Young Earth Creationism in the LDS Church

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

A reasonable post and clearly stated. Let me start off by saying that I have in the last year modified my view of Genesis. I always thought that somewhere in the words was a gap or some other idea which would lead me to an melding of science and religious thought. I found none but then ran across a description in 2Peter which changed the way I read Genesis. I was very critical and found that Genesis could be talking about taking a universe and reforming it into a new creation. This may be hard to see at first glance. So let me start with 2Peter.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

There is a lot here but the part I wish to talk about is how the flood is described. It states that the world before the flood perished. Now we know from scripture that we have an earth both before the flood and after. So the term really means that the world was changed and the new earth was not the same as before. We also know that trace evidence of things and animals before the flood were not taken away. We also know that the changes were not that dramatic because most life carried right on through the flood. The few details we have show some changes in what we would call nature. Like before the flood rain did not exist the way it is today. I don't know the details about that and it does not matter for my discussion. It seems that rainbows did not form before the flood but after the flood they did form. So something in nature changed to allow light to bounce around in a raindrop and come out as it does today. None of these details matter. What is important is when I used the terms in 2Peter to reread Genesis I could not find a need for the creation to be from nothing. Just a reshuffling of existing stuff is all that is required. But of course I do believe that major changes were made in nature but I can not point out one. I just use 2peter as a model.

Now I have argued for a YEC in the past and have cast out various theories which try and compress time into a short period. I still believe there is more going on in the past than we know about. But a reforming to start a new age is actually what I think scripture is saying. And it appears that Peter wrote about the idea of uniformitarianism way before science thought it up. So what we see as constants are being held that way. But that is again another discussion.

My discussions with science and YEC was necessary for me to form a set of data that led me to my current thinking. So I appreciate all of those who fought for their views so I could sort through the idea of man. I still have some issues with the ideas of man and I will point out one in this post.

From my perspective I have taken the best from science and scripture to form a more accurate understanding of the past as defined by scripture. I always treat scripture as the truth but of course that truth is only valid if I read the passages correctly. I have not adjusted my faith or modified my faith based on science. But I have changed my interpretation of Genesis based on 2Peter and this happens to make many things fall into place.

Now I did state that I thought science overreached in dealing with the past. Let me describe one area that we can discuss. But first I have to bring up some science history. When Einstein first came out with his theory about light the scientific community performed many experiments to prove or disprove his theory. I can find many of them online and all of the supporting data as well. This is the way science is supposed to work. It gives us confidence that as each experiment or study comes in we move in a direction of acceptance or of rejection. Very fitting and in line with the scientific method. So over time we have come to take the theory as solid and we no longer question relativity as we once did.

Now let me talk about another theory that has also been accepted by science and many feel the idea is settled. The idea is that radiometric dating is accurate and reflects a true picture of past dates. I don't want to go into the details of radiometric dating I wish to examine what was done to verify the theory. You see before the method was used to determine dates we used other methods of dating geologic forms. Erosion was our primary method of determining age. It is a simple mechanical process that is removed from atomic parameters. I have tried to find one exhaustive study which verifies radiometric dating with erosion. I even took on the task myself and studied the Mississippi delta and Rocky Mountain erosion to see if the dated layers of sediment matched radiometric methods. I did not finish the work because it would take years to do a complete job. I did however satisfy myself that the two methods produce different results. It is possible that I made errors and that is why I seek an independent study. Now having said this I believe science has overreached in the wholesale acceptance of a new method of dating without the required verification. If you believe that science did in fact check out the method of atomic decay (not radiocarbon) then I ask to be pointed to where science performed this work.

I have found many radiocarbon verifications and it seems science has done its homework in this area.

Now my questions dealing with long age dating are not to fit the past into a short time frame. It is possible that in prior ages even more time elapsed than science believes today. My concern is that science may have been caught up with the naturalistic movement and decided that it was a waste of time doing a detailed comparison between erosion and atomic decay. If that is the case then science has overreached in its acceptance of a method. If you can show me where I am wrong I would be happy to modify my opinion that I now hold.

[_Franktalk]

duplicate

[_DrW]

With science I believe that science has made too many assumptions and it leads to errors in their dating of the earth. But even in this the error does not negate the other evidence of past ages.

Of course "Science" in its most basic form is a process
of gaining knowledge, and not a collected set of dogmas
that rely upon human "assumptions."

