The story which lends the book of Exodous its name is a very intriguing one. By the nature of the narative it seems easy to see things in a strictly antagonist / protagonist light; i.e. Pharoah vs. Moses and Aaron. As I think about the story however I am inclined to recall a couple of scriptures from 1 Nephi 17:
32 And after they had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the adriving out of the children of the land, yea, unto the scattering them to destruction.
33 And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.
34 Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.
35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all aflesh in one; he that is brighteous is cfavored of God. But behold, this dpeople had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it.
I realized that Egypt had been an important tool for the Lord in preserving His people. As Moses and Aaron pressed Pharoah, who was a new Pharoah that knew not Joseph, for the release of the Israelites, they followed God's instructions every step of the way. Obviously God could have reverted directly to the final step of the passover, slaying the first born of all Egyptian families. It's likely that this would have fulfilled His divine purposes in much less time. I realize however, that God loved Pharoah as well. I kind of picture Him extending His arm, offering the Egyptian leader every chance to obey. While Pharoah continued to harden his heart His [God's] hand was stretched out still. The final straw seems to have been when Pharoah forced Moses from his precence and threatened him with death were he to return (Ex 10:28). At that point the passover was set in motion.
I am impressed with God's love and longsuffering even unto Pharoah. It really gives new meaning to the command to bless your enemies and pray for those that spitefully use and persecute you. We must love them, because God loves them, just as He did Pharoah.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Fall and Our Father
I think that one of the key results of a major event in the progression of mankind is a new and better understanding of our Father in Heaven. For example, the restoration, and specifically the first vision taught us as a people more about the Father than anyone had been able to gather on their own.
Today's Sunday School lesson was on the Fall, and it struck me that the Fall in a sense did the same thing. It revealed, or perhaps more appropriately redefined, our relationship with our Father. After the Fall and expulsion from the garden Adam and Eve walked no more with God in the same manner that they had before. The spiritual death brought about a separation between them and God. I remember years ago when Dad took that training trip to Oklahoma. He had never been gone that long before, and out of necessity, our relationship with him changed. We could no longer talk with him whenever we wanted, in the same manner as before. We communicated via mail or telephone, but the personal interaction was no longer there. The love still existed, but the manner in which we approached him had changed.
I think that in the same way, our relationship with our Father in Heaven was redefined by the Fall. Because of its effects, we find ourselves outside of our previous association with Him. I can see then why Adam rejoiced when he learned of the atonement, and that through sacrifice and righteousness he could one day again approach his Father as he once had. What a blessing it is to know that through the Savior we can have restored that personal direct association which was once ours.
Today's Sunday School lesson was on the Fall, and it struck me that the Fall in a sense did the same thing. It revealed, or perhaps more appropriately redefined, our relationship with our Father. After the Fall and expulsion from the garden Adam and Eve walked no more with God in the same manner that they had before. The spiritual death brought about a separation between them and God. I remember years ago when Dad took that training trip to Oklahoma. He had never been gone that long before, and out of necessity, our relationship with him changed. We could no longer talk with him whenever we wanted, in the same manner as before. We communicated via mail or telephone, but the personal interaction was no longer there. The love still existed, but the manner in which we approached him had changed.
I think that in the same way, our relationship with our Father in Heaven was redefined by the Fall. Because of its effects, we find ourselves outside of our previous association with Him. I can see then why Adam rejoiced when he learned of the atonement, and that through sacrifice and righteousness he could one day again approach his Father as he once had. What a blessing it is to know that through the Savior we can have restored that personal direct association which was once ours.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Eve
So I understand that I'm lagging back a bit on posts - right now the reading has us wrapping up Genesis - but I had an interesting thought about the fall that has been marinating over the last couple of weeks. Within Christendom, it seems to me that there are a select number of issues which instigate debate and discussion. For example, the whole works vs. grace will occupy amateur theologians for years to come. Another one of those is the Fall. Some believe that it was Adam and Eve's rebellion - others believe that Eve was foolishly deceived. One thing that seems to purvey the discussion however, is an attempt to understand the connection between the two seemingly contradictory commands given by God, namely to multiply and replenish the earth and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In addition there has been much discussion of the nature of Adam and Eve's violation. Was it a sin in the sense that we understand now? Was it a transgression, as termed in the scriptures, and if so, what is a transgression and how does it differ from a sin that say we might commit?
