Posts
FARMS: Abraham, Astronomy and Cosmology
FARMS has made the text of one of their books, Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, available online. The book was brought to my attention by Kevin Barney in his BCC post, Kolob as Sirius. Several of the chapters deal with scientific issues, so I'll give a brief summary of what I've read and then add my two cents.
"Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham" by Michael D. Rhodes and J. Ward Moody.
This chapter takes a concordist view between the scriptures and science. I tend to think that concordism is a mistaken approach (see here and here), but I still found the chapter refreshing to read because it takes the sciences seriously on the age of the earth, death before the fall, and faunal succession. The authors essentially punt on the topics of pre-Adamites and evolution. Since the authors of this paper have received their advanced degrees in physics and astronomy, with no formal training in biology, we will take the prudent course and let those who are more knowledgeable on the subject deal with evolution.
Good move on their part. Michael Rhodes is a faculty member of the BYU religion department, and taught my Pearl of Great Price course. (I specifically took it from him for the Facsimiles.) His views on evolution are about what you would expect from a BYU religion professor.
"'And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy," by John Gee, William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson.
This chapter argues that the astronomy revealed to Abraham was from a geocentric perspective. I think they make a pretty good case; they certainly caused me to see some passages in a different light. We often think of the Book of Abraham as being the most science-friendly of the LDS creation accounts, however, paradoxically, there is an apologetic function served in eschewing concordism for the geocentric perspective. Doing so helps to bolster the notion that the Book of Abraham really reflects ancient teachings rather than nineteenth-century views.
In the appendix, the authors write:We believe that a careful examination of early cosmologies from LDS scriptures revealed within a few years of each other shows a wide range of conflicting astronomical ideas.
I would like for them to expand on that.
"The Creation of Humankind, and Allegory?: A Note on Abraham 5:7, 14–16," Richard D. Draper.
This chapter essentially argues that the Book of Abraham is the most ancient of the creation accounts, and so it (or an earlier source, or God) is responsible for the apparently allegorical nature of the text, rather than Moses.Genesis, Moses, and Abraham preserve the "official" account of humankind's entrance into the world as revealed by God. He has not seen fit to reveal more. No official statement of the First Presidency or public revelation by church leaders annuls the story as told in the scriptures. Does that force us to accept the account as historically accurate, or is there some room that God himself has given us an allegoric account?
Draper discusses Brigham Young and Parley Pratt as viewing at least parts as allegorical, but one should also add Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie.
Interestingly, Draper argues that Joseph Smith never taught anything other than a literal reading of Adam and Eve's creation. In doing so, he is at odds with others who attempt to connect the idea that Adam and Eve were God's children, physically, to Joseph Smith (usually via Moses 6:22).
Some things I disagree with, and others I am unsure of. However I think that these chapters each contain valuable elements for informing discussions of science and scripture in an LDS context.