So, if you or some of your associates disagree with current
methods of geological/biological dating, you could make use
of "Science" to establish better dating methods.

Earlier in this thread I pointed out the dating method that
relies upon counting backwards the annual deposit bands
found in drilled ice cores. By this method we might count
backwards 10,000 years in an ice core, sample the gas
composition in a trapped air bubble, and thus come up
with some "assumptions" about the earth's atmospheric
composition that many years ago.

On the other hand, an innovative application of scientific
methodology MIGHT possibly establish that these annual
moisture deposit bands do not accurately reflect a
year-by-year record of pre-history.

Moral of the story ----if you disbelieve some scientific
consensus, use Science itself to change that consensus.

UD

UD,

You make an excellent point. It should be pointed out that, unlike physics or chemistry where assumptions can be tested and confirmed with great precision, when it comes to issues such a natural history, deep time evolution, the geological record and paleontology, knowledge is built on contributions of weighted data from multiple disciplines that serve to build a consensus. The hypothesis with the most explanatory power wins. As you point out, the current hypothesis can always be challenged with new data that has been peer reviewed. In this enterprise, the unfounded beliefs of religionists count for naught.

[Guest]

As described in response to Little Nipper in the post above, the creationists claim that catastrophism can account for (carefully selected) features of the geological record.

For example, the Institute for Creation Research is currently showing an article by John D. Morris, Ph.D., who claims that coal can be formed almost instantly by volcanic eruptions and reports that the charred end of a log found after the Mouth St. Helens eruption "under microscopic analysis proved to be a rather high grade of coal". To begin with, microscopic analysis cannot determine whether or not a material is coal tor not (chemical analysis is required). Such analysis can only confirm that something "looks like" coal (just like sworvski diamonds look like real diamonds).

In typical creationist style, this article "On the Origins of Coal" ends as follows:

The eruption of Mount St. Helens provided insight into processes operating during an even greater catastrophe, the great Flood of Noah’s day. Observations of the eruption’s aftermath have expanded our ability to understand the Flood. The results of ICR’s long research at Mount St. Helens remain a great encouragement to Bible-believing Christians. They also confront skeptics with the truth of God’s Word. http://www.icr.org/article/6093/

Clearly this article is of great scientific value. This is great new information and should help geologists find more coal by looking in the areas around volcanoes. (Those silly geologists have only been looking for coal in areas where ancient swamps formed, followed by the production, burial and coalification of plant material.)

Anyway, for folks in the real world (who would like to have a reliable supply of coal for steel-making, electrical power production, etc.), coal is a valuable resource, not associated with volcanoes, and the old coal (that from some 350 million years ago or so), is the best coal.

Coal can be found in the Omani wilderness where the Nephites journeyed. Some of the coal there has been is exposed on the surface through erosion. Seams that can be seen on the surface are less a foot thick (not commercial quantities).

What is interesting is that many of these coal seams, formed in ancient swamps and bedded horizontally, have been uplifted to angle of more than 45 degrees. I have seen some thin seams that have been uplifted at close to 90 degrees (straight up).

Thought I had an image of the straight-up coal seams. Can't find it right now, but will post it when I do.

Associated with this idea of deposition and subsequent uplift, are the marine fossils at a level of about 6,000 feet above sea level that I posted on another thread.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23258&p=571316&hilit=fossil#p571316

The image below shows the uplift of successive layers of sediment that have been compressed and cemented into rock (a very slow process). While the composition of most of these layers is similar, the resulting reddish color and the blue green color depend on whether the material was laid down in air or in water.



So, we have several layers of coal seams, each requiring thousands or tens of thousands of years to form and mature, we have strata of rock that have been laid down under water between strata that have been laid down above water, we have fossils from the sea bed lifted up to 6,000 feet or more at rates of millimeters per year, etc.

YECs who want to maintain the the land in which the Nephites wandered is only 3,400 years old will need to explain the following:

1. Given the fossils found at 6,000 feet or higher in the mountains of the Arabian Peninsula, what happened to move these fossil beds from below the surface of the sea more than 50 km inland and more than 2,000 meters above sea level in a mere 3,400 years?

2. How swamps of ancient plants could:
-be established, grow, and develop (many plant fossils can be identified in coal),
-become submerged in water,
-buried by mud and clay to depths of hundreds of feet,
-form coal (a process requiring many tens of thousands of years to millions of years for the good stuff - anthracite),
-be uplifted again and re-exposed at the surface by erosion, and
-undergo re-orientation the coal beds to angles of 45 to 90 degrees from their original horizontal orientation,
all in 3.400 years?

