Young Earth Creationism in the LDS Church

[_Uncle Dale]

However, since I have experienced them myself and with another, I have a
different view now.

Now, you are welcome to discount them since you haven't experienced
something similar. That does not mean you are correct however....

I've met RLDS who sincerely testified
to having met the Three Nephites...
who proclaimed the RLDS Church to
be God's one true church upon the
face of the earth.

I've experienced something similar.
But those experiences are not what
I would teach as exclusive Truth.

UD

[_Tobin]

However, since I have experienced them myself and with another, I have a
different view now.

Now, you are welcome to discount them since you haven't experienced
something similar. That does not mean you are correct however....

I've met RLDS who sincerely testified
to having met the Three Nephites...
who proclaimed the RLDS Church to
be God's one true church upon the
face of the earth.

I've experienced something similar.
But those experiences are not what
I would teach as exclusive Truth.

UD

That depends on the how over-reaching the claim is. Seeing and speaking with the 3 Nephites isn't likely to make one conclude that the LDS (or RLDS) Church is true, but it would necessarily mean that God exists and that the Book of Mormon has some basis as a historical document to such a witness.

[_Uncle Dale]

That depends on the how over-reaching the claim is. Seeing and speaking with the 3 Nephites isn't likely to make one conclude that the LDS (or RLDS) Church is true, but it would necessarily mean that God exists and that the Book of Mormon has some basis as a historical document to such a witness.

I haven't heard these sorts of personal
testimonies for decades -- but back in the
old days, we'd hear them at summer retreats
and General Conference. Sometimes it was the
Three Nephites who proclaimed the RLDS to
be the One True Church -- or Elijah, or some
of the Ten Tribes, up at the North Pole, or
Moroni, or whomever.

Joseph Smith's sister, Katherine Smith Salisbury
testified at the 1896 RLDS General Conference,
about the Angel Moroni appearing in her home,
and about the Angel proclaiming that Joseph III
was God's Living Prophet -- that was in 1896.

I have no doubt that she experienced SOMETHING;
but I would never teach it to young minds at
Sunday School as God's latter day revelation.

Nor would I make any such profession here --
even though I know what similar experiences
can be for contemporary Saints.

UD

[_Franktalk]

I thought you'd say more about your belief in a non-linear past.

Not much to say. The belief that all of the geologic formations around us are due to slow processes has been shown to be false in many areas. But the field of geology has been slow to accept data instead of agenda. A classic example of this is how Bretz was treated about the flood in Washington State. Another assumption of science was that the speed of light was infinite. Olaf Roemer showed by measurement that the speed of light was in fact finite. Of course he was rejected by his peers. I guess they wanted him to be published in a peer reviewed journal before they would accept his measurements. They did eventually come around 17 years after Olaf was dead. A couple of guys had a theory about the speed of light changing over time. Of course they have been laughed at by orthodox science for years. I mean just who could believe that such a thing could happen? That would be like saying atomic decay changes over time as well. But of course we now know it does. But I am confident that it will not be taught in schools. It will instead go on the heap of data to be ignored pile. You see when people do not look for something there is a good chance they will not find it. And when some people do find something they must be driven out of science and laughed at. But all of this agenda driven history of science means nothing, for you see I am not a naturalist. I do not place limits on what I think about. My mind is allowed to ponder things that science refuses to even acknowledge as possible. I view this whole universe as part of a much larger realm. I have faith that there is a God who exist outside of nature. I believe that at times God has refashioned the universe. Exactly how I do not know. So for me the universe is a much more complex place than science would lead you. Let us say that you lived three thousand years ago. And the sky was green. Then over two generations it became blue. How would you go about trying to find out today if those events happened in the past? Now you can take one path and say those kinds of events never happened. Or you can be like me and say that there could be many things in our past which we don't know about. I think my acceptance of a changing and complex past is reasonable. I think that science is not reasonable in their assumptions about the past. For this view of mine that many things in our past could have happened I am called stupid and uneducated.

Just on this thread.

"You have indicated that you have a technical background, but it doesn't shine through very well sometimes."

"I think you have the short end of the stick FrankTalk."

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk,

You said you wanted to see methods that could be used to independently verify radiometric dating. I provided three such methods, two of which depend on extraterrestrial processes, and provided confirmation for the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. I referenced the papers that described them.

Now you say you have no problem with the age of Earth as determined by mainstream science.

Thanks for your post and links. I am not ignoring you. I am working on a project and will go over the data when I can. It is not what I asked for but I will examine it none the less. It may take time.

