
|
FAQ:
Book of Abraham content: Production: |
 PERSPECTIVES
|
 MEDIA
|
| OTHER PORTALS
|
|
Questions
== The Book of Abraham states that “the sun [is said] to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power (Abraham Fac 2,Fig 5),” while astrophysics has shown that “The Sun shines ... because of thermonuclear fusion. It does not get its light from any other star.”
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here
==Detailed Analysis
== There are many scriptures or statements by the prophets that seem to have scientific implications. Unfortunately, they are never couched in modern scientific terms and their meanings are often very obscure. Some faithful saints have made attempts to interpret such things in a way that tries to harmonize them with some current view of science. While some may think that is not the best thing to do, because it is very speculative, at least these faithful explanations have been made in good faith. For example, some saints have made attempts to harmonize the theory of evolution with the gospel. Another example is that some saints have tried to explain the Book of Mormon using current archaeology. It is true that these types of suggestions made by such faithful saints are not authoritative or binding on the Church. But they are genuine, apologetic attempts to come to an understanding, and to build faith. However, they must be treated with extreme caution as anything else must be on subjects that are unsettled.
However, it is definitely a foolish thing that faithless critics purposely try to interpret things that are uncertain in a way that is most at odds with current scientific thought. These explanations by critics are most often made in bad faith, to try to put the Church, its leaders and its scriptures in a bad light. The fact that critics make such interpretations is a straw man tactic, where they try to make the Book of Abraham and other scriptures to say things when there is no evidence that they actually mean such a thing.
The Book of Abraham quote cited in the criticism above has inspired both faithful attempts at explanation, as well as critical attempts, including the interpretation found on the web site where this criticism appeared. The wording of Joseph Smith’s explanation of Figure 5 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham is, in fact, very difficult to interpret. Let’s see what some of our options are.
- Energy is never destroyed. It can only change form or be stored when it is absorbed in some fashion, or re-emitted as some sort of radiation. On a fundamental level, light in the form of photons reacts with matter by being reflected or refracted after being absorbed. When something heats up when it has been exposed to light, it is because it is absorbing the light energy and storing some of it as heat. When heat is emitted, that is still light, but it is invisible, and is known as infra-red radiation. The only type of refraction on light that does not involve absorption is gravitational lensing, when gravity acts on photons in to distort their path. In the case of reflection, such as with a mirror, part of the light is reflected back out that hit the surface of the medium. ([1]). In the case of refraction, such as with water or with a lens of some kind, an image is distorted, or the light passing through is changed in its direction. In the case of a prism or a rain-drop, which are types of lenses, the light is split into into its spectra, because the photons are spread out in a bunch of different direction at different wavelengths. In the case of regular "things" that have one "color," light from a light bulb, or from the sun, is absorbed and re-emitted at only one certain wavelength. Now, with a classic light bulb, electric energy is fed into a filament made of some kind of metal. The energy passing through the metal causes it to emit the energy as both light and heat. In the case of a magnifying glass, where the light can burn something, the refraction causes a focusing of all the photons on one point. A laser works in a similar way where a stream of photons is concentrated using lenses and mirrors. The key here in all interactions between regular matter made of atoms and photons is that the light is absorbed into the matter, and then re-emitted as light photons once again. The photons never really bounce off the matter when reflected, nor does it ever really pass through the matter when refracted. It is always absorbed and re-emitted in some form. That is the key principle to focus on here, pun intended.
- In the Solar System, we observe that planets and moons that do not give off their own visible light reflect the light that they receive from the Sun. That light has been absorbed by the surface of such bodies, and re-emitted. However, we note that Jupiter itself, being very large, and having other sources of energy internally gives off more energy than it receives from the Sun in the form of heat and so forth ([2]). But this fact still does not stop it from being true that Jupiter does indeed receive visible light from the Sun. Jupiter, earth, and the other planets of the Solar System do indeed receive light from other stars, even though we receive most of our light from the Sun. Now, if we extrapolate further from these facts that we have just noted, it is also true that the Sun receives light from other stars, just like we do on earth, because they are visible to us in the night sky. But that light is miniscule compared to the light that the Sun puts out on its own power from its own internal sources (just as in the case of Jupiter). So, just because a celestial orb has its own power source internally, it still does borrow light from other celestial orbs. Or in other words, when a photon hits the surface Sun, the matter in the Sun absorbs it, just like any other matter would when hit with a photon. So, just because the light the Sun receives from other stars is miniscule, it is still true that it does receive and absorb such light. That energy that is absorbed from other sources is part of the sum of the output of the energy from the sun. The Book of Abraham may be referring only to the light that is reflected or borrowed, and is simply not focusing on the light or energy that is internally generated.
