Age Of The Earth And Age Of The Human Race

[Rivers]

I understand that the church doesn't have a position on the age of the earth. But what about the age of the human race? Does the church officially teach that Adam and Eve lived about 4000 B.C? Or is there any wiggle room for the time of Adam and Eve to be pushed back further in time?

[Doctor Ninja]

In Telestial time or Paradisiacal time?

[Rivers]

In Telestial time or Paradisiacal time?

Both

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

The Church doesn't take a position on the age of the earth. I personally have no problem with a 4.5 Billion year old earth, and as a species Homo Sapiens Sapiens being about 200,000 years old. Man as defined by God probably is a very different age.

[Kevin Christensen]

I understand that the church doesn't have a position on the age of the earth. But what about the age of the human race? Does the church officially teach that Adam and Eve lived about 4000 B.C? Or is there any wiggle room for the time of Adam and Eve to be pushed back further in time?

Try this from Hugh Nibley, which I still love:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73

And this, which came later:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=72

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Craig Paxton]

I understand that the church doesn't have a position on the age of the earth. But what about the age of the human race? Does the church officially teach that Adam and Eve lived about 4000 B.C? Or is there any wiggle room for the time of Adam and Eve to be pushed back further in time?

According to a biblical chronology published by the church, Adam lived in the year 4,000 BC see link http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/chronology?lang=eng

And if one reads D&C 77, one discovers that the temporal existence of the earth will be 6,000 old.

Do I believe either of these to be true? Nope

[BCSpace]

But what about the age of the human race?

I have no problem with what science says about how long modern homo sapiens have been around; currently about 200,000 years.

Does the church officially teach that Adam and Eve lived about 4000 B.C? Or is there any wiggle room for the time of Adam and Eve to be pushed back further in time?

The Church does have a chronology in the Bible Dictionary which shows the 4000 BC date. However, the Bible, at least on the Classic lds.org site and in all lds scripture editions I've seen so far contain a disclaimer that the Bible Dictionary is not doctrinal. However, on the new LDS web site, this disclaimer does not appear. My gueess is that it's just an oversight.

On the new lds website for scriptures, in teh Bible Dictionary under Chronology, this appears:

Chronology. Bible chronology deals with fixing the exact dates of the various events recorded. For the earliest parts of O.T. history we rely entirely on the scripture itself; but the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint or Greek translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch do not agree together, so that many dates cannot be fixed with certainty. From the time of David onwards we get much assistance from secular history, e.g., inscriptions on monuments and other state records. Much work has still to be done in this direction. The dates found at the top of many printed English Bibles are due to Archbishop Ussher. Some of them have been shown to be incorrect.

So I'd say yes there is wiggle room and the 4000 BC date does not appear to be doctrinal though perhaps someone could come up with something from a different LDS publication.

My own hypothesis is that we have full and complete evolution of species just as science says and that includes homo sapiens. I hypothesize that the first homo sapiens did not have literal spirit children of God within them as spirits but a different more animal-like spirit. When it was determined that all was ready (the end of the creation period), bodies containing literal spirit children of God were born to homo sapiens parents and at some point placed in the garden to await the Fall. After the Fall, evolution proceeds apace.

Necessary scriptural support for this difference of periods with differing states (no death and death) is found in 2 Nephi 2:22 where we read that creation was placed into the garden state of no death AFTER the creation. So there is a state of creation that exists prior to the garden state in which a property of no death is not applied and there evolution can exist without conflict with LDS doctrine.

The beauty of this hypothesis imho, is that homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years but have only recently developed civilization and evidences of higher intelligence. I think the change of the type of spirit born into homo sapiens, one that could make better use of the larger brain perhaps, is a good explaination for this demarcation of when we began to have civilizations. The teaching of God could also explain this demarcation.

[Jeff K.]

There is a great deal of wiggle room. So for man, not so old, but the earth, yeah really old.

That is the wiggle room. No fixed dates exist as a doctrinal matter.

[KevinG]

According to a biblical chronology published by the church, Adam lived in the year 4,000 BC see link http://lds.org/scrip...nology?lang=eng

And if one reads D&C 77, one discovers that the temporal existence of the earth will be 6,000 old.