I don't really claim to have a direct answer for these questions, but I did have a thought that could possibly have some bearing on these questions. It strikes me as interesting that when God issues the commandment to abstain from the fruit of the tree he does so to Adam only, before Eve is created and introduced into the Garden. This is the case in all three scriptural accounts of the creation and fall (Gen. 2:16-17, Moses 3:16-17, Abr. 5:12-13). I haven't been able to find a scriptural account where the commandment was given directly to Eve from God. I think it likely that she may have received it from Adam. I am not claiming that Eve was not responsible for the consequences of partaking of the fruit as well, but it strikes me that perhaps her accountability was less than would have been Adam's were he the one to have initially been deceived. Adam ended up partaking so that he could remain with Eve, not because he was deceived by Satan.
This seems to account for the confusion regarding the accountability of Eve's actions i.e. sin, transgression, etc. Maybe it was God's design that she not be given the mandate directly from Him. There is the argument that "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same;" however, I find it interesting that the laws of the gospel and of obedience was not yet revealed and Adam and Eve had not yet partaken of the promises associated with them. Also, it was later that Eve covenanted to obey Adam, as he obeyed the father.
I don't really know what I'm trying to pull out of all of this, but it seems to me that Eve was probably a lot less accountable than some people like to believe. Hers was not a rebellion, but rather a quasi transgression of some sort when you factor in the fact that she might not have received a direct mandate from God. It also seems to paint God's seemingly contradictory commandments in a new light. He did not necessarily create a situation where Adam and Eve were forced to Sin either by commission or omission.
I really want to hear what you think, and if you have any additional thoughts.
Love,
I don't really claim to have a direct answer for these questions, but I did have a thought that could possibly have some bearing on these questions. It strikes me as interesting that when God issues the commandment to abstain from the fruit of the tree he does so to Adam only, before Eve is created and introduced into the Garden. This is the case in all three scriptural accounts of the creation and fall (Gen. 2:16-17, Moses 3:16-17, Abr. 5:12-13). I haven't been able to find a scriptural account where the commandment was given directly to Eve from God. I think it likely that she may have received it from Adam. I am not claiming that Eve was not responsible for the consequences of partaking of the fruit as well, but it strikes me that perhaps her accountability was less than would have been Adam's were he the one to have initially been deceived. Adam ended up partaking so that he could remain with Eve, not because he was deceived by Satan.
This seems to account for the confusion regarding the accountability of Eve's actions i.e. sin, transgression, etc. Maybe it was God's design that she not be given the mandate directly from Him. There is the argument that "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same;" however, I find it interesting that the laws of the gospel and of obedience was not yet revealed and Adam and Eve had not yet partaken of the promises associated with them. Also, it was later that Eve covenanted to obey Adam, as he obeyed the father.
I don't really know what I'm trying to pull out of all of this, but it seems to me that Eve was probably a lot less accountable than some people like to believe. Hers was not a rebellion, but rather a quasi transgression of some sort when you factor in the fact that she might not have received a direct mandate from God. It also seems to paint God's seemingly contradictory commandments in a new light. He did not necessarily create a situation where Adam and Eve were forced to Sin either by commission or omission.
I really want to hear what you think, and if you have any additional thoughts.
Love,
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Variation on a theme of Genesis 1-2
As I read the creation story recently, some new ideas came to mind. I have to preface this post however with a bit of a possible false doctrine disclaimer. These are just a few of the musings I've been bouncing around my skull lately.
