Mormon,Mormonism Time

This is a fascinating topic even though I don't understand it very well, and apparently scientists don't understand it very well either. The two aspects of time that I find interesting are that time seems to be unidirectional, and that time will disappear.

There are many uses of the word "time" in the scriptures, but those uses of the word "time" are in a different context. I searched the online scriptures at lds.org for phrases containing the word "time" in the context of earthly time and only found two scriptures.

Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved? (Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:36)

That verse tells us that God will not withhold the Holy Ghost from the children of men as long as time shall last, implying that time will come to an end after the Savior has finished his work in redeeming the children of men. Time is a measure of the sequence of events that comprise mortality. Mortality is a temporary existence. People, animals, and plants come into existence and then disappear. Events pertaining to the earth, such as earthquakes and storms, occur and then cease. But in the domain of God all things are eternal. There is no end to eternal things. There is no time in eternity.

Another verse from Revelation declares that time will cease when the Redemption is finished.

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: (Revelation 10:6)

John saw an angel come down from heaven. The angel declared "by him that liveth for ever and ever" that time would cease, referring to the eventual completion of the Lord's work when all things will become eternal.

I think the scriptures give a strong implication that time is unidirectional, always going forward. The scriptures have a strong focus on repentance, that we must change our behavior to become more in harmony with God's will. The context is always that we must repent, and then in the future become more like Christ. There is no implication that as we repent we can go back in time and relive our past.

Some scientists say backwards travel is impossible because it would violate the principle of causality and, in addition, would require unimaginable amounts of energy. This scientific view of negative time-travel being impossible is in agreement with the scriptural view of time. Other scientists, though, say that backwards travel is theoretically possible but is not practical.

Some scientists speculate there is no time, and this gives us a parallel between the religious and scientific views, although the religious view of no time pertains to an immortal world and the scientific view of no time pertains to a mortal world.

If science does discover how to travel in time, since from the scientific viewpoint time is a dimension, it will be interesting to see if humans in that distant future are able to travel bidirectionally or just unidirectionally.

Mormon,Mormonism Authority Figures

Recent research, as reported in the The Economist journal, indicates that many people who know they are innocent will confess to crimes they didn't commit. The article described several research programs where scientists are trying to understand why this is so.

Research is showing that people don't want to disagree with authority figures. A research project was reported in which 71 college students were asked to press computer keys as a person read aloud to them. They were warned to not press the ALT key because that key was faulty and would crash the computer.

In fact, the computer was set up to crash regardless, about a minute into the test. When this happened the experimenter asked each participant if he had pressed the illicit key, acted as if he was upset when it was “discovered” that the data had disappeared, and requested that the participant sign a confession. Only one person actually did hit the ALT key by mistake, but a quarter of the innocent participants were so disarmed by the shock of the accusation that they confessed to something they had not done.

It's a facet of human nature that people don't want to rebel against authority figures. The research reported in The Economist is important, I think, to Latter-day Saints, because the church places a great stress on authority. Even though it's not taught in the scriptures, many LDS believe that obedience is the 1st law of heaven. We are taught to accept the decisions of authority figures, even if such decisions are in opposition to our own beliefs.

Many years ago, I attended a Stake Conference in which the Stake President explained that the Stake needed to construct a new Stake Center. After explaining his position, he asked for a sustaining vote. I wasn't convinced the Stake needed a new building, but I raised my hand to sustain the Stake President because I didn't want to go against my church leader.

The question that we face is whether or not authority figures are always right. In the case of police, the authority figure may use intimidation and the hint of a lower sentence to get confessions. In the case of the university students, the research investigated whether the displeasure of a researcher that someone had apparently pressed the ALT key caused people to confess to something they hadn't done.

But, what about the case of the Stake President who wanted a new building? This is a more complicated decision, since many LDS believe our church leaders are always inspired by the Lord and therefore don't make unwise decisions.

I think church leaders, regardless of where they are in the church hierarchy, must be careful that they don't convey the impression that they are always right in their decisions and that it is "sinful" if members disagree with the leaders. As authority figures, they have a lot of psychological power over us, and they should be wise in the use of that power. Joseph Smith, while running for President of the United States, said he taught principles of righteousness and let the people govern themselves. Church leaders who expect members to always agree with the leaders, are acting the opposite of the philosophy expressed by Joseph Smith. I think that, in most cases, the leaders aren't aware they are intimidating the members. But the intimidation is there due to their position as presiding officers.

