« F is for the Family | Main | OSC on ID »

Comments

The Father and the Son

Dave, no time to find it for you, but about 2 years ago (maybe less time than that), the First Pres. message was a re-issue of that old talk, probably with more "correlated" terms in it. But I do remember the article sub-title mentioning that it was a re-posting of this same article that was given earlier (probably to thwart "Adam-God" fundies).

And that's Correlation for you -- just re-hashing old material but with updated terms (ie, "Mormon" is now "LDS," etc. etc.).

Great post, Dave. David J., the last link in Davids post goes through the history of that document. I think there were many reasons (including fundies) for its release.

I actually don't mind interpreting the two creations in Genesis as a single event. While other interpretations, like the multiple author approach, certainly are possible, I don't think mormon theology ties one to this approach as much as some others.

For instance I tend towards thinking of the first creation as a research stage where we were looking to find a place where life could naturally evolve. Then the second creation becomes about how spirits interact with an already evolved creation. The difficulty here in vs 5 of the second chapter. "Spiritually" and "naturally" get a bit fussy to deal with. In this case I tend to think of naturally as meaning spirit and matter together.

Just my 0.02 though

You're right, David J., it was reprinted in the April 2002 Ensign. I found it and inserted the link into the post. It's odd (from the modern perspective) that such a statement outlining the basics of the LDS understanding of the Godhead would be needed as late as 1916.

Also, I seem to remember that some folks take the first chapter of genesis to be the mind dependant (or spiritual creation) and the second as the mind-independent physical creation.

The Documentary Hypothesis has also been discussed in Dialogue.

Thomas Dozeman (Vol 32 No 4) discusses it, with a response by Kevin Barney (Vol 33 No 1). Anthony Hutchinson discusses the creation portion overlaid with the Pearl of Great Price (Vol 21 No 4).

Dave,

Thanks for those links. That Sunstone article cleared up some questions that I've had for a long time. It seems obvious to me that our scriptures contain several different understandings of the nature of God the Father and of Jesus. I wish we could accept that different authors had different understandings rather than trying to explain it all away. I still want to know who exactly came up with "Divine Investiture of Authority" and why. That concept seems to create as many problems as it solves.

"The first step toward really understanding what is going on in the Pentateuch or the first five books of the OT is getting acquainted with the Documentary Hypothesis"

First step? Who is your intended audience when saying such a thing? I would never suggest such a thing for an OT beginner. Try Nahum Sarna's _Understanding Genesis_ instead as a first step, or Everett Fox's _The Five Books of Moses_. Documentary History isn't for first steps.

Also, please distinguish between DH and JEPD. JEPD is a modern development of DH, and it is highly speculative. The two are not the same thing.

The Barney article, which is excellent, can be found here.

a random john, the concept of "Divine Investiture of Authority" was first delineated in the 1916 message. It was subsequently championed by Joseph Fielding Smith and, to a much greater extent, by his son-in-law.

For those interested, the Messages of the First Presidency has a very interesting commentary on the 1916 pronouncement (vol. 5 pg. 23-25).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

Blog powered by Typepad

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2013-14

Mormon Books 2012

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 09-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07