- It is known that Joseph Smith hid his seer-stone in a hat, and somehow he was able to view some kind of light that emitted from it. That energy that powered that photon emission from the stone came from somewhere, and the stone clearly had no internal light source. Therefore, the stone was absorbing energy from somewhere in some form and re-emitting it in the form of photons. Similarly, the Jaredite light sources were clear stones that the Lord touched that emitted light somehow, not from some internal power source. Therefore, these were gathering energy from some other source, and re-emitting it as photons. Seer stones have been referred to as a type of Urim and Thummim. The scriptures tell us that celestial planets will be great Urims and Thummims (D&C 130: 8-10). When a star explodes in a supernova, what is really happening is that the star's immense atmosphere has been shed. Sometimes the remnant left over is known as a "white dwarf." This remnant is actually the star's original solid core that used to be in the center of the star before the explosion ([3]). Recent science has demonstrated that some white dwarfs are actually composed of highly compressed carbon that amassed from fusion reactions, making it a large diamond ([4]). If it is true that a rock such as a seer-stone can receive energy and re-emit that as light somehow, and that light is discernible in a dark place like a hat, then it is no more far-fetched to suggest that a star's solid core that is a diamond can act as a Urim and Thummim to receive and re-emit light received from some other source. Our own Sun has that very type of a solid core, and therefore, if this theory hold's true, aside from the fact that the Sun has nuclear reactions in it, also, the Sun's core is a Urim and Thummim that receives energy from other energy sources and re-emits it. If we examine what is happening with the auroras on the earth, the earth's internal magnetic field from the core of the earth is deflecting the charged particles coming from the sun to the poles, and that energy is being absorbed into the atmosphere of the earth from the charged particles. And it is being re-emitted as light energy in the polar regions. Jupiter and other large planets also have large magnetic fields and aurora in the polar regions. It is not far fetched to suggest that perhaps the Sun's immense magnetic fields similarly deflect cosmic rays and other types of energy in charged particles to be absorbed inwards, and then to be re-emitted, following similar principles as how the aurora function on the planets of the solar system.
- Another suggestion is this: To “borrow” means to receive with the intention of returning, especially said of a material object or substance. It may also mean to take and adopt as one’s own, especially said of abstractions or ideas, as in “the composer borrowed his harmonic structure from Bach’s Fugue in D Major.” So what does it mean for the sun to “borrow” its light from Kolob? Is light a material or an abstraction? Does the Sun intend to repay the light it borrowed?
- What, in fact, is meant by 'light' in this context? Doctrine & Covenants 88:7–13, in wording strongly reminiscent of our Book of Abraham quote, states “7 ...this is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space — 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things (emphasis added).” These verses are clearly NOT talking about electromagnetic radiation. Does anyone have a convincing explanation of what they ARE talking about?
- A “medium” can mean a material through which some signal propagates or a means or channel through which something is achieved. What does it mean here? Does it refer to a material or a means?
- What is Kae-e-vanrash? The Book of Abraham says that it is a “grand Key,” or “governing power.” What does that mean? Is Kae-e-vanrash a term for nuclear reactions, gravitation, cosmic rays? Or is it a more spiritual medium such as priesthood or faith, or an organizational structure, or a means used for administrative communications?
And, finally, what are we to understand about the nature of Book of Abraham astronomy? Is it a revelation from God to Abraham explaining the structure of the universe as it would be seen by the astronomers of our day? That is the position of a number of scholars such as Michael Rhodes and J. Ward Moody in the chapter entitled "Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham," Chapter 2 in the book Astronomy, Papyrus and Covenant, the third volume in the series Studies in the Book of Abraham.
Others have another theory that the Book of Abraham represents an ancient "Geocentric" cosmology. John Gee is one of these scholars. Gee, as well as William J. Hamblin and Daniel C. Peterson published their views on this as well in the same book in Chapter 1, entitled "'And I Saw The Stars', The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy." We remember that “The Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.” Abraham 3:15, so that, as John Gee has suggested ("The Larger Issue"), this is simply the teaching that would be easiest for the Egyptians to understand — one that would teach them that Elohim, who dwells near Kolob, rules over than the sun-god, Amen-Re?
Another author has suggested that the Book of Abraham is both a Geocentric cosmology, as well as a cosmology revealed for our day that was intended to be in harmony with modern scientific knowledge. He suggests that the Lord intended it to come forth in a day when it could be understood. He notes that most ancient cosmologies, rather than being solar centric, were actually pole-star centric. The pole star and other geocentric asterisms or constellations are just symbols of the greater reality that God was trying to teach Abraham for the Egyptians. He says that the Book of Abraham Cosmology, when understood in conjunction with what is presented in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, shows that some central region in space is occupied by large celestial bodies that govern the Sun and other stars gravitationally. The pole-star is a geocentric omphalos, a symbol of this central region around which all else revolves. From a geocentric point of view, the central hieroglyph in the hypocephalus (Facsimile #2 of the Book of Abraham, figure #1) is the pole-star. From a real-life point of view, it is Kolob and the central region of space that it gravitationally dominates, as a grand real-life omphalos. So in that author's view, the Book of Abraham actually teaches both a Geocentric cosmology as well as an understanding that was revealed to Abraham that is compatible with modern scientific views, the one being a mere reflection of the other.
==Answer
== Until someone can make a convincing case that their interpretation of these things is the only reasonable one, any faith-promoting proof from Abraham’s astronomy is a flimsy house of cards and any faith-destroying attack on some straw-man interpretation is laughable. Among the more speculative interpretations is the idea that Abraham taught that the photons leaving the surface of the sun originally came from Kolob. Whether any of the photons leaving the surface of the sun come from energy originally emitted from other stars is simply unknown. Such things must be viewed with extreme caution.
== Notes == None
Further reading
FAIR Wiki
Mormonism and the determination of truth
Jump to Subtopic:
- Are Mormonism and science compatible?
- The "burning in the bosom" in Mormonism as a method of determining truth
Latter-day Saint approaches to science
Jump to Subtopic:
- Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
- The Book of Mormon and DNA evidence
- Mormonism and the reconciliation of the Flood of Noah with scripture and Church teachings
Astronomy and the Book of Abraham
Summary: The Book of Abraham makes several references to astronomy which draw criticism. These articles address specific issues related to Book of Abraham astronomical concepts.
