tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post116455262076301616..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Book of Abraham Suddenly Makes More Sense: It's Discussing Geocentric AstronomyJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60985838725648373832008-09-09T10:44:00.000-05:002008-09-09T10:44:00.000-05:00Ancient calendars followed the paths of the stars ...Ancient calendars followed the paths of the stars as they journey through the sky from an earthbound perspective. It doesn't mean Abraham or Moses believed the sun revolved around the earth or was the center of the universe.rockyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07516595149657241126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165692441779508022006-12-09T13:27:00.000-06:002006-12-09T13:27:00.000-06:00I do not believe the BoA to be true (I am Catholic...I do not believe the BoA to be true (I am Catholic), but I want to point out the the Bible is geocentric, the fathers of the Church supoorted this idea, three popes made declarations supoorting these Scriptural views, and most importantly, science has not disproven geocentrism. <BR/><BR/>See <I>Geocentricity 101</I> on my blog. Also see this article: http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/06/galileo-was-wrong-vol-i-finally.html, a brief review of the new book <I>Galileo Was Wrong</I> by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennet (Ph.D.'s).<BR/><BR/>Mark Wyatt<BR/>www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.comMark Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624130143770417948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165462424620771602006-12-06T21:33:00.000-06:002006-12-06T21:33:00.000-06:00Whatever.Whatever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165365081959744792006-12-05T18:31:00.000-06:002006-12-05T18:31:00.000-06:00Yes. Yes it does.Yes. Yes it does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165294390287323952006-12-04T22:53:00.000-06:002006-12-04T22:53:00.000-06:00Jeff G. wrote:"There are no spheres, firmaments, o...Jeff G. wrote:<BR/><BR/>"There are no spheres, firmaments, orders or whatever else you want to call those levels which surround the earth."<BR/><BR/>How did you determine that? The last time I checked, astronomers were still trying to figure out what the universe looks like. I'm sure they would be thrilled if you were to clue them in.<BR/><BR/>Kidding aside, I think you know better than to make an assertion like that. The correct statement is, "As far as we can tell today, and based on criteria that are observable to us and that we have thought of, there are no distinct tiers or orders of celestial bodies as described in Abraham."<BR/><BR/>Here's an example of how scientific understanding can change and magically align with revelation once thought to be absurd:<BR/><BR/>Genesis 1:7 goes like this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."<BR/><BR/>Well, that seems pretty silly. Everyone knows there isn't any "water" _above_ the firmament. It's just the vacuum of outer space, some stars, dust, and "dark matter".<BR/><BR/>But wait -- in superstring theory, our "universe" came into existence when a bubble was created within the real universe, which consists of some form of energetic fluid (not really a substance we have words for). The bubble creation process was a little messy, and some of the fluid condensed inside the bubble, forming matter as we know it, eventually coalescing into stars, galaxies, planets, etc.<BR/><BR/>Now that verse in Genesis doesn't seem so silly, does it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165208509655430522006-12-03T23:01:00.000-06:002006-12-03T23:01:00.000-06:00A geocentric perspective can still deal with the v...A geocentric perspective can still deal with the varying orbits of planets and much of the reality of the heavens. Geocentric does not mean idiotic. Various geocentric models do account for the various motions of nearby and more distant objects. Much more than the 24-hour cycle of the earth is accounted for. See <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric" REL="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165138762485764452006-12-03T03:39:00.000-06:002006-12-03T03:39:00.000-06:00Pops,Nice try, but you are completely ignoring wha...Pops,<BR/><BR/>Nice try, but you are completely ignoring what Jeff's post actually said. Here is the point, inasmuch as Abraham is describing a geocentric model it is NOT describing "the world upon which Abraham stood", assuming, that is, that the account is true.<BR/><BR/>Here is how false it is:<BR/><BR/>There are no spheres, firmaments, orders or whatever else you want to call those levels which surround the earth.<BR/><BR/>As such, the outer firmaments cannot possibly take longer to orbit the earth, contrary to Abraham. In fact, all things, from a geocentric perspective take exactly 1 day to revolve around the earth.<BR/><BR/>There is no government among sphere since there are no spheres. And so on.