As we are called to positions of authority, we need to be very careful in the way we deal with people. We need to make special effort to ask members to do things in the church out of their love for Jesus Christ. We need to avoid asking members to do things out of obedience to us as Priesthood or Auxiliary officers. For example, the Stake President would have shown more respect and love of the Stake members if he, after he had explained why the Stake needed a new building, would have asked us to go home and discuss this with our spouses and children. Then, a High Councilor would be at their Sacrament Meeting the next Sunday to ask for their sustaining vote. He would be showing empathy with the members by giving them a week to discuss his proposal and to look at their budgets and ability to fund a new building (this was during the time that members in the western states made donations for 50% of the cost). I'm not suggesting that the Stake President didn't have great love for the people, only that he behaved as if it was their duty to sustain his proposal that the Stake build a new building. He seems to have looked at the situation from the viewpoint of a presiding officer and not from the viewpoint of a stake member.

Mormon,Mormonism The Scriptures, Literal or Figurative?

Many years ago, while I was a LDS missionary in West Virginia, I had the opportunity of talking with a Methodist minister. I explained to him the Biblical reasons why I believed there was a falling away (apostasy) from the church that Jesus Christ had formed, and that a restoration of the gospel and church to Joseph Smith had occurred. The minister understood what I was saying, and he commented that ones interpretation of Biblical passages depended on how literal one interprets the verses. In looking back at this event, I've come to realize there is truth in his comment. I grew up in a LDS environment in which stories and teachings from the scriptures were taken literally. It seemed natural to me that the verses from the Bible meant exactly what they said, or at least what I thought they said. However, since that time, I've come to realize that many passages from the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally (other passages are meant to be taken literally, of course).

The manuscripts that were canonized as the Bible were written by ancient people whom we believe were prophets and were inspired by God. We believe these men didn't take dictation as God revealed word for word his message. It is likely these men wrote in the style of their time. This implies that we can study other ancient documents and gain insight into the meaning intended by the prophets.

Model of the Universe Used by Ancient Writers

According to Wikipedia, ancient people considered our universe as having two layers. The lower layer was the earth. Above the earth was the firmament. The sun, stars, and angels existed in the firmament. There was no rotation of planets around the sun. This is depicted in the following image, taken from Wikipedia.

The ancient prophets apparently had no concept of planets orbiting around the sun. To these men, the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, and the sun and stars moved within the firmament above a stationary earth. It was thus a simple thing for God to change the movement of the objects in the firmament.

Creation of the Earth as Viewed by Ancient Writers

For years I've been trying to fit the Biblical description of the creation  with our scientific description of how the earth was created. The two descriptions just don't fit. In the Biblical description, there are events that just couldn't have happened that way. Now, that I understand the model of the universe used by ancient writers, I see a good fit between the Biblical description and that model. That model is not an accurate model of how the universe actually exists. This tells me that the Biblical description of the creation can not be taken literally from our viewpoint. It can be taken, though, as a figurative description of the creation that shows the power of God in creating the universe. Let's review the Biblical description of the creation of the earth to see how well it fits with the model of the universe used by ancient writers.

The Biblical description begins with the earth being without form, and everything was dark. The Lord created light and separated the light from the darkness. This light was not light from the sun but was light from an unidentified source. At this point the ancient model of the universe consisted of one layer that was all water. In addition, there was a repeating cycle of light and darkness. Next, God separated the water by creating a firmament in the water.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (Genesis 1:6)

At this point, the model now had three layers: water above the firmament, the firmament, and water below the firmament. The repeating pattern of light and darkness was still there. God gave a name to the firmament and called it Heaven.

Next, God separated the water below the firmament and caused dry land to appear. This dry land that appeared was called earth, and the water that was separated was called sea.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:9-10)

The model now had two layers, the firmament and earth. Earth consisted of dry land and seas. The repeating cycle of light and darkness still existed.

In subsequent verses, God caused plants to grow on the earth. From our viewpoint, these plants would need energy for photosynthesis to occur, and that energy came from the repeating cycle of light and darkness. That energy did not come from the sun, because the sun was not yet created in the firmament.