(The current absolute rate of horizontal displacement of the Arabian plate is accurately measured by a well established high resolution GPS network in mm per year.)

[_Drifting]

God: "Tell me Drifting, why did you find it so hard to believe in me?"
Drifting: "You were just too damn good at covering your tracks..."

[_DrW]

God: "Tell me Drifting, why did you find it so hard to believe in me?"
Drifting: "You were just too damn good at covering your tracks..."

According to Mormon Doctrine "God's Tracks" are represented by the Standard Works of the Church. Those who wish to be considered as faithful Mormons must claim to believe what is in the Standard Works. If this is the case, then I claim that believing Mormons are YEC.

Please consider what is contained in the Book of Mormon, D&C and PoGP:

- The literal existence of Adam and Eve and the associated Old Testament chronology?

Check: Mormon 9:12; D&C 107: 42 and 48; Moses 5:6, 6:64, 7:22, Abraham 5:21.

- The global flood of Noah and associated Old Testament chronology?

Check: 3 Nephi 22:9; D&C 107:52; D&C 138:41

- The Tower of Babel?

Check: Ether 1: 3-5, 33-35

- Separation of the hemispheric continents within the last 10,000 years to form the Atlantic Ocean?

Check: Ether 13:2 as interpreted in n article by Elder Jeffrey Holland in the Ensign

On a thread on the Celestial Forum, I asked believing Mormons on the board to comment as to whether they were Young Earth Creationists or not.

The response was not so much an admission to being YEC, but an attempt at defense of YEC against science.

This is a response I get often from talking with TBMs about this. They will not admit straight-up to being YEC, but it doesn't take long for them to state that they have doubts about evolution and do not feel comfortable with the science involved in the Big Bang, etc.

So, which is it?

Do the faithful on this board really believe in the Standard Works, or not?

[_Tobin]

DrW, I think your approach to the Standard works is a bit naïve. As I've pointed out to you, much of the language (and traditions) is either symbolic or likely stories that have been embellished over time.

1) The literal existence of Adam and Eve does not demonstrate that evolution (or the world being billions of years old) is false or that YEC is true. If they existed, their introduction into this biosphere could have been part of the natural evolution of this world.

2) Noah and the flood was most likely a local event only.

3) Whether or not the Tower of Babel existed is not relevant.

4) The separation of the continents is not stated in Ether 13:2.

I really don't see why Mormons have to embrace YEC at all, nor do I think it is a good idea for them to do so. I certainly don't agree that the Standard Works teach it.

[_DrW]

DrW, I think your approach to the Standard works is a bit naïve. As I've pointed out to you, much of the language (and traditions) is either symbolic or likely stories that have been embellished over time.

1) The literal existence of Adam and Eve does not demonstrate that evolution (or the world being billions of years old) is false or that YEC is true. If they existed, their introduction into this biosphere could have been part of the natural evolution of this world.

2) Noah and the flood was most likely a local event only.

3) Whether or not the Tower of Babel existed is not relevant.

4) The separation of the continents is not stated in Ether 13:2.

I really don't see why Mormons have to embrace YEC at all, nor do I think it is a good idea for them to do so. I certainly don't agree that the Standard Works teach it.

Tobin,

While I certainly agree that it is not a good idea for Mormons (or anyone for that matter) to take the Standard Works seriously, especially those that Joseph Smith claimed were given by revelation in the 19th century, it is pretty clear that the General Authorities of the Church do. Or at least they wish to project the strong impression that they do. Since faithful Mormons are obliged to believe that these Church Leaders speak for God, what is one to do when it comes to belief in the scriptures?

One of my favorite (bad) examples of a Church Leader running of the rails is Jeffrey Holland as quoted below:

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.

To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them.

The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

You know and I know that pages could be filled with the pronouncements of the Church Presidents and General Authorities claiming that the revealed scriptures, Joseph Smith's first vision, and the subsequent Church foundational narrative must be taken literally.

Gordon B. Hinckley made these kinds of pronouncements often. One example: "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

So now you come forward and say that one can ignore the fact that much of the content of the Standard Works (Church Doctrine) is not objectively factual and that should not be a problem because it is symbolic and/or traditional.

That is easy enough to say, Tobin. The rub comes when one has to decide which parts are supposed to be symbolic and which parts are supposed to be objectively factual.

