How literally do you take the creation story?

[CA Steve]

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

Myth is not necessarily false. IE We have good evidence that King Arther really did live. But many the stories that grew up around him are false.

[David T]

This is fine but you seem to have taken the issue to a whole new level in calling Adam and Eve story a symbolic myth.

It is a temple drama. A liturgy. A mythic framework in which we participate, and by doing so, learn something about ourselves, our purpose, and our profound relationship with Deity.

While the framework and characters are the same, Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Moses, Abraham, and the Temple all tell different and contradicting versions of the Creation. This is a problem if they are to be understood as verbatim literal histories. If they are each using the story to teach and emphasize different practical doctrines, then it would not be a problem, and one would not need to attempt to 'harmonize' them.

I accept all of them as scripture, and constantly seek to learn from them. I do not accept them as a unified documentary history.

[David T]

Here's powerful questions to ask in understanding and applying scripture, and discerning between the non-essentials (details/framework), and key doctrinal principles.

Ask:

1) What information is this teaching me that I can personally apply in my life? How can I put it into practice?

2) Would not knowing this information have any negative effect on my behavior or actions towards myself, God or my fellow man? In what way?

3) Does knowing this principle and applying it help me to draw closer to God? How?

Knowing something alone is useless if it cannot be applied. Hence, this is why President Kimball had the song I am a child of God changed from "teach me all that I must know" to "teach me all that I must do".

Believing that there was a literal Global Flood that filled the entire earth has no effect on my life.

However, I can apply the principle taught in the story that those who heeded the practical warning of the Lord's prophet (Noah) were preserved, and those who ignored the counsel were lost.

It's a powerful principle to apply to a reading of the scriptures. Is this element trivia, or is it vital?

[zelder]

It is a temple drama. A liturgy. A mythic framework in which we participate, and by doing so, learn something about ourselves, our purpose, and our profound relationship with Deity.

While the framework and characters are the same, Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Moses, Abraham, and the Temple all tell different and contradicting versions of the Creation. This is a problem if they are to be understood as verbatim literal histories. If they are each using the story to teach and emphasize different practical doctrines, then it would not be a problem, and one would not need to attempt to 'harmonize' them.

I accept all of them as scripture, and constantly seek to learn from them. I do not accept them as a unified documentary history.

Do you believe that we are all decended from a man Adam and his wife Eve? If you do not believe we are actual decendants from Adam and Eve what do you believe really happened?

edit---------------

this question is open to anyone.

[SilverKnight]

Do you believe that we are all decended from a man Adam and his wife Eve?

Biologically? No.

I do not believe Adam was a real human that lived on the earth, but rather a symbol used by God to represent mankind, a tool to teach us about our relationship with him.

If Adam is anything more than that, an actual being that helped create the earth, I cannot say.

In other words, if we all were able to see a snapshot of our paternal grandfathers back a 50,000 generations, we would not see a modern man cavorting about a garden with God, but rather a small apelike hominid walking about the plains of Africa.

If you do not believe we are actual decendants from Adam and Eve what do you believe really happened?

We are the modern descendants of prehistoric humans - evolved from ancient extinct primates.

[semlogo]

You are insulting the intelligence of those who believe.

It's not that I think you lack intelligence. It's just you seem to suppress it because it causes undue cognitive dissonance in the presence of your fundamentalist beliefs, which are quite at odds with reality.

[semlogo]

If the science behind all asepcts of evolution were irrefutable, there would be no controversy. Not only does it contradict the revelations from god.....its fuzzy science. Thats why it is controversial. If this was as easy as looking through a telescope there would be no controversy. I might reject the scriptures too if I didn't think the science was so hokey.

Totally incorrect. The science IS irrefutable. The controversy remains because fundamentalists dislike the reality.

[semlogo]

I can't help wondering if some of you people are trolls. Where do you hide out? I never meet any of you people at church. Why don't you speak up during church and tell us how delusional it is to believe in the scriptures?

You don't believe in the scriptures any more than we do - you just understand them differently, through the lens of your fundamentalism.