After creating plants, the Lord created the sun and the moon to control the repeating cycle of light and darkness.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:14,18)

Next, God created fish of the sea and fowl of the air. This was followed by the creation of animals on the dry land.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Genesis 1:20-21, 24)

 As his final act of creation, God created man and later woman and placed them in the dry land.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)

Except for the plants coming before the animals, this description of the creation does not agree at all with our description from science how the earth was actually formed. This description does, however, agree very well with the model of the universe used by ancient writers.

Other Biblical Verses Reflect the Model Used by Ancient Writers

We can see this model of our universe in other writings in the Bible. For example, in Revelations John spoke of the four corners of the earth. I've always thought he was speaking figuratively, but his comment reflects the belief at that time of a flat earth.

And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (Revelation 7:1)

In Joshua we read that the sun stood still while the Israelites "avenged themselves upon their enemies".

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. (Joshua 10:3)

That verse makes sense when we realize the author of the book believed the earth was stationary and the sun and moon moved within the firmament, but it makes no sense today when we realize the earth is rotating about its own axis, and in order to give the image of the sun standing still, the earth would have to stop its rotation, and the moon to be stayed would have to stop its rotation about the earth. Objects on the surface of the earth are moving about 1000 miles per hour, and if the earth were to stop its rotation, these objects would continue moving due to their momentum, and the result would be the equivalent of a hurricane with 1000 mph winds.

Of course, there is always the possibility that God caused the rotation of the earth and the moon to stop and then exercised higher laws of physics to prevent high winds from developing. People who believe in literal interpretations (from our viewpoints) apparently believe that God did invoke higher laws to keep undesirable effects from happening. I prefer to believe the statements were literal in the context of a flat earth and a firmament, and that we interpret those statements as figurative in order to understand them in the context of today's universe.

The Story of Noah and the Flood Can't Be Taken Literally

The story of Noah and the flood is another story of the Bible that can't be taken literally. That story might have been given in the context of a flat earth, if we assume the flat earth had low mountains, and in that case the story would be reasonable. However, if the earth that is described in the Bible had high mountains, as we know today it does, the story definitely can't be taken literally. In addition, the size of the ark given in Genesis is way to small to hold all of the animals that would have existed during the time of Noah. I've discussed this story in detail in this blog and won't repeat my reasons for believing the flood was either an allegory or at best a regional flood.

The Scriptures Can't Be Viewed Literally in All Cases

The examples I've given above help me realize that we can't interpret literally many of the stories from the Bible, because they were written in the context of a different model of the universe, a model that does not accurately describe the universe as it really exists. So, if the scriptures aren't to be taken literally in all cases, how do we tell which parts are to be taken literally and which parts are to be taken figuratively? That's a good question, and there is no simple answer to it.

In the case of scriptural verses that pertain to the earth, science is a good "measuring stick" for determining if those verses are to be interpreted literally according to our model of the universe. For example, if Noah were to build a ship that would contain pairs of all the animals and birds in existence, a much larger ship would be needed than the ark as described in Genesis.

In many cases, we need to remember that the ancient prophets were writing from their viewpoint not from ours. For example, when Moses wrote that the flood covered the whole earth, did he mean the whole planet as we think of it today, or did he think of the earth that he knew, his immediate surroundings.

Finally, we have our personal prayers and inspiration from the Holy Ghost to help us understand the scriptures correctly.

As I've said, being able to say that particular verses are an allegorical description and not a description of real-life is a difficult thing to do. I can see that a description of a flood could be an allegory, or it could be based on a model of the earth being flat with low mountains, or it could be based on a regional flood that happened. I really can't say which, and I don't think it makes a lot of difference. The value to me of the flood-story is a story of faith, obedience, and salvation, and my life can be enriched whether the story is literally true or not.

Conclusion

If scriptural statements agree with our model of the universe, which we think describes the universe as it actually is, we can probably take those statements as being literally true. If, however, those statements don't agree with the universe as it really is, we must take those statements as figurative or allegorical statements.

Many people will disagree with the things I have written in this post, and that is fine. We each have our own viewpoints in our religious life, because we have our agency to believe and accept what we want.

Hellenistic Ports

One of the criticisms of the Book of Mormon concerns the claim that Nephi built a ship and sailed to the American continents. The critics claim the Jewish people in 600 BC didn't have the knowledge or skills to build ocean-going ships.

