Continents Only Separated In 2200 Bc?

[bu11fr0g]

This, I believe is clearly an example of someone that was wrong who was in the First Presidency speaking in General Conference?:

"In the course of time from the creation, in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:16, JST), or about the year 2200 B.C., Just prior to the confusion of the languages, the single continent of land that had continued from creation was divided to produce the hemispheres as we now know them. But notwithstanding this, the geographic location of the Garden of Eden was made known to the Prophet Joseph Smith by revelation as here in the land of America, in Jackson County, Missouri, with Independence as the center place."

--- Alvin R. Dyer, First Presidency, Conference Report, October 1968, pp. 106-110

[altersteve]

And?

[BCSpace]

In my opinion, this is a case of the Church going with traditional Christian interpretation where there is no modern revelation on the subject. I believe the same applies to the global Flood. In some ways, there is nothing wrong with this even though I disagree with the doctrine. The reason I think it is acceptable is because while the Church accepts and encourages science, science is not a source of doctrine, so unless there is something of huge importance to our salvation, the Church is probably not going to change.this any time soon.

Perhaps when the great majority of members are okay with science on the subject, the manuals will be revised to make note of it in a fashion similar to how the Church notes there is no revelation on the subject of how everything was created.

[Zakuska]

This, I believe is clearly an example of someone that was wrong who was in the First Presidency speaking in General Conference?:

"In the course of time from the creation, in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:16, JST), or about the year 2200 B.C., Just prior to the confusion of the languages, the single continent of land that had continued from creation was divided to produce the hemispheres as we now know them. But notwithstanding this, the geographic location of the Garden of Eden was made known to the Prophet Joseph Smith by revelation as here in the land of America, in Jackson County, Missouri, with Independence as the center place."

--- Alvin R. Dyer, First Presidency, Conference Report, October 1968, pp. 106-110

I don't think the division in the days of "Peleg" had anything to do with plate tectonics. (I admit when I was young I did) Now I know that it has to do with the Table of Nations when the Lord aloted the Land to the various tribes of men.

[thesometimesaint]

It has nothing to do with my salvation so he(anyone) can have any opinion they want. But I would suggest that he take a couple of geology classes at BYU.

[Craig Paxton]

This, I believe is clearly an example of someone that was wrong who was in the First Presidency speaking in General Conference?:

"In the course of time from the creation, in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:16, JST), or about the year 2200 B.C., Just prior to the confusion of the languages, the single continent of land that had continued from creation was divided to produce the hemispheres as we now know them. But notwithstanding this, the geographic location of the Garden of Eden was made known to the Prophet Joseph Smith by revelation as here in the land of America, in Jackson County, Missouri, with Independence as the center place."

--- Alvin R. Dyer, First Presidency, Conference Report, October 1968, pp. 106-110

That was pure specualtion on the part of Elder Dyer...He was merely speaking as a man and not in his roll as a member of the First Presidency even though he gave this address in General Conference. Sometimes our prophets speak as prophets and sometime they speak as men...you've merely shown an example were he was speaking as a man. How do we know he was speaking as a man...because what he said is not true...but cut him some slack...he was speaking based on the best information he had available to him at that time (as a man) and clearly was not inspired to say those words...even though they were given in Conference...not all words spoken in conference are inspired words from God...some time men add their own thoughts and mingle in the thinking of men with the words of God.

I know its confusing...but actually its easy to know when a prophet is speaking as a man rather than as a prophet...If ever in the future his words are shown to be wrong or untrue...as in the case of Elder Dyer...then you can know that at that time he was speaking as a man and only those words should be disregarded...but everything else he said that has stood the test of time should be taken as inspired words from God. See easy.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

Not confusing at all.

http://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 “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  

[Mark Beesley]

Okay, so the land mass originally created so the waters were all in one place didn't divide in 2200 BC. When did that division occur, and how do we know?

[altersteve]

Okay, so the land mass originally created so the waters were all in one place didn't divide in 2200 BC. When did that division occur, and how do we know?

Millions of years ago, and we know because of science, although that knowledge, of course, could and probably will change as our understanding of the earth changes.

[Craig Paxton]

Craig Paxton:

Not confusing at all.

http://newsroom.lds....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 “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  

Ahhh...isn't that what I said? He was speaking as a man...sharing his opinion...and as such is not binding on the church.. I also believe that is a good reason why church membership should not take everything spoken at General Conference as fact or reality. General Authorities often speculate, exaggerate and are often wrong. But often they are spot on as well. Each individual is left with the responsibility to sift through the words of these men and find those that are true for them and disregard that which is not. Its not black and white. GA's are men and more than often speak as such and as men can not be held accountable for what they say when speaking as a man...it is not binding on the church nor should their words be viewed as church policy or doctrine.