[semlogo]

I find it rather interesting when those who believe in the literal creation of Adam and Eve, basically, young earthers, who demand that current science be able to explain the chains of events in evolution that finally led to man and if there is anything lack of data, then that is, to them, solid evidence that it's all a farce and should be totally rejected, yet, when they are asked to do the same for their beliefs about how man came about, they say that it's all a matter of faith.

L = Link in evolution

MD - Missing Data

Current science

MD --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> MD --> L --> L --> L --> MD --> Man

What young earthers demand (no faith required)

L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> Man

What they insist you believe:

MD --> POOF --> Man

I just find it interesting is their feeble attempt to explain the data we have in the current science. Mountains of sandstone caused by a flood 5000 years ago is totally laughable, but I have been urged to accept it without questioning it.

If there was room in my signature for this I'd put it in. You nailed it.

[SilverKnight]

You don't believe in the scriptures any more than we do - you just understand them differently, through the lens of your fundamentalism.

In fairness, most LDS folk do believe we are literally (as in biologically) descended from Adam & Eve.

They also, for the most part, believe in evolution as well.

Most of my LDS family believes we literally are descended from Adam & Eve AND we also evolved from prehistoric humans.

Most mormons haven't full fleshed out how both could be true, and they are not interested in doing so.

But I suspect if you really pressed them they might come up with something like this:

There were prehistoric humans living on the earth for a long time before Adam. They would eventually evolve into modern humans, our physical ancestors.

However later, elsewhere, in Eden, God picked out a 'special' man and made covenants with him. He became our spiritual ancestor.

I know, it's a logistical nightmare, but I really think it's where many mormons (and Christians) are at in their belief.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Just because someone even a Prophet writes something doesn't automatically make it Church doctrine.

http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[CA Steve]

Most mormons haven't full fleshed out how both could be true, and they are not interested in doing so..

I don't know how many discussions with my family and close church friends have ended in, "it is just not that important to me". Perhaps they are right.

[Brenda]

I refuse to believe my faith is inferior than yours, and my testimony of the Gospel less authentic and powerful than yours, just because you have a different understanding of non-essential elements of the Plan of Salvation than my prayerful and diligent studies have led me to.

I believe I made a choice in premortality that has an inevitable end result in my mortal life and physical death, and that without the Atonement of Christ, my progression and potential for Joy would have been shut off at that point.

I believe that I have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, and that I need to rely on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, accept the Savior as my Lord, and base my Hope in the Covenants He has made with me as the only way I can return home to joyfully dwell with my Father and God after this life. I dedicate my all to serving Jesus Christ as my Master.

Part of my Patriarchal blessing is an exhortation to learn as much as I can through diligent study and through various readings, and to write and share what I learn with others. I view my constant prayerful struggles in learning and re-adjusting as an act of obedience and worship. My testimony is centered on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and His Atonement, and the fact that the Priesthood Keys have been restored in our day by the prophet Joseph. I constantly study and make attempts to exercise the principles of revelation as have been presented by the teachings and examples of prophets ancient and living.

It was part of such study and willingness to obey the promptings of the spirit that softened my heart enough to ask God to reveal Truth to me, that resulted in my joining the Church nearly 7 years ago, and led me to serving a mission 4 years ago.

The insinuations that we rely 'wholly' on science and reject God, or that your faith or loyalty to the gospel is greater because you reject science and understand elements auxiliary to the core of the Gospel differently is the height of arrogance, and ignorance concerning the course of our actual, personal lives.

Believe what you want. In the end, you may be right, and I'm wrong. That's fine.

It's the Holier-than-thou-because-I'm-willing-to-believe-more-far-out-things-than-you attitude that makes me want to puke.

It's possible to have a fulfilling and useful debate and discussion without resorting to calling out in judgement the nature of individuals' souls and faithfulness.

I do choose faith. I also reject ignorance. Both choices are very much compatible.

Were you responding to my post?