Archeologists recently discovered ancient ports dating to the Hellenistic period (300  BC). These ports are on the coast of Israel. This shows the ancient people of that era did have sophistic knowledge of ships and shipping. Critics ignore these discoveries by noting the ports are dated to the Hellenistic period and not to 600 BC. It is important that believers in the Book of Mormon know that this discrepancy in dates exists, but the fact that the knowledge of these ports was recently discovered shows that not all knowledge of ancient peoples is currently known by archeologists, and that our argument is valid that additional knowledge will come forth that will strengthen our belief in the Book of Mormon.

The critics say that even if ancients ports and ships are discovered that date back to 600 BC, those artifacts won't prove the ancient Israelites had the knowledge and skills for transocean migrations, because peoples of that era sailed and traded in the Mediterranean area. These critics ignore the statement that Nephi was instructed by the Lord in ship building. Certainly, the Lord had sufficient knowledge and skills to build ships capable of crossing oceans.

Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men (1 Nephi 18:2).

I believe in the Book of Mormon and am content to wait for the Lord to bring forth additional knowledge about peoples in 600 BC and later.

Dating and Courtship

Dating and courtship are part of social relationships that may lead to marriage. However, the practices of dating and courtship vary with the customs of the people. In some groups, the choices of marriage partners are made by parents or others not part of the marriage, and the bride and groom accept the decision made, even though they may not have love for each other. In other societies, dating and courtship give people opportunities to make their own choices of marriage-partners.

Dating was a time for people to get to know each other. Dating was a time for them to have fun in a social context. It was common for people to have a lot of dates with others, because no serious relationships were established. Eventually, people began to have greater interest in certain persons, and they began to think about the other person as one with whom they might want to spend their life in marriage. As their interest grew in a particular person, they entered the courtship phase in which they got to know more about each other. During courtship, they stopped dating others and focused on developing a serious relationship with the other person. If the results of their courtship were positive, they culminated their relationship with engagement, a promise of marriage, and marriage followed engagement. In marriage, they entered a life-long relationship devoted to the companionship and love of their marriage-partner.

However, social customs have changed during recent decades. Dating has almost disappeared, and people are now "going steady" almost from the time they meet someone. That is, they meet someone and soon enter a courtship phase with that person. It is normal for people to become infatuated with a person they have recently met, but as they develop their relationship together, they may find they no longer have a serious interest in the other person. They may find they don't really want to have a close relationship with the other person for the rest of their lives. They stop serious contacts with the other person, and if their relationship had developed into marriage, they terminate the marriage with divorce or sometimes just abandonment. As might be expected, divorce rates have risen as dating has been phased out and going steady and courtships have become the norm for social interactions between people.

Mormon,Mormonism Trade Routes In Ancient Arabia

When we think of Book of Mormon migrations, we usually think of migrations to the American continents. Almost all of the Book of Mormon concerns migrations to the Americas and life after the migrations of the Book of Mormon peoples were completed. However, another migration that should be discussed is migration by the Lehites from Jerusalem to the place where they built their ship.

The Book of Mormon explains that the Lehites traveled three days and then made camp in a valley containing a river that flowed into the Red Sea.

And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.

And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!  (1 Nephi 1:6, 8-9)

LDS researchers have studied various trade routes out of Jerusalem and have found interesting parallels between the text of the Book of Mormon and the archeological and historical information now known about those trade routes. Cooper Johnson has written an interesting article for Fair that describes LDS research that parallels the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon. Excerpts from that article are not given here, because one needs to read the full article.

As we study possible routes used by the Lehites after they left Jerusalem, we need to realize that the Lehites were led by the Lord to find the more fertile parts of the desert, and they may not have followed traditional trade routes. However, a study of trade routes used in 600 BC or later will help us understand the context of the travels of the Lehites.

Life Before Adam

The book of Genesis in the Bible gives a brief description of the creation of this earth. A literal interpretation of that story indicates that plants and animals were created about 7000 to 8000 years ago and that humans were created about 6000 years ago The scientific story, however, is that plants and animals evolved billions of years ago and that hominids, the early ancestors of modern humans, evolved a few million years ago. We thus see that there is a significant discrepancy between a literal interpretation of the Bible and dating of the earth by scientists. One way of resolving this conflict is with the correlation between hominids and the Fall of Adam that is given in Reconciliation of the Fall of Adam and Evolution.