Jump to Subtopic:
Book of Mormon archaeology
Jump to Subtopic:
- Biblical archaeology compared to the Book of Mormon
- Thomas Stuart Ferguson and Mormon archaeology
- DNA and the Book of Mormon
- The Hill Cumorah
- Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook plates
- Question: What is the New World Archaeological Foundation? What does it have to do with the Book of Mormon?
- The potential relationship between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus Christ
- Question: Does the Smithsonian Institution send out a letter regarding the use of the Book of Mormon as a guide for archaeological research?
- "Zelph" and Book of Mormon geography
- The Flood
DNA and the Book of Mormon
Jump to details:
- Source:Book of Mormon and DNA Studies:Gospel Topics:Basic principles of population genetics suggest the need for a more careful approach to the data
- Questions: What are the criticisms related to the Book of Mormon and DNA?
- Question: Do Christian critics of the Book of Mormon have a double standard regarding DNA evidence?
- Question: What scriptures in the Book of Mormon affirm the presence of other people in the Book of Mormon in the New World?
- Question: What scriptures might challenge the view of a limited geography and the Nephites not being alone on the continent or other issues regarding DNA?
Latter-day Saint attitudes toward science
Jump to Subtopic:
- Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that men would never walk on the moon
- Brigham Young's beliefs related to science and education
- Mormonism and education: Modern perspectives
- Utah statistical claims and charges
Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that men would never walk on the moon
Jump to details:
- Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith state that man would never visit the moon?
- Question: Was Joseph Fielding Smith issuing a prophecy when he said that men would never walk on the moon?
- Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith acknowledge that he was wrong when he said that Man would never walk on the Moon?
Teachings |
|
History |
|
Race |
|
Critics |
Did Brigham Young actually teach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?
Brigham Young speculated that the moon and sun were inhabited: he was clearly expressing an opinion
Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited,
So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.
Brigham is clearly expressing an opinion, and there is no evidence that he is making a prophetic declaration concerning extraterrestrials. He even goes out of his way to indicate that this is what he "rather think[s]," and asks his congregation to consider what they think. He also says that he would want to know if an idea he has is false—even including his religion. These are not the sentiments of a man convinced he must be right by divine gift of prophetic omniscience.
It is particularly ironic that Brigham's remarks were focused on the fact that no one knows much about anything, and so humility is appropriate on most questions. Critics have taken this wise stance, and have tried to invert Brigham's intent—changing him from an advocate of humility before the unknown into a doctrinaire know-nothing who is certain of absurdities. The critics might do well do follow Brigham's example.
Brigham Young made the following statement in 1869:[1]
It has been observed here this morning that we are called fanatics. Bless me! That is nothing. Who has not been called a fanatic who has discovered anything new in philosophy or science? We have all read of Galileo the astronomer who, contrary to the system of astronomy that had been received for ages before his day, taught that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre of our planetary system? For this the learned astronomer was called "fanatic," and subjected to persecution and imprisonment of the most rigorous character. So it has been with others who have discovered and explained new truths in science and philosophy which have been in opposition to long-established theories; and the opposition they have encountered has endured until the truth of their discoveries has been demonstrated by time...
I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us.
The context for Brigham's remarks, then, are that new ideas and truths are often mocked or rejected by those who cling to older ideas. And, were he to have such an idea, he would want to know.
He then says:
We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.
Brigham goes on to speak about inhabitants of the moon. In context, his point is clearly that no one;—even experts—knows very much about the universe. There are many things (such as whether the moon is inhabited) about which no one of his day could speak clearly.
It then becomes very clear that Brigham is expressing his personal views, not laying down divine truth from on high
So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.
Brigham is obviously expressing his opinion, but his point remains that no one knows very much about such things. To reject a novel idea simply because it is new—such as Mormonism—is irrational. All true ideas were once new, and treated with suspicion.
William Herschel—the preeminent astronomer of his generation and the man to discover Uranus—was also firmly of the belief that the sun was inhabited.[2] One author wrote:
Herschel was not a raving amateur. A gifted astronomer, he discovered Uranus, and was the first to realize that sunlight included infrared light as well as visible light. His sister, Caroline, became famous in her own right for discovering comets, so he did not lack for intelligent conversation. He just had his own theories. Herschel believed that life existed on every celestial body in the universe. He was aware that the sun people saw was too hot to support life. He just assumed there was something underneath that burning atmosphere. When he observed sunspots, he believed that they were openings in the atmosphere, or perhaps mountains, and that if people could get a close look at the planet beneath, they would be able to spot signs of life. Herschel was not alone in his beliefs - as more information on the sun turned up, astronomers speculated on how it would affect life on the surface of the sun, and what kind of life might survive in those environments.[3]
Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter
Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter:
1856
Desert News noted:
Proof that the Moon is not Inhabited.
"Dr. Scoresby, in an account that he has given of some recent observations made with the Earl of Rosse’s telescope, says: ‘With respect to the moon, every object on its surface of 100 feet was distinctly to be seen; and he had no doubt that, under very favorable circumstances, it would be so with objects 60 feet in height…. But no vestiges of architecture remain to show that the moon, is, or ever was, inhabited by a race of mortals similar to ourselves….. There was no water visible…."[4]
1880
- "As there is no air nor water on the moon, but very few changes can take place upon its surface. There can be no vegetation and no animals, and although many astronomers have brought their imaginations to bear upon this subject, and have given us descriptions of the beautiful scenery upon its surface, and have even peopled it with inhabitants, we have every reason to believe that it is as barren and lifeless as an arid rock."[5]
Joseph Smith and Moon Quakers?