Its up to us to glean through their words and find the truth among the opinion.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Franktalk]

This is a complex subject that science is far from knowing the answers. I am reading a book about sea floor spreading and moving continents written by Lester King. He is of the opinion that sea floor spreading and plate tectonics make more questions than the theories explain. I agree, just a simple view of trenches and ridges don't seem to relate well to the theory. It may be that the earth actually expanded in the past. There may be some kind of phase change in the material in the core or mantle. Or it may be the results of violates in the mantle. Who knows. But it seems that rather quickly the continents divided and then they slowed down.

The exact timing of all of this is a separate argument.

[Storm Rider]

That was pure specualtion on the part of Elder Dyer...He was merely speaking as a man and not in his roll as a member of the First Presidency even though he gave this address in General Conference. Sometimes our prophets speak as prophets and sometime they speak as men...you've merely shown an example were he was speaking as a man. How do we know he was speaking as a man...because what he said is not true...but cut him some slack...he was speaking based on the best information he had available to him at that time (as a man) and clearly was not inspired to say those words...even though they were given in Conference...not all words spoken in conference are inspired words from God...some time men add their own thoughts and mingle in the thinking of men with the words of God.

I know its confusing...but actually its easy to know when a prophet is speaking as a man rather than as a prophet...If ever in the future his words are shown to be wrong or untrue...as in the case of Elder Dyer...then you can know that at that time he was speaking as a man and only those words should be disregarded...but everything else he said that has stood the test of time should be taken as inspired words from God. See easy.

I don't agree. I think his discussion has nothing to do with anything except his stated opinion and the knowledge of his day. Sometimes opinion turns out to be accurate and other times it turns out to be wrong. Regardless, it was still just his opinion.

It is interesting that LDS are held to such a high standard. Of course. Do we believe in guidance of the Holy Spirit? Of course, but so does every other Christian church. Are Baptist preachers always right when they share their opinion? How about Catholic priests? How about the pope?

Smarmy stupidity is just as offensive as lying and deception.

[Mark Beesley]

Millions of years ago, and we know because of science, although that knowledge, of course, could and probably will change as our understanding of the earth changes.

I guess I'm confused. If that "knowledge" is subject to changing based on a change in understanding, do we really know?

Anyway, I know nothing of geology. What is it particularly in geology that leads us to believe that the land mass separated millions of years ago?

[altersteve]

I guess I'm confused. If that "knowledge" is subject to changing based on a change in understanding, do we really know?

Anyway, I know nothing of geology. What is it particularly in geology that leads us to believe that the land mass separated millions of years ago?

We only "know" things based on our current understanding, whatever the amount of understanding God decides to give us. Our knowledge of the gospel is the same — because of modern revelation, it can and does change often. And I know nothing of geology either, so I can't answer your second question.

Edited October 12, 2011 by altersteve

[Craig Paxton]

I don't agree. I think his discussion has nothing to do with anything except his stated opinion and the knowledge of his day. Sometimes opinion turns out to be accurate and other times it turns out to be wrong. Regardless, it was still just his opinion.

It is interesting that LDS are held to such a high standard. Of course. Do we believe in guidance of the Holy Spirit? Of course, but so does every other Christian church. Are Baptist preachers always right when they share their opinion? How about Catholic priests? How about the pope?

Smarmy stupidity is just as offensive as lying and deception.

Those other denominations don't claim to have leaders who speak with God...of course LDS leaders are held to a higher standard

[altersteve]

Those other denominations don't claim to have leaders who speak with God...of course LDS leaders are held to a higher standard

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church claims that the Pope speaks with God, and I don't question those claims at all.

[Storm Rider]

Those other denominations don't claim to have leaders who speak with God...of course LDS leaders are held to a higher standard

So if you pray to God and he answers you, then do you assume that everything you say from that point forward is direct from God? You and I both know that is faulty logic and does not fly. Except if we are talking about LDS? You do realize how silly that position is?

[Franktalk]

I guess I'm confused. If that "knowledge" is subject to changing based on a change in understanding, do we really know?

Anyway, I know nothing of geology. What is it particularly in geology that leads us to believe that the land mass separated millions of years ago?