Your P. blessing tells you to pursue study. Mine tells me to defend the prophets whenever anyone finds fault in their words. So if the prophets teach that the mortal earth is approx. 7000 years old, I will believe it and defend it.

If you choose to be offended by what I said, I can't help that. I never felt that I was "holier than thou". But I can't back down from what I believe is true. I believe the temple endowment tells a literal story of Adam & Eve, the Creation, the Fall, and our need for a Savior. I think the temple teaches us this over and over for a reason. We are aware that not all of the Bible was translated correctly, but those parts that are repeated by latter-day prophets, and in the BoM, the PoGP, and the temple, then I will believe that those parts are correct.

You are possibly implying that I am choosing ignorance. I'm choosing to not be offended by that.

[Cold Steel]

Joseph Smith said that to fully understand the Gospel, we needed to expand our minds to accept things that, in the past, we might have found impossible to believe. He also said that if he were to reveal all he had been told, even his greatest friends would turn against him. We ask Catholics and Protestants to believe things that go against everything they had been told.

There's no question but that Adam existed as a man and that in premortality he was known as "Michael." Some of the early brethren believed he was a resurrected being and that his "death" was not the same as ours, but was a separation of his body and the mortal elements created by the Fall. It's an interesting notion, and one I haven't fully rejected, but I wouldn't want to go through another mortality--especially one of almost a thousand years.

In the end, we can't fight science. We can only patiently wait for the Messiah to appear and reveal the truth of all things. There's no way we can get out of believing in Adam and Eve, however. Other things in the Bible that might be metaphor include Sampson (who didn't deliver Israel as the angel had said), Jonah and his mission to Nineveh and, finally, Job. I may be wrong on some or all, but I don't believe them for a variety of reasons.

.

[Jeff K.]

If there was room in my signature for this I'd put it in. You nailed it.

And if a large number of "L"'s are missing filled in with "S'" for supposition, are you still so eager to sign on? Or do you contend that no such suppositions exist? Isn't it the same side of the oppsite coin where people are accused of using supposition along the same line in order to make their line of thought "legitimate"?

[semlogo]

In fairness, most LDS folk do believe we are literally (as in biologically) descended from Adam & Eve.

They also, for the most part, believe in evolution as well.

Most of my LDS family believes we literally are descended from Adam & Eve AND we also evolved from prehistoric humans.

Most mormons haven't full fleshed out how both could be true, and they are not interested in doing so.

But I suspect if you really pressed them they might come up with something like this:

There were prehistoric humans living on the earth for a long time before Adam. They would eventually evolve into modern humans, our physical ancestors.

However later, elsewhere, in Eden, God picked out a 'special' man and made covenants with him. He became our spiritual ancestor.

I know, it's a logistical nightmare, but I really think it's where many mormons (and Christians) are at in their belief.

Oh, I agree. In my ward we have a lot of scientists, so we don't get that as much, but a lot of LDS really haven't bothered looking into these issues. I myself was once every bit as fundamentalist as Zelder - I was even a young earther.

[Jeff K.]

Joseph Smith said that to fully understand the Gospel, we needed to expand our minds to accept things that, in the past, we might have found impossible to believe. He also said that if he were to reveal all he had been told, even his greatest friends would turn against him. We ask Catholics and Protestants to believe things that go against everything they had been told.

There's no question but that Adam existed as a man and that in premortality he was known as "Michael." Some of the early brethren believed he was a resurrected being and that his "death" was not the same as ours, but was a separation of his body and the mortal elements created by the Fall. It's an interesting notion, and one I haven't fully rejected, but I wouldn't want to go through another mortality--especially one of almost a thousand years.

In the end, we can't fight science. We can only patiently wait for the Messiah to appear and reveal the truth of all things. There's no way we can get out of believing in Adam and Eve, however. Other things in the Bible that might be metaphor include Sampson (who didn't deliver Israel as the angel had said), Jonah and his mission to Nineveh and, finally, Job. I may be wrong on some or all, but I don't believe them for a variety of reasons.

.

