Is The Earth Only 7,000 Years Old?

[cinepro]

If you want to be intellectually honest about this, you should also refer to actual official LDS doctrine on this section such as the D&C Institute Manual which broadens out these definitions quite a bit.

I'm not sure the manual is as broad as you say it is:

“‘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.)

The Church has always viewed "the creation" as being a separate period for the Earth's history, with the "temporal" period beginning with Adam's fall (and physical death being first brought into the world). Unfortunately, the Church has always taught that "the creation" was paradisical in nature.

As the more recent Pearl of Great Price manual teaches about the creation:

A paradisical earth was created and immortal, paradisical bodies were prepared for Adam and Eve, the first of all of God’s spirit sons and daughters to come to this earth.

In what way can evolution be used to create a "paradisical" planet and "paradisical" bodies? Evolution is a telestial process, with birth/death cycles and natural selection being of primary importance.

The Pearl of Great Price manual also says this about the Tenth Article of Faith:

Articles of Faith 1:10. “The Earth Will Be Renewed and Receive its Paradisiacal Glory”

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote:

“The great change which shall come when Christ our Savior begins his Millennial reign, is to be a restoration to the conditions which prevailed before the fall of man. …

“This new heaven and earth which will come into existence when our Lord comes to reign, is this same earth with its heavens renewed or restored to its primitive condition and beauty. Everything is to be brought back as nearly as it is possible to its position as it was in the beginning” (The Restoration of All Things [1945], 294–95).

If the Earth was created using an evolutionary process, then what will its condition be after it is "brought back as nearly as it is possible to its position as it was in the beginning"? Will there only be single-celled creatures? Will there be pre-Adamite humanoids walking around once again?

Edited December 31, 2011 by cinepro

[Rivers]

In what way can evolution be used to create a "paradisical" planet and "paradisical" bodies? Evolution is a telestial process, with birth/death cycles and natural selection being of primary importance.

The same way in which the earth in its current condition will become paradisical in the millenium.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Rivers

[blackstrap]

Perhaps the Mayans had a correct idea in that the earth's history is cyclical.Joseph Smith suggested that the earth was created for several purposes.

As far as dating civilizations, all one needs to do is look at the incontrovertable,well established list of dynastic pharoahs to see just how

accurate we are.

[Rivers]

Perhaps the Mayans had a correct idea in that the earth's history is cyclical.Joseph Smith suggested that the earth was created for several purposes.

As far as dating civilizations, all one needs to do is look at the incontrovertable,well established list of dynastic pharoahs to see just how

accurate we are.

If the Mayans were correct, we might be in for some excitement this next year.

[BCSpace]

I'm not sure the manual is as broad as you say it is:

“‘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.)

The Church has always viewed "the creation" as being a separate period for the Earth's history, with the "temporal" period beginning with Adam's fall (and physical death being first brought into the world). Unfortunately, the Church has always taught that "the creation" was paradisical in nature.

For the purposes of this thread, what it clearly says is that history, from the traditional fall of Adam to now, does not constitute the age of the earth and that D&C 77 cannot be used to say anything in that regard. The broadening is the term "temporal" is also quite evident and that most LDS think of it as relating on to the physical. But the doctrine places the physical creation of the earth and it's preparation as a dwelling place for man outside the usual thinking on "temporal".

[cinepro]

For the purposes of this thread, what it clearly says is that history, from the traditional fall of Adam to now, does not constitute the age of the earth and that D&C 77 cannot be used to say anything in that regard. The broadening is the term "temporal" is also quite evident and that most LDS think of it as relating on to the physical. But the doctrine places the physical creation of the earth and it's preparation as a dwelling place for man outside the usual thinking on "temporal".

Is a world in which evolution is occurring (i.e. countless generations of birth/death among plants and animals and mutation bringing about change through the generations) a "temporal" one?

[BCSpace]

Is a world in which evolution is occurring (i.e. countless generations of birth/death among plants and animals and mutation bringing about change through the generations) a "temporal" one?

Yes. Our world now stands as evidence of this. Perhaps the question you should have asked was "Is everything before temporal time part of the spiritual creation?" It's interesting to note that the spiritual creation as illustrated by the BoA is really just a planning stage and bears further discussion and study. But the reason why the doctrine on D&C 77 places us outside the usual thinking of what temporal and spiritual mean is because it places the physical creation of the earth outside temporal time.

Looking at it as a whole, I think the best way to interpret this is that temporal time as per D&C 77 and the doctrine thereon is merely time that is relevant to God that is also relevant to us after the Fall.

[katherine the great]

Somehow, I perceive you have your tongue firmly against your cheek. While the ancients did discuss dragons, etc., it was not upon personal observation of any such living thing, but most likely surmised such creatures from the fossil evidence left behind. For example, from looking at the skull of an mastodon it is easy to entertain the thought of it being an cyclops or a Protoceratops in fossil looks like a giant lizard with wings.

I'll let him speak for himself, but I suspect he was dead serious.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Yes. And so is the loch ness monster.