Summary: A late third-hand account attributes a similar idea to Joseph Smith.Critical sources |
|
Did Brigham Young claim that too much education was damaging to children?
Brigham was giving instruction on the building of schools
Brigham said:
Concerning the Education of Children I will say that not withstanding the drivings of this people I do not believe that you can go into any City in the world & pick up 100 Children promiscusly and put them by the side of our Children that are as well educated as the same number of our Children gathered up promiscusly in the Territory of Utah. There are some people & Countries who force & whip their Children into an Education but we should never Croud & force the minds of our Children beyond what they are able to bear. If we do we ruin them for life. I would rather my children would spend their Early life sliding down Hill, skating, riding Horses till they were 20 years old & not go to school one day than to clog & force the mind while young with intricate studies. It strains & cripples the mind for life & ruins the man. You never see a child that is Confined while young to Close rooms & hard study & followed up to manhood that ever becomes a master spirit or qualifyed to transact difficult business in after life (emphasis added).
Brigham was highly in favor of education; he was not, however, in favor of "whipping," "forcing" or "confining" young minds and bodies "beyond what they are able to bear"
In this sense, he was well in line with what educational thinkers and reformers of the 19th century were saying:
...as the historian Kenneth Gold has pointed out, the early educational reformers were also tremendously concerned that children not get too much schooling. In 1871, for example, the US commissioner of education published a report by Edward Jarvis on the "Relation of Education to Insanity." Jarvis had studied 1,741 cases of insanity and concluded that "over-study" was responsible for 205 of them. "Education lays the foundation of a large portion of the causes of mental disorder," Jarvis wrote. Similarly, the pioneer of public education in Massachusetts, Horace Mann, believed that working students too hard would create a "most pernicious influence upon character and habits....Not infrequently is health itself destroyed by over-stimulating the mind." In the education journals of the day, there were constant worries about overtaxing students or blunting their natural abilities through too much schoolwork.
The reformers, Gold writes:
strove for ways to reduce time spent studying, because long periods of respite could save the mind from injury. Hence the elimination of Saturday classes, the shortening of the school day, and the lengthening of vacation—all of which occurred over the course of the nineteenth century. Teachers were cautioned that 'when [students] are required to study, their bodies should not be exhausted by long confinement, nor their minds bewildered by prolonged application.' Rest also presented particular opportunities for strengthening cognitive and analytical skills. As one contributor to the Massachusetts Teacher suggested, 'it is when thus relieved from the state of tension belonging to actual study that boys and girls, as well as men and women, acquire the habit of thought and reflection, and of forming their own conclusions, independently of what they are taught and the authority of others."[6]
For an extensive analysis of Brigham's positive views on education, see Hugh W. Nibley, Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints (Vol. 13 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by Don E. Norton, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994), chapter 15-16. ISBN 0875798187. direct off-site direct off-site
Notes
- ↑ Brigham Young, "The Gospel—The One-Man Power," (24 July 1870) Journal of Discourses 13:270.
- ↑ "...in 1795 [Herschel] published one of his most extraordinary papers, 'On the Nature and Construction of the sun', with the Royal Society, suggesting that the sun had a cool, solid interior and was inhabited by intelligent beings." [Richard Holmes, The Age of Wonder (London: Harper Press, 2008), 199.]
- ↑ Esther Inglis-Arkell, "Astronomers once thought there was life on the sun," io9. (20 December 2013)
- ↑ Deseret News 6 (1856): 134d.
- ↑ ‘Quebec,’ "The Moon", Contributor 1/9 (June 1880): 193-5, from page 195
- ↑ Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 2008), 253–254.
Mormonism and education: Modern perspectives
Jump to details:
- Question: Does increasing education among Mormons lead to decreased faith or religious practice?
- Question: Does the Church forbid the reading of "anti-Mormon" criticisms, or discourage its members from considering such matters?
Utah statistical claims and charges
Summary: This page indexes attacks and criticism of the Church based upon statistical analysis.
Jump to Subtopic:
- Question: Why does Utah lead the United States in subscriptions to online adult entertainment?
- Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?
- Question: Is it true that Utah has the highest personal bankruptcy rate in the United States?
- Question: Is the suicide rate in Utah higher than the national average?
- Question: Is the rate of antidepressant use in Utah much higher among Mormons than the general population?
- Question: In Utah, are more people leaving the Church than are joining the Church?
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Does the Church teach that the flood was a global event?
Church leaders typically treat the flood as global
Church leaders typically treat the flood as global. The challenge comes when Genesis is read as a scientific account. This reading is then contrasted with modern scientific data showing the diversity of plant and animal life, and the complete lack of evidence for a global flood in the geological or archaeological record.
The concept of a spherical earth did not appear in Jewish thought until the fourteenth or fifteenth century
The concept of a spherical earth "did not appear in Jewish thought until the fourteenth or fifteenth century." [1]:30 The word "earth," as used in the Bible, simply refers to solid ground or land, as opposed to water (see Genesis 1:10—"God called the dry land Earth; and...the waters called he Seas...."). It is, of course, possible that earlier prophets had a more advanced view of the nature of the earth—this perspective could, however, have been lost to later centuries and scribes.
| Related article: | How did ancient Israel picture the world and the universe? Summary: A spherical earth with stars and planets was not how Israel understood the world. Instead, they saw it as a flat disc, with an underworld beneath, and a rigid dome over top for the heavens. |
Some read these scriptures as describing the point of view of ancient prophets to whom the flood appeared global.