Since it is now abundantly clear that the events described in the Book of Mormon never occurred, many now say that the whole Book of Mormon is symbolic. Would you agree?

What about the Book of Abraham? Is it literally a translation of an ancient document written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus? Why is it then also known to be funerary text first written a millennium or so after Abraham is said to have lived?

IF an individual were to accept the Standard Works as the literal Word of God, as Mormons are instructed to do, then that individual is YEC.

IF, on the other hand, an individual follows the path you describe, I would certainly not describe them as a true believing Mormon.

Mormon? Sure.

Good Member of the LDS Church? Very probably.

Easily pass TR interview? eh.

Comfortable in a conversation about Mormonism with a GA? Probably not.

What say you?

Would you be comfortable in a sincere discussion about Mormonism with the likes of GBH, were he still here?

What about BKP?

Don't worry, I will not ask you about Jeffrey Holland. I don't think he believes it himself (and I am not alone in that).

Thanks for being willing to have this discussion.






.

[_Tobin]

While I certainly agree that it is not a good idea for Mormons (or anyone for that matter) to take the Standard Works seriously, especially those that Joseph Smith claimed were given by revelation in the 19th century, it is pretty clear that the General Authorities of the Church do. Or at least they wish to project the strong impression that they do. Since faithful Mormons are obliged to believe that these Church Leaders speak for God, what is one to do when it comes to belief in the scriptures?

LDS Leaders unfortunately have a tradition of sticking to backwards and thoughtless traditions. The did it with blacks and the priesthood and this is no different. Just because someone in the past viewed the scriptures as teaching YEC, they are often more willing to parrot that view then apply some critical thinking to it in light of current knowledge and take a more modern and enlightened view.

So now you come forward and say that one can ignore the fact that much of the content of the Standard Works (Church Doctrine) is not objectively factual and that should not be a problem because it is symbolic and/or traditional.

I didn't say ignore them. But, I would caution members to view them with the intent to pulling out what is true and dispose of what may be false or embellished. I don't think it is ever a good idea to take symbolic or embellished stories as literally true when the facts don't suppost such a conclusion.

That is easy enough to say, Tobin. The rub comes when one has to decide which parts are supposed to be symbolic and which parts are supposed to be objectively factual.

Since it is now abundantly clear that the events described in the Book of Mormon never occurred, many now say that the whole Book of Mormon is symbolic. Would you agree?

I don't necessarily agree that the events described in the Book of Mormon did not occur, but they may not have occurred in exactly the way they are described. We are dealing with human beings here, and they tend to embellish, cloud, and overlook important details in the telling and retelling of tales.

What about the Book of Abraham? Is it literally a translation of an ancient document written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus? Why is it then also known to be funerary text first written a millennium or so after Abraham is said to have lived?

It is an inspired work. If there are sections of it that lead one to better understand Abraham, great. If not, then don't use it. I certainly don't think Mormonism NEEDS the Book of Abraham for any doctrines. And I definitely don't think it is a literal translation of the pagan Egyptian papyrus (nor do I believe Joseph Smith could read nor understand Egyptian Hieroglyphics).

IF an individual were to accept the Standard Works as the literal Word of God, as Mormons are instructed to do, then that individual is YEC.

And that is why I'm stating is a naïve view.

IF, on the other hand, an individual follows the path you describe, I would certainly not describe them as a true believing Mormon.

Mormon? Sure.

Good Member of the LDS Church? Very probably.

Easily pass TR interview? eh.

Comfortable in a conversation about Mormonism with a GA? Probably not.

What say you?

Would you be comfortable in a sincere discussion about Mormonism with the likes of GBH, were he still here?

What about BKP?

Don't worry, I will not ask you about Jeffrey Holland. I don't think he believes it himself (and I am not alone in that).

I'm willing to go toe-to-toe with any leader of the Mormon Church. If they can factually point out what is wrong with an understanding that the scriptures are in part often symbolic and/or embellished, then so be it. But I highly doubt they have any evidence the world is 6-8,000 years old.

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

I have no problem with what Holland said. I do believe it is likely that the continents drifted rapidly and not to long ago. I have studied this and feel is is more likely than what science believes. This is why I laid out the issue with overreach like I did. And speaking of that have you found any erosion vs atomic decay studies for me to look at? We can not start a discussion of age when you feel you stand on fact when in fact you do not. So we must settle the age issue before we can move along.