What Is Earth'S Age? 6,000 Years Or 4.5 Billion Years?

[Craig Paxton]

While pondering the revelations of the Apostle John, Joseph Smith receives the revelation found in D&C 77.

In D&C 77:6 Joseph Smith asks this question of God, ”Q: What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?”

He is answered with the following explanation “A: We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence”

Clearly God is telling Joseph that the earth will have a temporal existence of 7,000 years…and since we know that 1,000 of those years will take place in the Millennium, that only leaves 6,000 years for the remainder of earth’s temporal existence.

The question at hand for me is how do I reconcile this Mormon claim with science’s claim that the earth has already had a temporal existence of not thousands of years but billions of years. Both diverse claims cannot be true…clearly one is true and the other false….or is there something I am missing and both claims are true?

I believe that most who post here are a smart, intelligent, educated, crowd. How do you reconcile the LDS claim of a 6,000 year temporal existstance for the earth…with science which gives observable evidence to support its claim rather than a merely rely on faith and belief.

Was Joseph mistaken…did he hear God incorrectly?

Was God mistaken and Joseph heard him correctly?

Am I mistaken in my reading of Section 77…and temporal existence of 6,000 years doesn’t mean 6,000 years?

Is science incorrect in its claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and God is correct, that the earth is in fact only 6,000 years old?

Help me understand how you reconcile these conflicts in your mind.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Log]

Suppose the earth is, indeed, 6000 years old. What problems arise?

Suppose the earth is, indeed, 4.5 billion years old. What problems arise?

Which set of problems is it more important for you to have solved? That's your guide to understanding.

[lostinmd]

I cannot reconcile these conflicts. I have tried for years. I have come to the conclusion one is right and the other is wrong.

[Kiviuq]

I believe that Joseph Smith was influenced by the 19^th century movements of Dispensationalism and Millennialism. These required a literalist interpretation of the bible concerning the age of the earth and the time since Adam and advanced the idea that Christ’s return would be soon.

[Craig Paxton]

Suppose the earth is, indeed, 6000 years old. What problems arise?

Suppose the earth is, indeed, 4.5 billion years old. What problems arise?

Which set of problems is it more important for you to have solved? That's your guide to understanding.

Well...I've learned that once you begin to pull at loose threads...it's not too long until the entire cloth begins to unravel... I've rejected the premis that the earth is 6,000 years old as claimed by God and Joseph (my understanding of this scripture)...but I believe that there are some here who have also rejected this claim of both God and Joseph and yet remain believers...how do you do it? That is what I am after.

[Bikeemikey]

I guess the question requires a very clear understanding on what Joseph Smith and/or God meant when they used the phrase temporal existence. I am not sure I have the answer to that.

In the mean time I tend to assume that both parties are correct.

The world really is very old 4.5 billion perhaps.

The earth really will have a temporal existence of 7000 years. I just don't know what that means and assume it doesn't mean it was created on 7K years ago.

However, if either party turns out to be totally wrong, or both parties for that matter, I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kerry Shirts has a helpful post by Mike Parker on the topic.

http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backyard_professor/2011/01/dc-77-young-earth-or-old-earth.html

Personally, I have some questions about D&C 77 as a Revelation from God to Joseph Smith that should be in the canon. I'm not certain that it is either. It seems to me to be quite different than Joseph Smith's one public discourse on the book of Revelation, given on the occasion of his important observation that "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bikeemikey]

Well...I've learned that once you begin to pull at loose threads...it's not too long until the entire cloth begins to unravel... I've rejected the premis that the earth is 6,000 years old as claimed by God and Joseph (my understanding of this scripture)...but I believe that there are some here who have also rejected this claim of both God and Joseph and yet remain believers...how do you do it? That is what I am after.

Thats really easy. You say that Joseph Smith was wrong. And then you realize he was human, we should expect him to be wrong once in a while, and go on believing.

That said, I don't think this particular section requires you to have to say JS was wrong the text is filled with to much ambiguous language for that. That's the great thing about scripture.

[cinepro]

Personally, I have some questions about D&C 77 as a Revelation from God to Joseph Smith that should be in the canon. I'm not certain that it is either. It seems to me to be quite different than Joseph Smith's one public discourse on the book of Revelation, given on the occasion of his important observation that "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine."

Wow. That is certainly the first time I've heard anyone say that before!

[Buzzard]

It makes perfect sense if the clock starts running with the appearance of Adam. 6K years from that point-give or take a few hundred years-and you will have the second coming of Christ. Another 1K for the millenium-there you go. I NEVER felt like this was a contradiction. What happened before Adam, well who knows?

One final thought-we know that time is a function of mortality only. It does not exist in the eternities. Not sure where that fit's into this discussion, but it seems relevant.

[cinepro]

And we just did this whole thing here...

I don't think there's been much new info on the subject in the last 3 months, so that's probably a good thread to review.

[CV75]

Help me understand how you reconcile these conflicts in your mind.

I think that "materially" it is 4.5B years old, and "covenantly" it is 6000 years old. A third age is the "system" of 2.555B years which may be a bridge between the two concepts, representig those periods of material creation following Adam's formal assignment/acceptance to enter this specific world as a soul by covenant.

[cinepro]

I think that "materially" it is 4.5B years old, and "covenantly" it is 6000 years old. A third age is the "system" of 2.555B years which may be a bridge between the two concepts, representig those periods of material creation following Adam's formal assignment/acceptance to enter this specific world as a soul by covenant.

I believe that the "age" of the Earth didn't start until the last dispensation which started at the First Vision (since all previous dispensations were just building up to this one), so technically the Earth is only 192 years old. Before 1820, the Earth was just in its "creation" phase.