Genesis 7꞉19-23 reads:
- And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
For those who approach the matter in this way, the primary reason for seeing the flood as global comes from the word "earth." When modern readers see the word "earth," they envision the entire planetary sphere. Dr. Duane E. Jeffery elaborates:
A critical issue in the Flood story in the King James Bible has to do with translations of the Hebrew words eretz and adamah as meaning the entire "earth." What do these terms actually mean? It is widely recognized that Hebrew is a wonderful language for poets, since virtually every word has multiple meanings. But that same characteristic makes it a horrible language for precision. As it turns out, eretz and adamah can indeed be a geographical reference akin to what we usually mean by "the earth." But it is not at all clear that the ancients had the concept of a spherical planet that you and I do. Many scholars argue that the Bible writers thought in terms of a flat earth that was covered by a bowl-shaped firmament into which the windows of heaven were literally cut[1]:31-32
Jeffrey goes on to note that ideas of a global flood may have resulted from a widespread local problem. A current hypothesis that has been gaining ground since 1998 is that a significant flooding event occurred in the area now occupied by the Black Sea. Evidence has been discovered which has led a number of researchers to believe that the Black Sea area was once occupied by a completely isolated freshwater lake at a much lower level than the ocean. The theory is that the sea level rose and eventually broke through the Bosporus shelf, resulting in a rapid flooding event which would have wiped out all life living along the shores of the lake (see p. 34). Whether this is the source for the Genesis flood remains conjecture.
Thus, with this reading the prophets said and meant "the enitre world" but they had a quite different view of what the whole world entailed than we would.
What is genre?
The difficulty with the above, however, is that it reads ancient scripture to address questions that the scripture was probably never meant to address.
Those who study biblical and other texts often talk about the genre of a piece of writing. Genre describes the type of writing that is being studied.
One genre is history; another genre is fiction; another genre is poetry. Readers usually know what genre they are reading, and they adjust their expectations and their way of reading accordingly.
For example, if someone thought that the Lord of the Rings was in the history genre, they might consider it a terribly deceptive work. It describes events and powers for which we have no other evidence. If, however, the reader understands that its genre is fantasy fiction, then the reader expects different things.
Walter Moberly said:
You cannot put good questions and expect fruitful answers from a text apart from a grasp of the kind of material it is in the first place; misjudge the genre, and you may skew many of the things you try to do with the text.[2]
(The 1999 movie Galaxy Quest plays on this idea of mistaken genre—a group of aliens mistake the genre of a Star Trek-like television show. They refer to the show as "historical documents," and believe that the actors really are spacefarers on a spaceship.[3] This is an error of genre, and much of the movie's humor and plot is driven by the contrasts between the expectations of adventure fiction versus historical reality.)
What is "concordism"?
Modern Church leaders and members have sometimes read the flood story in the genre of what we might call "scientific history"—that is, they read it as a technical description of physical realities in a scientific context. This assumption is called concordism: "assumption that scripture is speaking in scientific terms, and therefore to be true and inspired, it has to match what science says."[4]
This assumption could be true—but it is an assumption, not an obvious truth as some treat it. (And, we must ask—since science in any form didn't really exist until the 1600s, and our modern science didn't really get going until the 1800s, why did God speak to ancient peoples in a form completely foreign to them? "[T]hese things were not in the mind of the authors of Genesis. That was not the audience, or the genre, or the spiritual needs they were speaking to."[4])
As John Walton, an evangelical bible scholar put it:
When we approach a text, we must be able to set our presuppositions off to the side as much as possible so that we do not impose them onto the text. It is not wrong to have presuppositions, but it is important to have a realistic grasp of what our presuppositions are so that we can assess their impact on our interpretation. Some of the traditions we carry as baggage are blind presuppositions…. We don’t even realize that they are imported into the text, and we must evaluate their relevance and truth rather than assume them to be accurate.[5]
What is the genre of the flood story?
So maybe we have the genre wrong. What if we are like the aliens who think Star Trek is science fact, not science fiction?
If ... you compare Genesis to other ancient Near Eastern creation and flood stories on the left side, Genesis looks very, very different. It makes a lot more sense and there’s much less conflict. This essentially establishes that comparing Genesis with science is comparing apples and oranges. It’s not a legitimate comparison to begin with, because it’s based on unjustified and anachronistic concordist assumptions.[4]
As it happens, "flood story" is a genre all of its own. The people who wrote and the people who heard the Old Testament had friends and neighbors with flood stories.
Every serious student of the Bible knows that there are other flood stories from the ancient Near East, particularly from ancient Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria.l What is disputed is not the existence and relevance of these ancient flood accounts but rather their significance and relationship to the biblical story. ...
The general contours of the flood story as we hear it in the Eridu Genesis, Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh Epic are very similar. Due to displeasure with humans, the divine realm decides to bring a flood against them to destroy them. In each case, the divine realm chooses one individual (Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Uta-napishti, Noah) to save by warning them of the coming flood and instructing them to build an ark. While the shape of the arks in the various stories differs, remarkably the floor space of the arks is nearly identical.1 After building the ark, the flood hero and others (family and in some cases even more people) as well as animals enter the ark. The flood waters rise and finally ebb to the point that the ark comes to rest. ...
As we begin, the reader should not jump to the conclusion that the identification of similarities suggests that the biblical author has borrowed information directly from the Mesopotamian accounts. Everyone in the ancient world knows there was a flood (just like everyone today knows there was a Holocaust). It is in the cultural river. The question is, what was God up to? Why did he send it? On this point, different texts may offer vastly different interpretations.[6]:53, 61-62
How does the message of the biblical flood story differ from that of the pagan cultures that surrounded it?