Where would Big foot come in?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That's the weird thing. Somehow, some LDS are able to believe in civilizations that are older than 4,000BC, but at the same time our timeline for humanity begins at 4,000BC. These are the two most popular timelines that are published by the Church:

Oh the horror of living that long!

[LeSellers]

Oh the horror of living that long!

There was no IRS, nor a city planning commission. It would not have been so bad.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

There is absolutely no physical evidence for a 7000 year old earth.

[subgenius]

They are official doctrine, being published by the Church.

this is not an accurate claim, it is a common misconception. I believe the church has clarified the issue with the following:

"

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles... 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."

-Approaching Mormon Doctrine, May 2007 (Official Church Statement)

This has been consistently seen throughout the prophets use of revelation being seen as pertinent to the times. For example BY taught principles relative to the 19th century that may not have been relative to the 20th or 21st centuries.

"Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. "

-Approaching Mormon Doctrine, May 2007 (Official Church Statement)

The "core" doctrine of the church has always been as stated here:

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121.)

[dtorge26]

There is absolutely no physical evidence for a 7000 year old earth.

We must beware of the physical evidence of age, when we really don't understand the actual method that God employed to create the Earth. For example, carbon dating makes assumptions about the radioactive content of carbon from some historical point, and makes the assumption that strictly natural processes were involved from the beginning all the way to present time. The scientific method takes the default assumption that no intelligent agent interferred by any means in the creation process.

This question is kind of like stumbling across an immense kingdom created out of legos. Then different people start making assumptions about how those legos came together to form a kingdom. The scientists will explain it in terms which don't require any intelligent agent, and their assumption about its age will correspond to that natural method of creation. Whereas the truth could really be any number of options. It is very possible that all the lego pieces came together at a single moment to form a kingdom through a creative act of an intelligent agent. In such a case, the scientists view of 'age' will be very far from the actual truth.

[thesometimesaint]

dtorge:

As a Saint I believe that God uses natural processes to achieve his desired goal.

[cinepro]

Anyone interested in the subject of the Gospel and the Scientific Worldview should read this article from the Ensign:

The Gospel and the Scientific Worldview: How the Earth Came To Be

It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere. However, the revelations Latter-day Saints have about the earth and God’s dealings with it simply do not permit us to make those assumptions. As Latter-day Saints we do not throw out the Genesis story—as so many secularists have done—nor do we regard scientists’ honest efforts to learn the truth as the work of the Adversary (though the Adversary does, of course, use those views to fulfill his ends).

----------------------------------

Within this enlarged view of a celestial uniformity, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth’s baptism. Brigham Young pointed out that the earth “abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (in Journal of Discourses, 8:83).

Edited January 3, 2012 by cinepro

[Ron Beron]

Where would Big foot come in?

Somewhere around Oregon, Washington State, and into Idaho and parts south.

[Ron Beron]

For example, carbon dating makes assumptions about the radioactive content of carbon from some historical point, and makes the assumption that strictly natural processes were involved from the beginning all the way to present time. The scientific method takes the default assumption that no intelligent agent interferred by any means in the creation process.

Not exactly. Carbon 14 analysis usually uses secondary sources such as pottery typing, dendrochronology (wood rings), ice core samples, etc., to back up the C14 dating. In most of the cases it has been proven accurate.

[Rivers]

There is absolutely no physical evidence for a 7000 year old earth.

Satan made it look older in order to deceive us.

[Rivers]

Anyone interested in the subject of the Gospel and the Scientific Worldview should read this article from the Ensign:

The Gospel and the Scientific Worldview: How the Earth Came To Be

Interesting article. You don't see the church discussing these issues much these days.

[Freedom]

To me, science is still trying to figure out how old the earth but all scientists agree that the data indicates it is very old. The scriptures, on the other hand, are sufficiently vague to allow for a very old earth. Because of the vagueness, however, it is pretty clear that neither side is going to change positions. So what do say we all come over to my house and bbq my pet dinosaur...er...lizard.

[jamesadam432]

i dont think that earth is only 7000 years old... i also dont think that we should believe the mayan's calendar which says that earth will destroy in 2012. what you people say? ?

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

And God changed it back.

However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the creation of this earth occurred 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Shamelessly highjacked from Talkorigins.

[dtorge26]

Not exactly. Carbon 14 analysis usually uses secondary sources such as pottery typing, dendrochronology (wood rings), ice core samples, etc., to back up the C14 dating. In most of the cases it has been proven accurate.

But even these secondary methods rely on key assumptions about the 'starting' condition of that which they are measuring. The only real piece of data they have is the 'current' condition. Their default position is that both the starting condition, and all subsequent processes, are influenced by strictly natural means, with zero influence from God. And their calculation of age flows from these assumptions. That's why it is very unreliable.

[Freedom]

i dont think that earth is only 7000 years old... i also dont think that we should believe the mayan's calendar which says that earth will destroy in 2012. what you people say? ?

I say that the destruction of the earth is Hollywood hype and has nothing to do with the Mayan calendar. Their calendars were not linear like ours, they were cyclical. They believed, as likely did the Olmecs on which their calendar system was likely based, that life events would reoccur or perhaps even start over again.