Historian of Religion, Science, and Biblical Interpretation
I got this note from a friend, who read my post on Genesis and implicit contexts, and am posting it with permission, edited slightly. I don’t really do sports analogies. While I am very active in several things, I don’t follow any teams or watch any sports. Everything below is from my friend, until the very end.
On January 1, we hit Genesis like a brick wall, and stay in it through the week of March 20.1Then we’re in Exodus until May 8! What makes Genesis so hard? Well, Genesis chapter 1 dumps us immediately into a maelstrom of issues and questions, and Church materials aren’t the most complete or up-to-date at helping us navigate those, or even be aware of the options and the history behind them.
What’s the relationship between Genesis, Moses, Abraham and the Temple? Why are there significant differences between them? Does the translation matter? What’s the relationship between Genesis and science? What about dinosaurs and evolution? How old is the earth? What about the Flood? Is Genesis meant to be read as simple history? Is it literal or figurative? or is there some other way to approach Genesis, other than that binary? Continue reading
Today’s take-away is simple: Don’t use the Old Testament Institute manual for Genesis. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk…
We begin interpreting scripture before we even crack open the cover, through the assumptions and premises that we bring to scripture.
Cleon Skousen, via Wikipedia
Cleon Skousen‘s opening book in his Old Testament series came off the Bookcraft press in 1953, The First 2000 Years. Skousen had worked on the series for 15 years, to “try and bring together in one volume everything the Church has received thus far concerning the first 2000 years of human history— from Adam to Abraham.”1Preface
My dissertation involves a lot of President Joseph Fielding Smith, particularly the way he interpreted scripture, his influential assumptions, and conclusions. Continue reading
In June 1965, the LDS Sunday School presidency informally began a new series on science and religion, written by LDS scientists. Continue reading
I was set to present a paper at the Mormon History Association this year (now pushed to next year), “Seventh-day Adventist Influence on LDS Creationism, from Joseph Fielding Smith to Ezra Taft Benson.”
Here’s an expanded teaser with some analysis of philosophical underpinnings.
Many deeply religious people have concerns about subordinating religion to science, the tail wagging the dog as it were. I see it a LOT in LDS history. There’s certainly some legitimacy to that fear, but also a lot of misunderstandings. Ideas of progressive or developmental creation are not necessarily a response to Darwin.
I’ve written before about how “science” and “religion” as commonly understood today are not well-defined categories, and can’t simply be retrojected into the past; Galileo wasn’t a “scientist” because such a thing didn’t exist yet, nor did he think he was doing “science.” Continue reading
A new interview, me talking with Cwic Media for 80 minutes on, well, the usual topics 🙂 Continue reading
Recent Comments