Edited April 5, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

The earth is only one week old. God just conveniently changed all the evidence, and eliminated our memories of it. So we just think it's over one week old.

Edited April 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

The earth is only one week old. God just conveniently changed all the evidence, and eliminated our memories of it. So we just think it's over one week old.

There is no spoon.

[JAHS]

Could "temporal" mean telestial? While Adam was in the Garden of eden the earth was in a Terrestrial existance and perhaps that way for 4.5 billion years before that. With the fall of Adam the earth entered into a Telestial or temporal existance and has been such for about 6000 years now.

[CV75]

Could "temporal" mean telestial? While Adam was in the Garden of eden the earth was in a Terrestrial existance and perhaps that way for 4.5 billion years before that. With the fall of Adam the earth entered into a Telestial or temporal existance and has been such for about 6000 years now.

This is kind of how I view it, except a 6,000-year old covenant age still allows the Fall to have occurred billions of years earlier.

That the Fall may have occurred just before mortal life first appeared on earth 3.8B years ago, I construe that as when the first organisms left the Garden of Eden after Adam’s fall, followed by other life forms until Adam and Eve left Eden 6,000 years ago, beginning the age of mortal human covenants. What some perceive as Darwinian evolution is just gradual phases of exile out of Eden as recorded in the geological record over the last 3.8B years (observable natural selection is something different).

Not all are born at once, die at once, or resurrected at once (Alma 40:8 ), so I suppose the departure from Eden into mortality did not necessarily occur at once (for that matter, the rescue of life from a single flood did not occur at once, but that might be stretching it a bit…).

Edited April 5, 2012 by CV75

[aranyborju]

Thats really easy. You say that Joseph Smith was wrong. And then you realize he was human, we should expect him to be wrong once in a while, and go on believing.

That said, I don't think this particular section requires you to have to say JS was wrong the text is filled with to much ambiguous language for that. That's the great thing about scripture.

Sometimes I think that ambiguous language is the only thing that keeps the scriptures alive. You'd think that Heavenly Father, in his infinite wisdom, would be able to reveal a clear and concise text that was not open to interpretations of convenience.

[BCSpace]

Was Joseph mistaken…did he hear God incorrectly?

Was God mistaken and Joseph heard him correctly?

Am I mistaken in my reading of Section 77…and temporal existence of 6,000 years doesn’t mean 6,000 years?

Yes, you are mistaken; not necessarily on how long the temporal existence is, but on what the temporal existence is compared to what's outside it. One must look to what the official doctrine is on these verses. For example, on D&C 77:

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.)

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-071-77.asp

Notice then, that temporal and spiritual don't imply physical and non physical as the doctrine places the physical creation of the earth in the time prior to the temporal existence of the earth. The most that can be said about the temporal existence imho is that it deals with God's dealings with man since Adam.

Consider also the Church's specific doctrine on the age of the earth:

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.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-02-gen-a-2.asp

[Craig Paxton]

Kerry Shirts has a helpful post by Mike Parker on the topic.

http://www.backyardp...-old-earth.html

Personally, I have some questions about D&C 77 as a Revelation from God to Joseph Smith that should be in the canon. I'm not certain that it is either. It seems to me to be quite different than Joseph Smith's one public discourse on the book of Revelation, given on the occasion of his important observation that "It don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I've accepted the premis that church leaders are men and as such make mistakes, say things that are their opinions, and often teach things that they claim come from God but are in fact...given time...just man made opinion...AND while I also understand that within this view there is room for god to work...personally I don't see it...but I accept the arugment that apologist make in this area...

HOWEVER...I have always been taught that canonized scripture was rock solid, could be taken to the bank, was the material testimonies are built upon and the test by which all modern prophets are measured.

So I'm surprized that you are ready to jetison Section 77 as scripture...when it is in fact LDS scripture and IS the ruler from which everything else in Mormoism is measured. If the ruler is not correct...why assume that all of the measurements taken with the scripture ruler are correct.

BTW I read your link...not very satisfing

Edited April 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Tarski]

Help me understand how you reconcile these conflicts in your mind.

Easy. Just redefine "temporal existence" to mean something other than how long in time something has existed.

You can use this method for all sorts of things. Just ask BCSpace. For example, "no death in the world before the fall" can be taken to mean "no death inside the little area called the garden and for some small interval of time some time before the fall"

Of course, once you allow yourself to play such word games it is like playing tennis without a net. Any desired conclusion can be reached.

[Bikeemikey]

HOWEVER...I have always been taught that canonized scripture was rock solid, could be taken to the bank, was the material testimonies are built upon and the test by which all modern prophets are measured.

I think this could be to strict of scripture.

[Bikeemikey]

Of course, once you allow yourself to play such word games it is like playing tennis without a net. Any desired conclusion can be reached.

That could be possible that any conclusion is a possibility.

[Craig Paxton]

I think this could be to strict of scripture.

I stand corrected...in the 14 fundamental talk given by Ezra T. Bensen and reiterated last conference on two occations...it was again taught that "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works"...so I guess I can extrapolate that a living prophet can pretty much contradict scripture and pretty much say what he wants to say...he is is own measurement and is above the scripture...but knowing this does not help resolve sec 77

[BCSpace]

So I'm surprized that you are ready to jetison Section 77 as scripture...when it is in fact LDS scripture and IS the ruler from which everything else in Mormoism is measured. If the ruler is not correct...why assume that all of the measurements taken with the scripture ruler are correct.

No need. The doctrine clarifies it very well.