Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_beefcalf]

Fortunately the LDS Church encourages secular education (acceptance of the sciences) and rejects the notion of a young earth chronology being passed off for doctrine.

Yeah, sure. The LDS Church encourages the acceptance of the sciences. Except that they don't.

My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.

The LDS Church and Science: It's a relationship of convenience.

[_Uncle Dale]

Fortunately the LDS Church encourages secular education (acceptance of the sciences) and rejects the notion of a young earth chronology being passed off for doctrine.

That's encouraging -- I always did like Apostle Talmadge.

But he gave no date for the advent of Adam and Eve. I suspect, if
push came to shove, he would have backdated that episode by at
least a million years.

So, assuming that The Brethren maintain a close relationship with Heavenly
Father, and are greatly empowered by Divine discernment -- when do they
say Our First Parents were living in what are now Jackson and Daviess
counties, Missouri?

Just curious -- I don't expect an exact date -- just a ballpark figure.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...the Grand Canyon...

Well, when Noah's flood was abating, there was obviously a huge reservoir
of flood waters backed up in the Midwest -- and when the pressure grew
great enough, it rushed downward to the ocean, cutting the Colorado River
as it went. That explains everything.

Odd thing -- that the fossils in the exposed canyon walls grow increasingly
less complex, as our burro takes us down to the river. Noah's flood must
have floated the higher level animals up to its "higher levels" -- sounds good.

UD

[_bcspace]

Fortunately the LDS Church encourages secular education (acceptance of the sciences) and rejects the notion of a young earth chronology being passed off for doctrine.

Doesn't seem to be the case:
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... lang=eng#6

It IS the case. See the official doctrine in the institute manuals on D&C 77 as well as Genesis 1-2:

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79 ), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

[_bcspace]

That's encouraging -- I always did like Apostle Talmadge.

But he gave no date for the advent of Adam and Eve. I suspect, if
push came to shove, he would have backdated that episode by at
least a million years.

Talmadge and Roberts (BH) locked horns with the young JFS. The 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement settled the debate by stating the exsistence or non existence of pre Adamite races was not the doctrine of the Church.

So, assuming that The Brethren maintain a close relationship with Heavenly
Father, and are greatly empowered by Divine discernment -- when do they
say Our First Parents were living in what are now Jackson and Daviess
counties, Missouri?

Just curious -- I don't expect an exact date -- just a ballpark figure.

It is wrong to assume such a relationship makes answers to everything immediately available.

[_Darth J]

I see that bcspace is back to equivocating between the age of the Earth itself (the big ball of rock we are on) and the age of mortal life on the Earth. The Church does take an official position on the age of mortal life on this Earth. That position is hopelessly irreconcilable with science.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15412&start=84

[_bcspace]

I see that bcspace is back to equivocating between the age of the Earth itself (the big ball of rock we are on) and the age of mortal life on the Earth. The Church does take an official position on the age of mortal life on this Earth. That position is hopelessly irreconcilable with science.

That is completely false because it's already been shown the Church accepts the possibility of pre Adamite races and everything else Darth J would like to use fails contextually because of the aforementioned doctrine on D&C 77. As 2 Nephi 2:22 shows (and dovetails with D&C 77), there is an undefined creative period prior to the garden state. And so one must ask the questions what is meant by "earth", the finished earth? And what is meant by man' the finished and complete man?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
It is wrong to assume such a relationship makes answers to everything
immediately available.

Well, I'm used to being "wrong;" and these days I do not expect much
of anything to transpire immediately. And yet, if we do not look to the
"prophets" for teachings on our First Parents, then where should we look?

"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto
his servants the prophets."

And some writers of scriptures refer to the Hebrew Bible as the "Law and
the Prophets;" so perhaps prophetic answers can be found therein. In the
1835 D&C, the "doctrine" part of the book counts the generations backwards
to Adam, and provides at least a ballpark figure for the age of his era.

Then again, the Mormons decanonized that part of the scriptures, leaving
it with no more authority than possessed by Bishop Usher.

Assuming that Joseph Smith himself would have corrected a terribly blatant
error in the 1835 D&C -- can we rely upon its dating as at least approximate?

Or, putting it another way, would the prophets of the LDS church agree more
with a c. 10,000 years-ago-advent for our First Parents? or maybe 100 times that?

I attended LDS Institute -- so I have a pretty good idea what the teachers of
those classes would answer, in speaking for the "Law and the Prophets."

UD

[_bcspace]

Well, I'm used to being "wrong;" and these days I do not expect much
of anything to transpire immediately. And yet, if we do not look to the
"prophets" for teachings on our First Parents, then where should we look?

Again you're assuming that we are all entitled to all the answers all at once. That is contrary to Christian scripture which teaches such concepts as parables, mysteries, milk before meat, and esotericism.

Or, putting it another way, would the prophets of the LDS church agree more
with a c. 10,000 years-ago-advent for our First Parents? or maybe 100 times that?

Without a specific revelation and/or doctrine, I don't think it matters what they agree on regarding that issue. In fact, I think it's plain they would not all agree. From JET and JSF to Russel M. Nelson and his junior companion Wickman who corrected him publically on the issue.

[_Drifting]

He has a genetic marker, L1B1, that can be followed back to an ancient African lineage that has never before been found in Western Europe.
The research team who did the tests — Britain’s DNA — said it made Ian “the grandson of a black Eve”.
Related Links
Half of European men share King Tut's DNA
South Africa find reflects evolutionary leap
Ian has mitochondrial DNA which is passed through the female side, is 30,000 years old and only two genetic mutations removed from the first “black Eve”.

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/uk/dna-l ... -1.1042627

Eve was black, who knew...