<BR/><BR/>All of these things are entirely false. If the BofA is assuming a geocentric model in any way, it is saying things which are entirely false.<BR/><BR/>You can tell me to look at the BofA or at FARMS all you want. Maybe you should just look at what the post itself claims.Jeff Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165116786953545402006-12-02T21:33:00.000-06:002006-12-02T21:33:00.000-06:00Nicely stated, Pops. The geocentric perspective in...Nicely stated, Pops. The geocentric perspective in the BOA is not the "obviously false" comprehensive system, but reflects an explanation from a geocentric perspective, couched with some of the geocentric nuances of the ancient world.<BR/><BR/>But if I were fabricating the Book of Abraham, you can bet I'd be sure to have the Lord teach Abraham the things that I know - or think I know.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165041020815101352006-12-02T00:30:00.000-06:002006-12-02T00:30:00.000-06:00Cute.Cute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1165036785538387262006-12-01T23:19:00.000-06:002006-12-01T23:19:00.000-06:00FARMS doesn't just grasp at straws, they grasp at ...FARMS doesn't just grasp at straws, they grasp at the really twisty ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164985773327141752006-12-01T09:09:00.000-06:002006-12-01T09:09:00.000-06:00At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me summar...At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me summarize the "geocentric" issue as I see it.<BR/><BR/>Daniel Peterson, according to Jeff Lindsay, uses the term "geocentric" in reference to the brief astronomy contained in the Book of Abraham.<BR/><BR/>If you read the Book of Abraham, you will discover that the astronomy is very sparse, and might be called "geocentric" only in that it describes how the cosmos appears from the perspective of planet earth.<BR/><BR/>Nowhere does it state that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the sun orbits the earth, or that planetary motion includes epicycles, or anything of that sort.<BR/><BR/>It is not "blatantly false" to describe the cosmos from the perspective of planet earth -- the notion that it could be is utterly absurd and without merit. It is impossible to ever arrive at a heliocentric model without first measuring and recording the motions of heavenly bodies as they appear on planet earth.<BR/><BR/>In other words, Daniel Peterson's simplistic "geocentric" is not the same as Jeff G's comprehensive "geocentric". Using the latter to misrepresent the former is an error. The whole thing could have been avoided if everyone had first looked in Abraham to find out what Peterson meant by the term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164839600494533002006-11-29T16:33:00.000-06:002006-11-29T16:33:00.000-06:00Anon 10:24,I also pointed out that statements made...Anon 10:24,<BR/><BR/>I also pointed out that statements made by FARMS are not necessarily approved by the LDS GAs. They are usually quite on topics of this nature, so we really don't know if they agree...at least I don't know.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164839451124483322006-11-29T16:30:00.000-06:002006-11-29T16:30:00.000-06:00Anon 10:24,I don't think Jeff G is upset about any...Anon 10:24,<BR/><BR/>I don't think Jeff G is upset about anything. He is merely stating his observations regarding statements made by FARMS. The statements say that the astronomical references in the BoA were made based on a Geocentric mindset. Jeff G is merely pointing out that Geocentrism is false (even blatantly false) and questions why God would teach Abraham in such a false fashion. <BR/><BR/>This is a valid observation and question. You may come up with an answer that satifies you and others on the blog, but so far no one has come up with anything that satisfies Jeff G (or me either really).<BR/><BR/>That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164781475877754672006-11-29T00:24:00.000-06:002006-11-29T00:24:00.000-06:00Can someone tell me what Jeff G is all upset about...Can someone tell me what Jeff G is all upset about? What statement in the BOA is "blatantly false"? Like Jeff said, the Lord does not say the earth is immobile. So what's all the huffing about?? Can't we agree that the BOA doesn't teach modern science the way we would prefer, and leave it to the individual to decide what to make of that?