So, basically as church members, and as Christians in general, we sort of have to shy away from a literal belief in the story of the creation of man, as we have always understood it. The most literal interpretation of it all would be to say that man, as derived from Adam is less than ten thousand years old. How then do we respond to the fossilized remains of ancient man or man-like creatures? How do we respond to the mounting evidence of evolution as a means of transfiguring one species into another? How do we interpret the fact that our own bodies seem to have evolutionary remnants of past functions, no longer in use by modern man? For the longest time I have figured that there must be some sort of flaw with the science - the dating system, be it carbon or some other method, chinks in the evolutionary chain, etc. I figured that such convincing data was in place because it represented a chance for God to test the faith of His followers. Basically, the response has been to question the science, rather than see it as revelation of truth. You see, I feel like we are often very selective of the science that we accept, based on our own understanding of spiritual texts, but at the same time we are unwilling to see a broader, although perfectly feasible interpretation of certain scriptural stories.
For instance, if you take the fist two chapters of Genesis as a chronological timeline you will see that the creation of man on the sixth creative day (Gen 1: 26-30) is discusses much in the same way in which the previous creative days are discussed. Although man is given dominion over the animals, he is not necessarily imbued with any additional commands to which the plants and animals are not also subject. There is no sense of a spiritual mandate - no concept of the exercise of election or agency. It seems to me that man is simply ordained as the highest of the animals.
Then in chapter two, following the end of the account of the creative period, Moses, the author of Genesis, accounts the creation of Adam and Eve. At this point God does address the spiritual nature of man. He provides Adam and Eve with commandments and opportunities to follow instructions which might not follow naturally based on their biological instincts. At this point modern man as a spiritual entity is conceived.
As I read on, following the expulsion from the garden, it just seemed to me that there were more people in the lone and dreary world than Adam and Eve. The rapidity with which the account discusses the wife of Cain - the fact that he goes to dwell in another named land, it all seems to indicate to me that there were more people.
I think it is quite feasible that Adam and Eve, although created directly by God, were integrated into an existing population of genetically comparable human beings. At that point, all of human kind became more than just the rulers of the animals. At that point they became aware of more than just instinctual emotions and began to understand the difference between right and wrong. They became Sons of God, in that their spiritual destiny began to be diffused among them and among their children. Verses 1 and 2 of chapter 6 of Genesis might actually mark the point of the broader mingling of Adams progeny and that of the original men:
"1. And it came to past that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
If this is true, it could be equally true that God used the tool of evolution to create the animals, and thus man, in the first place. The creative periods could have been periods of evolutionary development in the world. This could explain why we, as descendants of Adam, as well as the original men, have genetic markers which point to earlier evolutionary stages. It could explain why homo sapiens seem to find themselves at the end of a progressive evolutionary chain. Rather than blasphemy, it could be seen as an amazing move of a God working with natural law as either a confine or a tool.
I know that it's a little out there, but I think it represents nothing more than a new interpretation that although foreign to our understanding, could be feasible. What do you guys think?
-Matt-
So, basically as church members, and as Christians in general, we sort of have to shy away from a literal belief in the story of the creation of man, as we have always understood it. The most literal interpretation of it all would be to say that man, as derived from Adam is less than ten thousand years old. How then do we respond to the fossilized remains of ancient man or man-like creatures? How do we respond to the mounting evidence of evolution as a means of transfiguring one species into another? How do we interpret the fact that our own bodies seem to have evolutionary remnants of past functions, no longer in use by modern man? For the longest time I have figured that there must be some sort of flaw with the science - the dating system, be it carbon or some other method, chinks in the evolutionary chain, etc. I figured that such convincing data was in place because it represented a chance for God to test the faith of His followers. Basically, the response has been to question the science, rather than see it as revelation of truth. You see, I feel like we are often very selective of the science that we accept, based on our own understanding of spiritual texts, but at the same time we are unwilling to see a broader, although perfectly feasible interpretation of certain scriptural stories.
For instance, if you take the fist two chapters of Genesis as a chronological timeline you will see that the creation of man on the sixth creative day (Gen 1: 26-30) is discusses much in the same way in which the previous creative days are discussed. Although man is given dominion over the animals, he is not necessarily imbued with any additional commands to which the plants and animals are not also subject. There is no sense of a spiritual mandate - no concept of the exercise of election or agency. It seems to me that man is simply ordained as the highest of the animals.