Walton continues:
The gods in the [Ancient Near East] were motivated by what can be called the "Great Symbiosis." ... [that is,] the gods created people because they were tired of the work involved to meet their own needs. Gods needed food, housing, clothing, and so on, but they did not want to work for it. Once people were created to serve in this way, it becomes necessary for the gods to provide for people (if there is no rain, crops cannot grow and the gods cannot be fed) and protect them (if they are being harried by invaders who steal their food or burn their crops, the gods cannot be cared for). Throughout the literature of the ancient world, we learn it is the mandate to provide for the gods that stands as the principal feature of their religious practice. Performance equals piety. Offense is failure to meet the needs of the gods. The result is codependence.
Not surprisingly, the Mesopotamian interpretation of the flood is based on the premise of this Great Symbiosis. The gods have not created people for relationship (as Yahweh [Jehovah] had done). The gods live among the people (in temples) so that the people can meet their needs, but they don't really like people—they need people. Yahweh, in contrast, has no needs and actually desires relationship. ...
The Great Symbiosis is consistently refuted in the Old Testament and has no role in the interpretation of the flood. In the Mesopotamian flood account the Great Symbiosis explains the actions of the gods at every turn. For them, the operation of the Great Symbiosis is the basis for order in the world. In the interpretation offered in Genesis, disruption of order is the driving idea, but order from the biblical standpoint has nothing to do with the Great Symbiosis. ... [6]:65-66
Instead of being about meeting the gods' needs, in the bible the flood occurs because of human violence and wickedness. Human behavior is preventing the covenant relationship that Yahweh/Jehovah wants to have with them.
This demonstrates how culture and genre should influence how we read scriptural texts:
Another way to think about the similarities and differences is to acknowledge that the Israelites are embedded in an ancient Near Eastern culture and that God speaks to them there. God gives them revelation that transcends the culture, but he speaks to them within the culture. This is not a matter of imposing the ancient Near East on the Bible (the Bible is an ANE literary document); rather, it involves the acknowledgment that they are within the ancient Near East. It's our responsibility to understand the flood story within its original context ...[6]:87-88
This idea should be a comfortable one for Latter-day Saints, since modern revelation insists that God speaks in the language and thought forms of his people. In the introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants (a book of modern revelation) the Lord says:
Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time (D&C 1꞉24-28 (emphasis added)).
In a sense, we might say that God always has to "dumb things down" for us! He speaks in our own language and way so we can understand, just as he spoke to ancient Israelites or ancient Nephites in their culture and language so they would understand.
Our mistake comes when we try to read texts written for them through our culture and language, rather than theirs.
What else can ancient near eastern culture teach us about the flood story?
In the Ancient Near East the world was understood to have been organized by God (or the gods) out of chaos. And chaos was represented by great roiling waters:
This particular judgment [the Flood] is so devastating that it has even been described as an act of uncreation. Going back to the very opening of Genesis, we read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty [tohu wabohu], darkness was over the surface of the deep" (1:1-2). Before God brought the earth into functional order, it was "formless and empty." It is likely, if not certain, the author intends for us to think of the earth as undifferentiated water. From this formless and empty watery mass God creates a functional and livable earth. The flood, then, is a reversion to the watery mass, a tohu wabohu state. The pattern we have identified also explains the abundance of intertextual allusions in Genesis 9꞉1 and Genesis 1–2 as well as Genesis 9꞉18-29. We observe, then, that one way of reading Genesis 1–9 is along the lines of creation—uncreation—re-creation.[6]:103
For an ancient Israelite, then, the Flood story describes the destruction of God's ordered, created world because of human sin. The world can no longer fulfill its purpose as things stand. ("This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," [Moses 1꞉39].) A world everywhere full of sin, violence, and rebellion cannot fulfill God's purposes to exalt his children through a covenant relationship.
The Flood is a demonstration of God reestablishing the purpose and order of the world:
Genesis 1–11 is interested in tracking the issue of nonorder, order, and disorder. In this View, the flood account focuses more on how God is reestablishing a modicum of order in the world as he uses nonorder (the cosmic waters) to obliterate disorder (evil and violence). Of course, the flood does not totally obliterate disorder, as God acknowledges in Genesis 8꞉21. But it resets the ordering process, and God indicates that the established order will not again be reset by a flood (Genesis 8꞉21). This view focuses attention on God's continuing plan to establish order (present and future oriented) beyond the act of judging sin (past oriented), though both are legitimate perspectives. ...
When we interpret events like the flood, we should treat the event as we do with a character. What the narrator does with the flood is more important than what the flood does, and what God does through the flood is most important of all. If this is so, then we need to articulate persuasively what the narrator and God are doing through the flood.[6]:94-95
Does the New Testament tell us anything that can help?
Jesus uses the Flood account to give a similar sort of message. He is probably not particularly worried that his audience understand that the entire globe was submerged by water. That is not what they would have thought about. Instead, Jesus uses the Flood as an example of God's purposes for his children again being fulfilled—through him:
- As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24꞉37-39)
The New Testament thus adopts the flood story as an illustration of the truth that our God is a God who judges sin. He does not tolerate disobedience, since he understands our propensity to promote ourselves above himself does not lead to our flourishing but to our detriment. In this it is used as an archetypal narrative for future eschatological judgment.[6]:98
Just as the Flood was God's way of reestablishing his purposes for the earth and his children, so Jesus' return in glory will likewise sweep away the things in the world that prevent the full blessing and exaltation of God's children.