<BR/><BR/>The idea that an ancient paradigm informs the BOA is interesting, though, and does not conform to the theory that Joseph made it up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164779997573825402006-11-28T23:59:00.000-06:002006-11-28T23:59:00.000-06:00Like I said, jeff, you overly trouble yourself wit...Like I said, jeff, you overly trouble yourself with my supposed lack of evidence. If you don't wish to accept my "evidence," (or whatever you want to call it), it's no skin off my nose. I know the historians' field well and I've seen numerous writers quibble over precisely the same pieces of data, claiming that they translate into two different interpretations. It is no surprise that the same thing would happen here. If you want to wantonly dismiss all my interpretation/evidence/rambling/demagouery,<BR/>feel free. <BR/><BR/>In any case, this is just a blog with all of us as anonymous nobodies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164772084400604492006-11-28T21:48:00.000-06:002006-11-28T21:48:00.000-06:00Walker,You haven't cited any evidence yet. Stop s...Walker,<BR/><BR/>You haven't cited any evidence yet. Stop saying you have. <BR/><BR/>All your sources were completely the point. Something only counts as evidence for theory A over theory B when the evidence in question would only arise in the case of A being true but not B. Your examples do no such thing.<BR/><BR/>Pops,<BR/><BR/>I was commenting on Jeff's post. If you don't accept Peterson's geocentric reading of the BofA, then that's fine by me.Jeff Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164769696531722382006-11-28T21:08:00.000-06:002006-11-28T21:08:00.000-06:00Jeff G,Okay, let's back up a little bit here. Does...Jeff G,<BR/><BR/>Okay, let's back up a little bit here. Does the Book of Abraham use the word "geocentric"? No. Does it state that the sun orbits the earth? No. You really need to tell us what statement in the Book of Abraham is false, because I can't find it.<BR/><BR/>You took a bit of a leap when Jeff L. used the term geocentric. It was a leap not justified by the source material. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the Book of Abraham.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that the Book of Abraham doesn't represent God as teaching a false principle to Abraham.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164767227411207892006-11-28T20:27:00.000-06:002006-11-28T20:27:00.000-06:00You're right, Rick. While I think the idea is wor...You're right, Rick. While I think the idea is worth examining (hence the evidence cited above), perhaps it isn't correct. Big whoop. Welcome to the world scholarship. What ought to matter to a Mormon is that the scripture is what it claims to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164754495889444672006-11-28T16:54:00.000-06:002006-11-28T16:54:00.000-06:00anon 9:01,That possibility was brought up, the pro...anon 9:01,<BR/><BR/>That possibility was brought up, the problem there is that the BoA was not written to Pharoah, so why put false teachings there?<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone here is saying they are more intelligent than God, but more intelligent than some men regarding certain topics, that's another story.<BR/>--------------<BR/>I'm not sure why so many here are defending this line of defense so vehemently.<BR/><BR/>Just because FARMS comes up with a line of defense does not make it valid. It doesn't even make it something that the LDS church approves. <BR/><BR/>Unless of course, I am mistaken and all FARMS publications must go thru committee first...which is a possibility.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164733275849714602006-11-28T11:01:00.000-06:002006-11-28T11:01:00.000-06:00Two points: (1) It seems as if no one has consider...Two points: (1) It seems as if no one has considered the possibility that God did tell Abraham all the technical astronomical facts but perhaps advised him to tell to Pharoah only what he (Pharoah) could understand. <BR/><BR/>And (2) It often seems as if some folks have not considered the possibility that they do not exceed God in wisdom or intelligence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164724820627748192006-11-28T08:40:00.000-06:002006-11-28T08:40:00.000-06:00That's fine. Don't feel under any obligation. Of...That's fine. Don't feel under any obligation. Of course, I might make a similar argument that you are brushing off legitimate evidence, but hey, if you want to do that (something I've done and do in the past), there are greater tragedies in the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164719015590501752006-11-28T07:03:00.000-06:002006-11-28T07:03:00.000-06:00Wow, that comment reeked of desperation. 1) Show...Wow, that comment reeked of desperation. <BR/><BR/>1) Shows nothing other than that God was Abraham's father, just as He is everybody's father.<BR/><BR/>2) Shows nothing. The whole point of Jeff's post was to show that the word "order" here means something very different from what we heliocentrists think.<BR/><BR/>3) Moses is not Abraham.<BR/><BR/>4) Says nothing about the chapter being PRIMARILY allegorical.<BR/><BR/>The entire first half of the chapter says nothing of spirits. The entire next chapter says nothing of spirits. The 2nd and 3rd facsimiles say nothing about spirits. Face it, the most straight forward reading of all this is that Abraham was concerned with, and was thus taught astronomy, false astronomy judging by Jeff's post.