I agree, we can't and shouldn't fight science. Its theories serve us well. But we can point out some of its dificiencies for those who place perhaps too much faith in them. In the end, it does not affect doctrine since doctrine does not speak to the issue and it can be true regardless of the final outcome.

[semlogo]

And if a large number of "L"'s are missing filled in with "S'" for supposition, are you still so eager to sign on? Or do you contend that no such suppositions exist? Isn't it the same side of the oppsite coin where people are accused of using supposition along the same line in order to make their line of thought "legitimate"?

It's not that there aren't any suppositions, but scientists are candid about them. The field of genetics has really eliminated any ambiguity at all in much of what was already a very solid line of evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I believe in a literal Adam and Eve our first biological parents. That all mankind is descendant through them. Though I don't know exactly how that happened.

I don't believe in God breathing into a pile of dust thus forming man, talking snakes, Eve coming from Adams' rib, magical trees. I am fine with believing these and other tales associated with the Creation story tell a profound theological truth through symbolism, metaphor, and analogy.

[Cold Steel]

Some views gleaned from a quick search of my LDS Library:

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 1:, p.77

There was no living thing upon the earth until it was prepared for living life. The Pearl of Great Price does not say that man was the first living thing on the earth, but that he was the first flesh and the first man also. He became the first mortal flesh when he fell. By flesh is meant mortality, and Adam was the first mortal on the earth; but animals and other forms of life were placed on earth first, and he was not on the earth until everything was prepared for him. Since Adam was the first man on the earth, that does away with the false notion that there were pre-Adamites.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., p.283

"Adam, who was the son of God" (Moses 6:22), was "the first man of all men." (Moses 1:34; 3:7; 6:45; Abra. 1:3; D. & C. 84:16; 1 Ne. 5:11; 1 Cor. 15:45; Inspired Version, Luke 3:45; Man: His Origin and Destiny, PP 348-355.) There were no pre-Adamites; the great archangel Michael, who descended from the courts of glory to be the father of the human race, was appointed to be the father of all living. Indeed, Adam and Eve were not able to have children and provide bodies for the spirit children of the Father until after the fall. (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 5:11.)

Evidences and Reconciliations, Improvement Era, May 1948

Nevertheless, it must also be admitted that no one can safely deny that such manlike beings did at one time roan over the earth. The Lord, not man, made the earth. At his pleasure he did many things not understood by us. The huge mastodons, imprisoned in the ice of the north, the skeletons found in the asphalt pit in Los Angeles, the great dinosaurs dug from the rocks; the small trilobites in early rocks; the coral reefs on mountainsides, and a thousand other forms of now extinct life, speak of a wonderfully varied story of creation, far beyond the understanding of man.

We are obliged to leave many things with those which are yet unknown.

Of some things we may be certain, as they have come to us through the higher knowledge-revelation.

Adam dwelt as a spiritual being with his Father in heaven. He was commissioned to initiate the work connected with the plan of salvation on earth. He was brought to earth, after having had a part in creating it, and was given a body made from "the dust of the ground." His helpmeet Eve likewise descended from spiritual spheres, to assist in the great work assigned them. How all this was accomplished is not known. The mystery of the "creation" of Adam and Eve has not yet been revealed.

The Meaning of Christ--the Truth, the Way, the Life: an Analysis of B. H. Roberts' Unpublished Masterwork Fn by Truman G. Madsen, BYU Studies, vol. 15 (1974-1975), Number 2 - Winter 1975, p.292

The full title is "The Truth The Way The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology." Shortly after the completion of the manuscript in 1928, a committee chaired by Elder David O. McKay reviewed it as a manual for study in the MIA. The committee offered several critical suggestions and corrections, but recommended its use provided the speculative thesis--the idea of "Pre-Adamites"--be omitted. Roberts replied, "I will not change it if it has to sleep."

Nearly three years later in March 1931, to bring the issue to the attention of all the Presiding Brethren, Roberts challenged some remarks of Joseph Fielding Smith (See "Faith Leads to a Fulness of Truth and Righteousness," in Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine [October 1930]) which hold that there was no death on this earth before Adam. Roberts himself had earlier concluded that "Adam was the progenitor of all races of men whose remains have yet been found" (See his Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity [salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1924], pp. 283-84).