What does the Flood story show us happening after the Flood?
If we agree that the Flood is about reestablishing God's purposes, then it is not surprising to see that the Flood is immediately followed by covenants:
The term covenant (berit) appears for the first time in connection with Noah. A covenant, as the English translation rightly implies, is a formal agreement between two parties. In this covenant, God commits himself to the continuance of the world and its inhabitants. Though the words are directed to Noah and his sons, that commitment is given not only to them but to all the creation and its creatures. They don't have to live in fear that God will periodically bring the creation to an end. ... Because this covenant is the first one explicitly mentioned in Scripture, the rainbow is the first sign of a covenant. Later we will see that circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17꞉9-14), the sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exodus 31꞉12-18), and the Lord's Supper is the sign of the new covenant (Luke 22꞉20). These signs are like brands. They serve as a reminder to the covenant partners of the relationship established between them.[6]:104-105
Doesn't the Bible say that the continents were divided immediately after the Flood?
The Church does not take an official position on this issue
J. Reuben Clark |
This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:
|
Harold B. Lee |
Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:
|
First Presidency |
This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):
In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
|
References |
Notes
|
Some Latter-day Saint thinkers have understood the matter as referring to the sudden separation of the continents in a catastrophic event. Others have regarded this as a misunderstanding of the text
The Church has no official position, and it does not play much of a role in LDS thought or discourse.
Genesis 10꞉25 contains a passing reference to man called Peleg, who received his name because "in his days was the earth divided". The Hebrew verb פלג (palag) means "separate" or "divide." And, in Psalms 55꞉9 it refers specifically to a division of languages.
Some Latter-day Saints have interpreted this passage with extreme literalness
Some Latter-day Saints have interpreted this passage with extreme literalness, believing that the earth's tectonic plates, which were once a single land mass, all separated into the continents we know today during the life of a single mortal, instead of over hundreds of millions of years as scientists have theorized. Two of these were Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.
At least a few leaders of the Church have been of this view that the continents were divided during or after the Flood
Prominently, prior to becoming president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that
in the beginning all of the land surface was in one place as it was in the days of Peleg, (Genesis 10:25.) that the earth was divided. Some Bible commentators have concluded that this division was one concerning the migrations of the inhabitants of the earth between them, but this is not the case. While this is but a very brief statement, yet it speaks of a most important event. The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere.[1]
John Taylor also expressed similar views, albeit more briefly.[2] It is perhaps important to note that then-Elder Smith wrote that "By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time." [3] Elder Smith was writing between 1953 and 1966; modern continental drift theory was only beginning to gain acceptance during this period (even by 1977, a geology textbook would note that "a poll of geologists now would probably show a substantial majority who favor the idea of drift," while also providing a substantial critique of the theory.[4]
Here again, however, we are at risk of mistaking genre. Elder Smith was reading with modern concerns and preoccupations.
What if we again tried to read as someone in the ancient near east might read?
Scriptures that refer to the earth being "divided" refer to groups of people being separated
A few scriptures, then, refer to the earth being divided:
- Genesis 10:25 and 1 Chronicles 1:19: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan.
- D&C 133꞉24: And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.
What do these extensive genealogies at this point in the story tell us?
In perhaps the most important study of Old Testament genealogies in the light of ANE analogues, Robert R. Wilson concluded that
- genealogies are not normally created for historical purposes. They are not intended to be strictly historical records. Rather in the Bible, as well as in the ancient Near Eastern literature and in the anthropological material, genealogies seem to have been created for domestic, political- jural, and religious purposes, and historical information is preserved in the genealogies only incidentally.
They are designed to give people an understanding of their identity. ... [G]enealogies, while including lists of real people in a real past, are first and foremost making theological statements ... .
After the flood, humans continue to sin (Genesis 11꞉21-29). People unite to build a city and a tower that offends God ...
God thus initiates a new strategy of carrying out his plans and purposes beginning with this one man and his wife, Sarah; through their descendants he will reach the world in order to restore blessing on his human creatures.
Notice the dramatic change in the narrative at this point. Whereas the primeval narrative covers the whole world over what must be an incredibly long period of time, now the focus in the second part, the patriarchal narratives, focuses on one individual— Abraham, then Jacob, then Joseph—and devotes considerable narrative space to a relatively short period of time. We observe that such a shift signals a more intense interest in the details of the events associated with the patriarchs as founding figures of the people of God.[5]:104-105, 110
There is no serious biblical scholarship that reads these verses as implying a rapid drift of the continents
The verses in Genesis and 1 Chronicles are describing the descendants of Shem. LDS scholar Hugh Nibley viewed Genesis 10꞉25 (which says that in the days of Peleg "the earth was divided") as meaning "the earth was divided among the children of Noah."[6] There is no serious biblical scholarship that reads these verses as implying a rapid drift of the continents—partly because such an idea would have been utterly foreign to writers in that time period.
Additional problems
If we read outside of genre and try to turn this into a scientific account, we run into enormous absurdities. Some conclude that this means the bible must be false, but instead it means they are making a genre mistake.
In the December 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, 1,000 miles of fault line slipped 50 feet, resulting in a 9.3-magnitude earthquake that created seismic sea waves up to 100 feet high. These tsunamis caused the deaths of nearly 230,000 people. The amount of force required to move the major continents thousands of miles apart in the lifetime of a single individual would cause much worse devastation, a global catastrophe on an unimaginable scale.