<BR/><BR/>It has become clear to me that you are not really trying to find the most straight forward conclusion in this matter though. Rather, you have already made up your mind and are simply reasoning to find any way you can to that preconceived conclusion. Accordingly, I see little point in being obligated to respond to such flimsy, ad hoc reasoning any more.Jeff Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164696484315443142006-11-28T00:48:00.000-06:002006-11-28T00:48:00.000-06:00Crimanently, I'm going to have to walk you through...Crimanently, I'm going to have to walk you through every piece of evidence. I was trying to save me some time, but since you insist...<BR/><BR/>1. Abraham's understanding of the astronomy was childlike<BR/>--See Abr. 3:12 ("My son, my son")<BR/>2. The Lord's lucid realization that he is teaching Abraham according to the earth from which he standeth<BR/>--See Abr. 3:3-9<BR/>3. The Lord, when teaching Moses in a similar manner to Abraham, states that his work is the "immortality and eternal life of man" (not of stars)--hence, the Lord would be quite willing to use <BR/>--Moses 1:39 (a very relevant verse considering both are creation accounts--also because Moses was told to write concerning the things of the earth upon which he "standeth")<BR/>4. The primary allegorical nature of the BoA<BR/>--Abr. 3:17-18 ("howbeit he made the greater star; AS, ALSO if there be two spirits")--the rest of the chapter is devoted to the pre-existence. If the Lord's primary purpose were to teach Abraham astronomy, why such an odd segue and why the use of the simile word "as." <BR/><BR/>"We can't teach high schoolers organic chemistry. Does this mean that we should teach them alchemy instead? The milk which comes before the meat is supposed to be no less true than the meat is. The meat supplements the milk rather than replacing it."<BR/><BR/>High schoolers have a different educational background than Abraham. Abraham was working on his own timetable. Not the best comparison (but it works well if we accept that analogies need not be 100% dead on to be effective but only catered to a specifc context i.e. the Lord's teaching <BR/>of Abraham)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164691797655306042006-11-27T23:29:00.000-06:002006-11-27T23:29:00.000-06:00It makes more sense to me that God would teach Abr...It makes more sense to me that God would teach Abraham the truth, and then advise him what to say and what not to say in his meeting with Pharoh.Bishop Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385909789743073477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1164688965031808162006-11-27T22:42:00.000-06:002006-11-27T22:42:00.000-06:00Alright, one at a time:Mormanity,Evolution has alr...Alright, one at a time:<BR/><BR/>Mormanity,<BR/><BR/>Evolution has already forced people to suggest that the creation account is not about "how" is happened. Now you are making it so that the creation account doesn't even described the final product? What do all those creation accounts actually say? What is the Mormon committed to? "God created something, somehow."<BR/><BR/>Pops,<BR/><BR/>No, geocentrism is false, completely false from every perspective. It may appear true from some perspectives, but that does not make it true. There is an objective fact of the matter, and apparently the scriptures tell us the wrong one. At least you do appear to tacitly agree that the scripture does teach geocentrism to some extent though. Maybe you could help me out with these other people. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Walker,<BR/><BR/>I see your comments as being entirely ad hoc in nature. "God cares more about souls than stars." Where does it say this? You made it up. Even if it is true, how do you know that it is at all relevant for the case at hand? Even if its true, does that means that God doesn't care about stars at all? If not, why all the creation accounts?<BR/><BR/>The same can be said about Jeff's appeal to Abraham teaching Pharaoh. How do you know what would have happened? How do you know that such a thing would prevent God from at least telling Abraham the truth? You are simply making all this up with absolutely no evidence to back it up.<BR/><BR/>Back to Walker, why does the Lord use such imperfect means? Just because Jesus called the apostles children in some particular situation doesn't say anything at all about Abraham. Again, you are just making stuff up and/or inventing relevancy without any appeal to evidence at all.<BR/><BR/>We can't teach high schoolers organic chemistry. Does this mean that we should teach them alchemy instead? The milk which comes before the meat is supposed to be no less true than the meat is. The meat supplements the milk rather than replacing it.<BR/><BR/>In conclusion, the BofA says way too much about astronomy to suggest that God wasn't teaching him about the nature of the creation. Furthermore, there is some information which is taught in the book which does nothing to further the allegory. Also, to suggest that Abraham was just a child when it came to astronomy goes against everything which has been taught in the church on the matter. Geocentrism is false and yet it is apparently endorsed by God. The problem still remains.Jeff Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com