Unless you wish to make it a very big hobby that takes up all of your time then avoid geology. These kinds of discussions mostly lead no where. In a nut shell science believes that all things around us today continued into the past. So atomic decay we see today can be used to date things in the past. However if the "constants" of nature were different then all of their dating is for nothing. I believe that God has changed the world and the universe when He wanted to. The fall of Adam and the flood being two events which God could have reordered the creation. So fossils are dated by atomic means, that then dates the rocks. Like I said it is all based on assumptions. If we assume that God has the power to change His creation at will then we happen to believe in miracles. Science denies miracles. So it all boils down to faith. Do you have faith that there is something beyond the creation, some power we call God? Or does one believe that the creation is all there is and an examination of it should not include the possibilities of supernatural events? There is massive evidence that the continents divided. The question is how fast and when? Geology says a long time ago. The Bible may say it took place at the time of Peleg. I happen to believe it did divide at the time of Peleg but I offer no proof.

[shalamabobbi]

That was pure specualtion on the part of Elder Dyer...He was merely speaking as a man and not in his roll as a member of the First Presidency even though he gave this address in General Conference. Sometimes our prophets speak as prophets and sometime they speak as men...you've merely shown an example were he was speaking as a man. How do we know he was speaking as a man...because what he said is not true...but cut him some slack...he was speaking based on the best information he had available to him at that time (as a man) and clearly was not inspired to say those words...even though they were given in Conference...not all words spoken in conference are inspired words from God...some time men add their own thoughts and mingle in the thinking of men with the words of God.

I know its confusing...but actually its easy to know when a prophet is speaking as a man rather than as a prophet...If ever in the future his words are shown to be wrong or untrue...as in the case of Elder Dyer...then you can know that at that time he was speaking as a man and only those words should be disregarded...but everything else he said that has stood the test of time should be taken as inspired words from God. See easy.

Let's see.. is there a precedent for this in scripture?

Oh yes. "Other sheep I have that are not of this fold". And from the BOM we learn that the chief Apostle as well as his subordinates failed to grasp the correct understanding of this phrase.

So your criticism of the brethren can begin much earlier in history..

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

If my very nonLDS grandmother believed that the moon was made of green cheese, does that mean that the doctrine of the church she attended is that the moon is made of green cheese? Probably not

We LDS have a well established and long recognized method for determining what is our doctrine, and statements like this DO NOT qualify. It's merely critics, such as yourself, who disregard what the Church actually says for a quick jab for polemical purposes.

Edited October 12, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[katherine the great]

This, I believe is clearly an example of someone that was wrong who was in the First Presidency speaking in General Conference?:

"In the course of time from the creation, in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:16, JST), or about the year 2200 B.C., Just prior to the confusion of the languages, the single continent of land that had continued from creation was divided to produce the hemispheres as we now know them.

Nah. It was just a typo. It should have read "220,000,000 BC.

[thesometimesaint]

Altersteven:

Pretty sure that the ministers of other faiths claim to speak to God. Otherwise what is the point?

[Craig Paxton]

Let's see.. is there a precedent for this in scripture?

Oh yes. "Other sheep I have that are not of this fold". And from the BOM we learn that the chief Apostle as well as his subordinates failed to grasp the correct understanding of this phrase.

So your criticism of the brethren can begin much earlier in history..

You merely asked why LDS authorites are held to such a high standard...I gave you my opinion why I believe they are held to such a high standard... because they claim to speak with and for God

[Zakuska]

Ahhh...isn't that what I said? He was speaking as a man...sharing his opinion...and as such is not binding on the church.. I also believe that is a good reason why church membership should not take everything spoken at General Conference as fact or reality. General Authorities often speculate, exaggerate and are often wrong. But often they are spot on as well. Each individual is left with the responsibility to sift through the words of these men and find those that are true for them and disregard that which is not. Its not black and white. GA's are men and more than often speak as such and as men can not be held accountable for what they say when speaking as a man...it is not binding on the church nor should their words be viewed as church policy or doctrine.

Its up to us to glean through their words and find the truth among the opinion.

I agree. I think we have to go to Isaiah on this one...

Isaiah 8

20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

We should compare what is said in GC with the scriptures and if we find what is said does not match, we can safely lay it asside.

I think Brigham young summed it up perfectly...

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

― Brigham Young

Edited October 12, 2011 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

There aren't many Ministers, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, Shaman, what have you, that don't make that same claim. What would be the point?