In his pre-Adamite thesis Roberts does not argue that mankind emerged from non-human lower forms, but that whole races of men may have come and gone from this earth prior to the advent of Adam. He was here making room for his own kind of "catastrophism," a position that Louis Agassiz and other scientists of the late nineteenth century advocated against Darwin and "uniformitarianism." In this view man's body is not a product of "uniform" natural selection from simple to complex.

Instead, they argued, fossils and geological formations evidence sudden catastrophic interventions, both destructive and creative. Many took these to be the initiative of God. The Bible account of Genesis was often interpreted by catastrophists as an account of the period after the most recent great catastrophe. The word "replenish" in the charge to Adam was taken to mean "fill up again."

Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols., 2:, p.160

Mosiah 4:4-10: 6-7. These verses constitute a marvelous summary of the plan of salvation. A knowledge of God, his attributes, the central role of the Atonement, the necessity of keeping the commandments and enduring to the end-all these are mentioned. Further, we are taught that the Atonement comes in answer to the Fall. That is, Christ atoned for all "since the fall of Adam." Those who have postulated the existence of pre-Adamites create the theological difficulty of having creatures not subject to the Fall and therefore not eligible for the redeeming effects of the Atonement.

J. M. Sjodahl, An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon, p.497

Pre-Adamites. A great many young students are uneasy because unable to reconcile the scriptures with the findings of scientists regarding the age of the human race on earth. The scriptures, it seems, allow only 6,000 years from Adam, while the scientists believe they have found evidences of man on earth many thousands, or even millions, of years further back than that. "No scientist," they tell us, "will admit for a moment that human evolution has proceeded as rapidly as the story in Genesis necessarily supports." They tell us that the Cro-Magnon man lived 25,000 years ago; that the Cro-Magnon man was preceded by the Neanderthal man; before him the Heidelberg man existed; and then the Trinil man, and the Foxhall man--all named from the localities in which their supposed remains have been unearthed. The Foxhall man, we are assured, lived in England about 500,000 years ago. Many are at a loss to find even a possible way to reconciliation between the seemingly irreconcilable statements of the sacred records and the findings of the sciences, and the apparent contradiction is a great trial of their faith in the inspiration of the divine word.

The common argument by which it is sought to explain the discrepancy is, that the scriptures are precious manuals of religion, but not text-books on science. As books on religion, they lay down rules of conduct, and inspire faith and hope. They reveal God in Jesus Christ, but they do not pretend to state facts concerning the creation of the world.

But this reasoning is no way out of the difficulty. It takes for granted that the scriptures are partly true and partly not true, and it virtually leaves the reader free to accept what he thinks is true and reject the rest. The word of God cannot be "edited" and blue-pencilled in that way. It must either be accepted as we have received it, barring errors of transmission and translation; or it must be rejected in toto.

There is a better explanation. Competent Bible students have thought it probable that this world was inhabited before the days of Adam, who was the first "man," by a race which perished long before his advent. If this should prove to be the case, the remains found in the earlier geological formations may have belonged to that race, and furnish no basis for conclusions regarding a high antiquity of any part of the now living human family.

A Theory That May Have Merit. But how could a race be destroyed, without the destruction of the earth?

An interesting theory was advanced a few years ago by Prof. LeRoi Tobey, which, if proved, would satisfactorily explain the periodical destruction of the higher life forms upon the earth, through alternating glacial periods and seasons of intense heat. The theory is briefly stated in an article in Smith's Magazine for July, 1906, and seems to me to be worthy of consideration.

According to this theory, our solar system describes a circuit around the star Arcturus in 104,000 years. We are now about midway between the perihelion and aphelion in this orbit, as the nearest point to and the farthest point from the central star is called, and we are being rushed toward the perihelion at the rate of 184,000 miles an hour.