Do I believe either of these to be true? Nope

I just re-read D&C 77. The chapter notes say temporal existence but I don't get that from the text itself. I would disagree with the interpretation of the notes. My understanding of the timeframes discussed in the Scpritures is that they are more centered on God's covenant people and their history than the physical existance of the planet.

I should add the chapter headings for the 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures were prepared by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. I think he did an excellent service to us but I don't consider them inerrant. (Is that heresay?)

Edited June 29, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

I just re-read D&C 77. The chapter notes say temporal existence but I don't get that from the text itself. I would disagree with the interpretation of the notes. My understanding of the timeframes discussed in the Scpritures is that they are more centered on God's covenant people and their history than the physical existance of the planet.

I should add the chapter headings for the 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures were prepared by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. I think he did an excellent service to us but I don't consider them inerrant. (Is that heresay?)

I just started a chapter headings thread to avoid derailing this one... Thanks,

[BCSpace]

Edit: Duplication deleted. Don't know how that happened.

I just re-read D&C 77. The chapter notes say temporal existence but I don't get that from the text itself. I would disagree with the interpretation of the notes. My understanding of the timeframes discussed in the Scpritures is that they are more centered on God's covenant people and their history than the physical existance of the planet.

I should add the chapter headings for the 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures were prepared by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. I think he did an excellent service to us but I don't consider them inerrant. (Is that heresay?)

I just started a chapter headings thread to avoid derailing this one... Thanks,

I think you would be interested in seeing more official doctrine on D&C 77. From the D&C Institute manual:

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.)

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual, Section 77

Edited June 29, 2011 by BCSpace

[Xander]

Edit: Duplication deleted. Don't know how that happened.

I think you would be interested in seeing more official doctrine on D&C 77. From the D&C Institute manual:

If only that made a lick of sense.

[Xander]

I have no problem with what science says about how long modern homo sapiens have been around; currently about 200,000 years.

" ... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?"

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 141-42

[altersteve]

Obviously there was physical death before 4000 B.C. That means that the Bible is not correct about Adam and Eve existing 6,000 years ago, and that idea overlooks the fact that Hebrew genealogies often skip generations in huge leaps. That's one reason why Christ can be called the son of David. The fact is that we don't know exactly when Adam existed, nor will we know until the Lord explains it to us either in a future revelation or when he comes again.

[Doctor Ninja]

I have no problem with what science says about how long modern homo sapiens have been around; currently about 200,000 years.

The Church does have a chronology in the Bible Dictionary which shows the 4000 BC date. However, the Bible, at least on the Classic lds.org site and in all lds scripture editions I've seen so far contain a disclaimer that the Bible Dictionary is not doctrinal. However, on the new LDS web site, this disclaimer does not appear. My gueess is that it's just an oversight.

On the new lds website for scriptures, in teh Bible Dictionary under Chronology, this appears:

So I'd say yes there is wiggle room and the 4000 BC date does not appear to be doctrinal though perhaps someone could come up with something from a different LDS publication.

My own hypothesis is that we have full and complete evolution of species just as science says and that includes homo sapiens. I hypothesize that the first homo sapiens did not have literal spirit children of God within them as spirits but a different more animal-like spirit. When it was determined that all was ready (the end of the creation period), bodies containing literal spirit children of God were born to homo sapiens parents and at some point placed in the garden to await the Fall. After the Fall, evolution proceeds apace.

Necessary scriptural support for this difference of periods with differing states (no death and death) is found in 2 Nephi 2:22 where we read that creation was placed into the garden state of no death AFTER the creation. So there is a state of creation that exists prior to the garden state in which a property of no death is not applied and there evolution can exist without conflict with LDS doctrine.

The beauty of this hypothesis imho, is that homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years but have only recently developed civilization and evidences of higher intelligence. I think the change of the type of spirit born into homo sapiens, one that could make better use of the larger brain perhaps, is a good explaination for this demarcation of when we began to have civilizations. The teaching of God could also explain this demarcation.

My own hypothesis too. Where did we get this brilliant idea from?

[Doctor Ninja]

" ... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?"