[_lulu]

I thought you'd say more about your belief in a non-linear past.

Not much to say.

I'm speachless.

[_DrW]

Tobin,

Rather than trying to fit the data into a model wherein we are all the result of some panspermia experiment by space aliens, why not take Occam's razor down from the shelf and give it a go?

Hypothesis #1: Religious belief among humans is an evolutionary holdover from the demon haunted world when sickness was caused by evil spirits and humans made up their own stories to explain what they could not other wise understand.

Hypothesis # 2: Religious belief was conferred on humans six thousand years ago by space aliens who came to this planet to do some biological terraforming and went to a ton of trouble to design humans using the same amino acids, proteins, lipids, DNA and RNA bases and gene sequences they found in animals existing here on Earth so as to give the appearance that humankind evolved here, and having not even bothered to fix a few evolutionary mistakes in the process, left humans here to fend for themselves while they headed off to the next habitable planet, being enabled to do so on account of their ability to live forever and or travel at speeds far in excess of the speed of light.

Razor, please.

Occam's razor is only reasonable given all claims being equal. .

According to your earlier post you obviously think that the scientific narrative and your "science fiction" scenario are on an equal footing in terms of credibility of the claims being made.

Of course they are not. But if you cannot see that the relevant data support the science narrative, then at least you can apply Occam's razor and realize how many more contingencies (assumptions) are required for the science fiction scenario as compared to the scientific narrative.

[_huckelberry]

The belief that all of the geologic formations around us are due to slow processes has been shown to be false in many areas. But the field of geology has been slow to accept data instead of agenda. A classic example of this is how Bretz was treated about the flood in Washington State. "

Because I live in eastern Washington and the flood in question happened where I live I feel a personal connection to this event. I have an amateur curiosity in geology in which I take pleasure in putting together my personal observations formed while hiking and traveling to know the land I live in. On one hand the evidence of this flood is all about me. My valley has extensive sediments from Idaho and Montana which settled from the flood waters. To the North of my valley a network of large erosion washes mark where the flood waters came from.None of this is readily visible or understandable however. Eastern Washington is not given to flooding because it is well drained to the sea by the Columbia river. One can live is this area for years and never see the flood. It is not a problem of scientific prejudice .The event is too big to be easily seen. In fact I would say that it is only possible to see the event through the lens of basic uniformitarian geological processes.

River canyons like the ones coming out of the local mountains have elaborate branching systems where each contributing side brook and trickle erodes its own branch canyon, It is this sort of system which takes a long time to develop.Following a path north from the snake river at Palous falls there is an entirely different kind of canyon. It is miles across and has no contributing side canyons. Follow it North to to Spokane valley and from there north to lake Pend Oreille.It is by thinking in terms of how water flows and washes away thing that one can see a giant mass of flowing water. When a person sees that one starts to see where the deposits of nonlocal sand found in my valley actually came from.

This is how uniformitarian geology works, processes like erosion and settling that we see at work now are the process which reveal what happened in the past. It is those processes which reveal a flood in Eastern Washington when no such thing happens in recorded history.

(do I need to expand this to the note the understanding of glacial advance and recession in the pathways out of northwest mountains are unformitarian processes which provide the crucial mechanism for actually causing an event so bizarre as gargantuan rivers flowing through my local desert?)

[_DrW]

Huckleberry,

Great explanation of how the Channelled Scablands are different from riverine systems.

Never really thought about the lack or tributaries into the main channels (like the one in which Grand Coulee Dam is built), but you have a good point.

One can really see this difference from the air, for example when you head from the Tri-CIties north along the Snake, and then turn east over the Blue Mountains. The two landscapes, just miles apart, could be from two different planets - nothing is the same.

Makes one wonder if the folks that think the Lake Missoula, the Palouse and Channelled Scablands are evidence for a young Earth have ever actually been there. More likely they just read about these phenomenon on creationist websites.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Makes one wonder if the folks that think the Lake Missoula, the Palouse and Channelled Scablands
are evidence for a young Earth have ever actually been there.
More likely they just read about these phenomenon on creationist websites.

When Utah Mormons drive up across the Idaho border
to purchase cases of that state's stronger alcohol content
beer, they frequently drive right past this road sign...



When that natural dam at Red Rock Pass finally broke through,
old Lake Bonneville created a vast flood of truly biblical
proportions, all the way to the mouth of the Columbia River.

Perhaps our LDS friends can inform us of whether that event
happened BEFORE or AFTER the Jaredites occupied the Americas.

???

UD