That is to say, we have just arrived at the beginning of the beautiful solar spring. Behind us is the winter, the evidence of which is still with us in the form of melting polar ice caps and diminishing glaciers, while before us is the spring and the summer of our solar system.

Our solar spring began March 21, 1905, we are told, and it will last 18,000 of our years. Then comes the summer, also 18,000 years, beginning June 21, 19,905. During this time Arcturus will appear from the earth as a sun, larger than the moon, and artificial light will not be needed night or day. But, probably, every living higher organism will be destroyed by light and heat. The autumn will begin Sept. 23, 37,905, and this season will merge into a winter that will last 50,000 years, beginning Dec. 22, 55,905. Arcturus will then appear as a mere point in the sky. The earth's winters will grow colder and colder. The ice will again form, and in Jan., in the year 82,905 the earth will be enveloped in ice, unless, indeed, the temperature of the solar winter is modified by the sun's drawing near to some other immense star in the Milky Way.

It was, we are assured, during the winter from which our sun has just emerged--the coldest "day" of which must have been about the year 23,095, B. C.--that

What appears to be slightly corroborative of this theory came in April, 1923, from the American consul in Bergen, Norway, in the form of a rapport to the Department of Commerce in Washington. The consul stated, as reported, that the Arctic Ocean had become much warmer that winter. Seals were retiring far north to the ice field much beyond their usual grounds. Ice fields were disappearing, glaciers were melting in Greenland, leaving bare ravines and moraines never seen before. The whitefish have vanished and herring and smelt have gone north to take their places. Dr. Heel, geologist of the University of Norway, had just returned from an arctic expedition and reported that he found very little ice and that his soundings to a depth of more than two miles showed the north arm of the Gulf Stream very warm as far up as 81 degrees 21 minutes, nearly 14 degrees inside the arctic circle. An arctic fisherman, he stated, said that it has been growing warmer in the arctic since 1918.

The Value of This Theory. I am not stating this as a demonstrated proposition, but as a possible explanation of certain facts. The scientists tell us that they find remains of human beings and human handicraft in certain geological strata which date back from twenty-five to five hundred thousand years. It follows, they argue, that the present human race must be that old. The answer is, not necessarily. Those remains may, possibly, belong to a race that lived and died before the present race came to this earth. And that is a sufficient answer to the theory advanced for the purpose of discrediting a word of God.

Francis M. Gibbons, Dynamic Disciples, Prophets of God: Life Stories of the Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p.225 - 226

One of Elder Smith's headquarters assignments at this time was service on a reading committee. Its purpose was to review manuscripts written by General Authorities to assure there were no factual or doctrinal errors. A manuscript written by Elder B. H. Roberts speculated that there were pre-Adamite inhabitants of the earth. Elder Roberts refused to follow the request of the committee that these speculations be deleted and withdrew the manuscript from publication. (It was eventually published many years after Elder Roberts's death.) There followed a public dialogue between Elder Smith and Elder Roberts in which their conflicting views about pre-Adamites and the age of the earth were discussed. At the request of President Heber J. Grant, they discontinued the public discussion while retaining their private views. Years later, after the deaths of Elder Roberts and President Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith published a book entitled Man, His Origin and Destiny, which outlined his views on these subjects.

.

[urroner]

I don't know how many discussions with my family and close church friends have ended in, "it is just not that important to me". Perhaps they are right.

It ain't important to me how we got here, just that we got here. If there was a couple named Adam and Eve whom we all descended from, great! If it's all symbolic, great! Just don't tell me I'm wrong because science can't explain everything and then deride me because I won't accept a explanation based upon faith that even explains less.

[thesometimesaint]

CS:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Pre-Adamites

[urroner]

W.W. Phelps, 5 Times and Seasons (#108) 758 (1 January 1845) stated that the Earth is about 2.55 billion years old.

"Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity: and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years;-it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!"

From the Discourses of Brigham Young (pp. 258-259)

I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has. . . . In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts--they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made the earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. . . . How long it's been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As to the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.

[urroner]

1931 Statement of the First Presidency

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.