Thus, to accomplish this without a divine miracle which hid all trace of such an event would be extraordinarily unlikely. But, such a miracle cannot be proven or identified by science or observation.
Those who choose to believe that this is what happen can only rely on faith.
Conclusion—Peleg
If the division is instead one of language, then D&C 133꞉22–23 would refer to the return to a time when languages no longer divide humankind. This will take place during the 1,000 years of peace when the Savior reigns.
Such a return to unity might also symbolize the passing of all the temporary, petty, and earthly matters which alienate humans from each other.
This seems a far more important idea, and a far more likely issue to discuss with bronze age Israelites, than continental drift.
Key sources |
|
FAIR links |
|
Online |
|
Video |
|
Print |
|
Navigators |
|
Sub categories |
Notes
- ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1957–1966), 5:73. ISBN 1573454400. GospeLink
- ↑ John Taylor, Government of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1852), 110.off-site
- ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1957–1966), 5:73. ISBN 1573454400. GospeLink For essentially the same argument, see also 4:22; Church History and Modern Revelation (1947), 2:35; and Man: His Origin and Destiny (1954), 385, 421–422. Note that these sources are all even earlier, and likewise predate modern continental drift data and theory. President David O. McKay was clear on multiple occasions that the latter volume represented only President Smith's personal opinions, and were not Church doctrine (see here and here).
- ↑ Richard A. Davis, Principles of Oceanography, 2nd edition, (Addison-Wesley, 1977), ISBN 0201014645. For more on continental drift theory's history and development, see wikipedia.org off-site.
- ↑ Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate (IVP Academic, 2018).
- ↑ [citation needed]
Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun
Latter-day Saints believe that there are other worlds in the universe on which intelligent life exists. Further, this intelligent life looks like us. However, there are no teachings on whether or not this intelligent life has visited earth in spaceships.
The Lord told Moses, "Worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . . For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man. . . . And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words."[1]
From these verses we learn that God has created many worlds, some of which have "passed away" and some of which "now stand." These worlds are referred to as an earth with heavens, which is the exact phrasing God applies to Earth.[2] We learn from the prophet Enoch that these other worlds are like Earth: "Were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations."[3] We learn from Joseph Smith that these other worlds have inhabitants[4] and that these inhabitants are begotten sons and daughters unto God.[5] Joseph Smith also taught that some individuals who lived on Earth did not die; rather, their bodies were changed so they could be "ministring Angels Unto many planets."[6]
As summarized by President Joseph Fielding Smith, "We know that our Heavenly Father is a glorified, exalted personage who has all power, all might, and all dominion, and that he knows all things. We testify that he, through his Only Begotten Son, is the Creator of this earth and of worlds without number, all of which are peopled by his spirit children."[7] As Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, "How many planets are there in the universe with people on them? We don’t know, but we are not alone in the universe! God is not the God of only one planet!"[8]
Astronomy research continues to advance in identifying habitable worlds. Scientist and Latter-day Saint Jani Radebaugh noted:
New details about [astronomical] bodies in the outer solar system . . . have helped open our minds to the possibilities of other worlds with life in our galaxy and in the universe. . . . Recently, the National Academy of Sciences came out with a report that suggested that there might be as many as nine billion habitable planets in our own galaxy alone. Another way of saying this is that there are more habitable planets in our galaxy than there are people on Earth. (Of course, this doesn't mean they're actually inhabited, only that they're habitable.) As Latter-day Saints, this should not surprise us too much. We should be able to look at these big numbers and say, "Well, we should have seen this coming because God already told us there were inhabited worlds without number" (see D&C 76:24; Moses 1:33).[9]
However, the extent of our knowledge about intelligent life on other worlds is that such life exists. Elder Neal A. Maxwell noted, "We do not know where or how many other inhabited planets there are, even though we appear to be alone in our own solar system. As to the Lord's continuing role amid His vast creations, so little has been revealed."[10]
Notes
- ↑ Moses 1:33, 35, 38.
- ↑ Moses 1:35–36.
- ↑ Moses 7:30.
- ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 88:42–47, 61.
- ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 76:24.
- ↑ "Instruction on Priesthood, circa 5 October 1840," page 7, josephsmithpapers.org.
- ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Out of the Darkness," April 1971 general conference.
- ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, in "Special Witnesses of Christ," Ensign, April 2001.
- ↑ Jani Radebaugh, "The Outer Solar System: A Window to the Creative Breadth of Divinity," in Science and Mormonism 1: Cosmos, Earth, and Man, ed. David H. Bailey, et al. (The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016), 314.
- ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Our Creator's Cosmos," address given at the Church Educational System annual conference, 13 August 2002, in Sarah Jane Weaver, "‘Our Creator’s Cosmos’ — vast, personal," Church News, 17 August 2002.
Critical sources |
|
Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun
The Book of Abraham is "an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri."[1] "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture. This book [is] a record of the biblical prophet and patriarch Abraham."[2]
To view articles about the Book of Abraham, click "Expand" in the blue bar:
Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Notes
- ↑ Introduction, Pearl of Great Price.
- ↑ "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," Gospel Topics Essays, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.
FAIR Wiki
On-line articles
- John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel Peterson, "And I Saw The Stars--The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy," in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, edited by John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid, (Provo: FARMS, 2005), Chapter 1. off-site
- J. Ward Moody and Michael D. Rhodes, "Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham," in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, edited by John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid, (Provo: FARMS, 2005), Chapter 2. off-site