Posts
Moses as Dr. McCoy
Over at Times and Seasons, Dave has a nice post, Genesis and Genre, that reviews several perspectives on what kind of writing Genesis is. It fits with some of my posts here regarding concordism, but that's not what I want to discuss at the moment.
Down in the comments, R. Gary expressed the probably common opinion that Moses witnessed the creation in detail, something he has done on this blog before. The scriptural support for this is Moses 1:27:
And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.I think it is unclear whether Moses saw a panoramic view of the history of the earth, or just a cross-section at that time. Sometimes I imagine Moses stepping into a large command-and-control center for a few minutes, with all kinds of real-time information flowing in. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that Moses had a panoramic vision.
I am reminded of an episode of Star Trek that I saw as a kid. Aliens had captured Mr. Spock and removed his brain, and Dr. McCoy was under pressure to surgically replace it before Spock's body died. This was a task beyond McCoy's ability and knowledge, so he used an alien machine to temporarily enhance his knowledge. But he could only do so once and still live. McCoy emerged from the machine marveling, "A child could do it." The surgery began and McCoy worked quickly. However, as time wore on McCoy's enhanced knowledge began to fade, his comprehension became foggy, and the surgery became more difficult. Capt. Kirk tried to spur him on, reminding him that "a child could do it," but eventually McCoy was left to his own abilities. Fortunately Spock was now conscious and with his help, and through trial and error, McCoy was able to finish off the job.
Back to Moses: He was only able to comprehend what he saw "by the spirit of God." Even if he saw and understood everything about the earth, by the time he wrote his account he was back to his normal self. What could his mortal mind remember of his experience? What comprehension would he retain? I think that it would have been as ephemeral as a dream.
Of course, what exactly Moses saw and remembered is a matter of speculation. But if his experience was like Dr. McCoy's, there is reason to think that it isn't relevant to science.
9 comments:
I'm sorry, I can't help myself.
Moses: "Damn it, Jim! I'm a prophet, not a scientist!"
You beat me to it.
.
Jared*,
As often happens, you and I have slightly different points of view. And, as usual, I don't see that being a big problem. That having been said, here are my thoughts about two points in your post.
1.
It just never occurred to me that Moses seeing the earth, "even all of it," might refer to a cross-section view. That's clever. But then I remembered the next verse where Moses also sees earth's inhabitants, "and there was not a soul which he beheld not." (Moses 1:28.) And, well, I just don't understand how Moses could have seen all of earth's inhabitants by looking at a cross-section of the earth itself as it existed at the time of his vision.
2.
Regarding "what Moses saw and remembered," I'm wondering why Joseph Smith would restore to its original state an account that was flawed in the first place. That idea doesn't make much sense to me. Here's how I understand that process.
The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is a revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible. But the Prophet didn't actually "translate" the Bible from ancient manuscripts, he went through the existing English text and made inspired corrections, revisions, and additions (see, for example, David Rolph Seely, Ensign, Aug 1997, p.9).
The book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is an extract from the JST and represents Joseph's "translation" of the first six chapters of Genesis. The book of Moses is a fulfillment of this prophecy:
-------------- quote --------------
"In a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou [Moses] shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe." (Moses 1:41.)
-------------- end quote --------------
Today, more than 600 excerpts from the JST are part of the LDS Bible, either in the footnotes or in the JST appendix. But there are only citations to Moses in the footnotes (no JST text) before Genesis 6:18 because that is the first verse having a JST excerpt that's not in the book of Moses (see Robert J. Matthews, Ensign, June 1992, p.29).
Moses wrote what he was commanded to write (Moses 1:40) and, three thousand years later, Joseph Smith was able to correct the King James version of what Moses wrote because Joseph was a prophet "like unto Moses" (2 Ne 3:9).
Frankly, Jared*, I don't see a lot of speculation in that process.
In regards to the time-frame of the vision, I don't see any indication in the English grammar of Moses 1:27-29 of any sort of tense other than past tense. I just don't understand how verse 28 somehow refers to all inhabitants without regard to time. The cross-section is, to me, the only way to view Moses's vision from the English text we have.
.
NoCoolName_Tom,
You're right. By itself, verse 28 doesn't necessarily mean Moses saw all of earth's inhabitants. But I believe that's what it does mean and here's why. When I was 25 years old, Spencer W. Kimball published his book, Faith Precedes the Miracle, and I read this: "In heavenly glorious vision, Moses ' beheld the world ... and all the children of men....' (Moses 1:8.)" (p.86.)
Because President Kimball abbreviated Moses 1:8 the way he did, and because verses 8 and 28 refer to the same vision, the scope of what Moses saw isn't as limited as you suggest. The clincher for me is the word "all."
Gary,
To be clear, I mean a cross-section in time. In other words, as God is speaking Moses sees the whole earth and its inhabitants as it exists at that moment--as opposed to seeing the whole earth and its changes through time. Kind of like all of the sudden he was wearing super-duper X-ray glasses and looked around for a minute.
No attempt to be clever here. I've always thought that Moses 1:27-29 referred to the earth as it existed at that moment--and that was before I cared much about science.
I also think this interpretation works better in light of the subsequent text, because in vs 30 and 36 Moses is still asking questions that don't seem to have been answered by his vision in the preceding verses. Then in Moses 2:1 God tells him to write the words which God will speak. From then on, Moses is listening, not watching.
Gary,
Sorry I missed your latest comment. Verse 8 does seem to broaden the scope of the vision--or at least that session of it.
.
Jared*,
You never disappoint me. Your logic is always good.
I think questions about "why" and "how" would naturally flow from what Moses saw and don't detract from it at all.
I think the Lord's command "write the things which I shall speak" (1:40) and "write the words which I speak" (2:1) emphasize the value of the book of Moses as a restoration of the Genesis text. God showed it to Moses, then commanded him to record it in His, the Lord's, own words. The vision was preface to the revelation.
And I believe this brings us full circle back to my Times and Seasons comment:
-------------- quote --------------
"There is a paragraph in Mormon literature (click here) that claims Moses, in Gen. 1:27, spoke with finality for all time and all people because God had shown him everything pertaining to this planet.
"I believe mainstream Mormon thought about Genesis has some of its roots in this paragraph because the accuracy of Genesis as a whole is related to the accuracy of Gen. 1:27.
"Therefore, I believe Bored in Vernal (#3) has a point" when she says "the minute you start trying to separate the Genesis stories from strict historical fact, you create a problem in mainstream Mormonism."
-------------- end quote --------------
The paragraph I mentioned is, of course, found in a formal 1909 First Presidency statement and its 2002 reprint in the Ensign brings it forward from 1909 into the 21st century, making it the current position of the Church on that subject.
I'd like to express my gratitude to both Jared* and R. Gary for the polite and respectful way in which they disagree with each other. It is refreshingly different from the all too common course of demonizing those who disagree. Please keep up the good work.
Post a Comment