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 141-42

Nice copy and paste. Conveniently you left out the entire quote that is filled with dot dot dot ... ... .... (I wonder why?).

You clearly have never had a scientific course on evolution and no, wikipedia doesn't count, sorry. Keyword: "this", maybe that will help you out.

[Ron Beron]

" ... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?"

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 141-42

Where's James Talmage when you need him?

[David T]

Nice copy and paste. Conveniently you left out the entire quote that is filled with dot dot dot ... ... .... (I wonder why?).

You clearly have never had a scientific course on evolution and no, wikipedia doesn't count, sorry. Keyword: "this", maybe that will help you out.

((...PSST! I don't think Xander posted the quote because he agrees with it!))

[BCSpace]

I think you would be interested in seeing more official doctrine on D&C 77. From the D&C Institute manual:

If only that made a lick of sense.

It means temporal vs. spiritual is not what many think it means. In this case, you have the physical creation outside temporal time.

Obviously there was physical death before 4000 B.C. That means that the Bible is not correct about Adam and Eve existing 6,000 years ago, and that idea overlooks the fact that Hebrew genealogies often skip generations in huge leaps.

I don't see how the Bible is incorrect in this matter even if evoltuion was the process used. It may simply be missing details. I think it is Ussher's chronology that is probably not correct and the Church has merely adopted it because there is no revelation on the subject.

My own hypothesis too. Where did we get this brilliant idea from?

Great minds think alike? Perhaps there aren't too many alternatives that work as well.

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 141-42

Where's James Talmage when you need him?

No need. The Church's definition of doctrine ensures that JFS's "Doctrines of Salvation" is not a doctrinal work and we can safely ignore it except those portions that may be quoted in LDS publications.

I would love to go up against JFS in debate on this subject.

Both JFS and Talmadge (via BH Roberts) lost this debate with the 1931 statement by the HJ Grant Presidency in which it was stated that the Church has no doctrine whatsoever on the issue of preAdamite races. The bottom line is that one can accept either Evolution or Creationism and not be in conflict with LDS doctrine.

[Sevenbak]

I really like this statement by Elder Nelson, published in the Ensign. He was a gifted heart surgeon before being called to the 12. I very much respect his statement as well as his tremendous faith.

"Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a “big bang” that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.

To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions!

We are children of God, created by him and formed in his image. Recently I studied the scriptures to find how many times they testify of the divine creation of man. Looking up references that referred to create, form (or their derivatives), with either man, men, male, or female in the same verse, I found that there are at least fifty-five verses of scripture that attest to our divine creation. I have selected one to represent all the verses that convey the same conclusion:

“The Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness. …

“So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.” (Abr. 4:26, 27.)..."

More great stuff here:

http://lds.org/ensign/1988/01/the-magnificence-of-man?lang=eng&query=evolution+elder+nelson

[Sevenbak]

I also find the phrase "in the meridian of time", referring to the Savior's life in mortality to be of interest to this topic.

[Jeff K.]

It seems to me to be a strange thing. There is no conflict because there is no counter point between the gospel and the theories of man regarding how the universe is run.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Rivers]

My own hypothesis too. Where did we get this brilliant idea from?

I like this hypothesis too. The only loose end for me is the time line that places Adam and Eve at 4000 B.C. If Adam and Eve are the common ancestors of every human being living today, 4000 B.C. is just way too early.

[Rivers]

I really like this statement by Elder Nelson, published in the Ensign. He was a gifted heart surgeon before being called to the 12. I very much respect his statement as well as his tremendous faith.

"Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a “big bang” that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.

To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions!

We are children of God, created by him and formed in his image. Recently I studied the scriptures to find how many times they testify of the divine creation of man. Looking up references that referred to create, form (or their derivatives), with either man, men, male, or female in the same verse, I found that there are at least fifty-five verses of scripture that attest to our divine creation. I have selected one to represent all the verses that convey the same conclusion:

“The Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness. …

“So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.” (Abr. 4:26, 27.)..."

More great stuff here:

http://lds.org/ensig...on+elder+nelson

And I totally agree with Elder Nelson. The universe and man are certainly of divine origin. The question is, "how did He do it?"

[Jeff K.]

Magic.