Then in chapter two, following the end of the account of the creative period, Moses, the author of Genesis, accounts the creation of Adam and Eve. At this point God does address the spiritual nature of man. He provides Adam and Eve with commandments and opportunities to follow instructions which might not follow naturally based on their biological instincts. At this point modern man as a spiritual entity is conceived.
As I read on, following the expulsion from the garden, it just seemed to me that there were more people in the lone and dreary world than Adam and Eve. The rapidity with which the account discusses the wife of Cain - the fact that he goes to dwell in another named land, it all seems to indicate to me that there were more people.
I think it is quite feasible that Adam and Eve, although created directly by God, were integrated into an existing population of genetically comparable human beings. At that point, all of human kind became more than just the rulers of the animals. At that point they became aware of more than just instinctual emotions and began to understand the difference between right and wrong. They became Sons of God, in that their spiritual destiny began to be diffused among them and among their children. Verses 1 and 2 of chapter 6 of Genesis might actually mark the point of the broader mingling of Adams progeny and that of the original men:
"1. And it came to past that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
If this is true, it could be equally true that God used the tool of evolution to create the animals, and thus man, in the first place. The creative periods could have been periods of evolutionary development in the world. This could explain why we, as descendants of Adam, as well as the original men, have genetic markers which point to earlier evolutionary stages. It could explain why homo sapiens seem to find themselves at the end of a progressive evolutionary chain. Rather than blasphemy, it could be seen as an amazing move of a God working with natural law as either a confine or a tool.
I know that it's a little out there, but I think it represents nothing more than a new interpretation that although foreign to our understanding, could be feasible. What do you guys think?
-Matt-
Sunday, January 10, 2010
OT Challenge 2010
So we're about 10 days in the OT Challenge 2010. I've got to say that one of my major regrets in terms of my scripture study is that I have never plowed through the entire Old Testament. I remember hearing a story about how President Benson felt guilty that he hadn't read it when he was like 12. So, he stayed up nights reading by candle light or something like that. Well, I missed the boat when I was 12, but it's better late than never. I did the math and to finish this beast of a tome, it's no more, no less than 3.22 pages a day. So far, both Jaime and I are on track.
I was hoping that more people would join us. Imagine the feeling of spiritual accomplishment as we all read aloud, "lest I come and smite the earth with a curse," on December 31, 2010. AAAaahhhwwwoooo!
I'm excited to do this because the Old Testament has always been special to me, despite never having completely tamed its 1184 pages. As I see it, it's the most esoteric book of scripture that we have. Esoteric basically means hidden meaning. What great treasures and pearls of wisdom await us in the pages of the most ancient scripture that we have? The challenge presented by the Old Testament is particularly special for Christians I think. We basically share this book with another faith. The Old Testament is essentially the law and the prophets referred to by the Jews (Law = Books of Moses, Prophets = Writings of both the Minor and Major Prophets). So the challenge is to find Christ in a book revered by a faith that does not believe in Him. I testify that He is there, and that the more layers we peel back together, the better we will see Him. Let's do it!
I was hoping that more people would join us. Imagine the feeling of spiritual accomplishment as we all read aloud, "lest I come and smite the earth with a curse," on December 31, 2010. AAAaahhhwwwoooo!
I'm excited to do this because the Old Testament has always been special to me, despite never having completely tamed its 1184 pages. As I see it, it's the most esoteric book of scripture that we have. Esoteric basically means hidden meaning. What great treasures and pearls of wisdom await us in the pages of the most ancient scripture that we have? The challenge presented by the Old Testament is particularly special for Christians I think. We basically share this book with another faith. The Old Testament is essentially the law and the prophets referred to by the Jews (Law = Books of Moses, Prophets = Writings of both the Minor and Major Prophets). So the challenge is to find Christ in a book revered by a faith that does not believe in Him. I testify that He is there, and that the more layers we peel back together, the better we will see Him. Let's do it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)