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

[Bikeemikey]

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

Don't treat scripture as perfect and your all set.

[cinepro]

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.

Plenty of people have "live" scriptures without needing to read them ambiguously. In the end, it seems the text is only as clear and concise as the reader wants it to be.

[Cobalt-70]

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."

Does anyone know the provenance of D&C 77? It was not in the original 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Apparently, it was not added until 1876. The first recording of it I know about is in the Manuscript History vol. A-1 (http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-1838%E2%80%931856-volume-a-1#198) This part of MH was written by Willard Richards around 1842. But where did Richards get it from? And why did Richards implicitly characterize it as a revelation, when just based on the text alone it could easily also be interpreted as an academic-type exercise by Smith?

Also, I found an interesting article that discusses the historical context of D&C 77 (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-context/2-discoveries-joseph-smith-papers-project-early-) But it doesn't say anything about the provenance of the original manuscript.

[Bikeemikey]

Plenty of people have "live" scriptures without needing to read them ambiguously. In the end, it seems the text is only as clear and concise as the reader wants it to be.

Most Scripture is very clear.

Most ambiguity is the result of the reader needing it to be that way.

Once in a while it really is ambiguous.

IMO, Living scripture has to do more with the capacity of the spirit to supply us as readers with messages beyond the scope of the text, not intentionally ambiguous language crafted to help us make it mean what we need it to mean.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[BCSpace]

it was again taught that "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works".

That is correct. This is why the publications are official doctrine. Doctrine may reside in the scriptures, but it's the 15 prophets and apostles who establish it (and as we learned in this last Conference, scriptures aren't necessarily the impetus for doctrine) and then publish it according to the Church's 2007 statement. Without this, we would not know that the water in John 3:5 is water baptism or that singles might have an opportunity in the next life to marry, or that abortion is "like unto murder". None of these and hundreds of other doctrines we take for granted are directly stated in the scriptures; it takes the prophets to know and find out they exist and communicate them to us by official publication.

If it were otherwise, then there is no need for the Church to exist.

Edited April 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I agree, because Smith evidently dated the beginning of the first seal as the fall of Adam. I don't think anybody knows whether or not Smith believed in a multi-billions-long creation period before the fall. He probably believed that each of the "days" mentioned in Genesis was 1000 years.

Here's an interesting passage from the early-20th century work of John A. Widtsoe, who was http://books.google.com/books?id=un9559MrJAUC&pg=PA50 decidedly pro-science on the issue of the earth's age, before the LDS Church took an anti-science detour in the mid 20th century from which it is still recovering. Widtsoe was pro-science not because his science was necessarily correct, but because his goal was to show that Joseph Smith's doctrines were consistent with science, which implies that doctrine may be judged by its consistency with scientific discovery, rather than vice versa. We used to do more of that in the past. Now, we are all supposed to think that "secular voices" (i.e., scientists) are tools of the devil.

[Craig Paxton]

That is correct. This is why the publications are official doctrine. Doctrine may reside in the scriptures, but it's the 15 prophets and apostles who establish it (and as we learned in this last Conference, scriptures aren't necessarily the impetus for doctrine) and then publish it according to the Church's 2007 statement. Without this, we would not know that the water in John 3:5 is water baptism or that singles might have an opportunity in the next life to marry, or that abortion is "like unto murder". None of these and hundreds of other doctrines we take for granted are directly stated in the scriptures; it takes the prophets to know and find out they exist and communicate them to us by official publication.

If it were otherwise, then there is no need for the Church to exist.

So are you suggesting that LDS Scriptures be taken with a grain of salt? How else does Sec 77 make any sense? It can't be taken literally and it is hard to take it metephorically...basically it just doesn't sync with how we know the world to be

[Craig Paxton]

I agree, because Smith evidently dated the beginning of the first seal as the fall of Adam. I don't think anybody knows whether or not Smith believed in a multi-billions-long creation period before the fall. He probably believed that each of the "days" mentioned in Genesis was 1000 years.

Here's an interesting passage from the early-20th century work of John A. Widtsoe, who was http://books.google....9MrJAUC&pg=PA50 decidedly pro-science on the issue of the earth's age, before the LDS Church took an anti-science detour in the mid 20th century from which it is still recovering. Widtsoe was pro-science not because his science was necessarily correct, but because his goal was to show that Joseph Smith's doctrines were consistent with science, which implies that doctrine may be judged by its consistency with scientific discovery, rather than vice versa. We used to do more of that in the past. Now, we are all supposed to think that "secular voices" (i.e., scientists) are tools of the devil.

And boy didn't the opportunity for accepting a more comfortable position with science and secualr reasoning within Mormonism get slapped back about 50 years in this last conference...what with Elder Neilson's strawman argument on the Big Bang theroy...which actually got a huge laugh of approval from the congregation

Edited April 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Flyonthewall]

How do you determine the age of a house? Is it when the builders finish construction? or do you count the age of the trees that were used in its construction? or the age of the stone?

My theory, and I'll be the first to admit it is not thought out very far but it works for me, is that this world, is one that had already passed away, then God re-organized this world into something useable by us...

To me, this explains the age of the materials this earth is made from, and the fossils of animals that were not part of our world.

Though this rock may be billions of years old, the time since the fall is much shorter.

[Cobalt-70]

How do you determine the age of a house? Is it when the builders finish construction? or do you count the age of the trees that were used in its construction? or the age of the stone?

My theory, and I'll be the first to admit it is not thought out very far but it works for me, is that this world, is one that had already passed away, then God re-organized this world into something useable by us...

To me, this explains the age of the materials this earth is made from, and the fossils of animals that were not part of our world.

Though this rock may be billions of years old, the time since the fall is much shorter.

For that to have happened, we would have to be able to see a 100% extinction event in the fossil record. No such event has occurred. There were major extinctions, such as the asteroid that killed the non-avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but some species always survived.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

That is interesting. What would fossil evidence of a 100% extinction event look like?

[Craig Paxton]

How do you determine the age of a house? Is it when the builders finish construction? or do you count the age of the trees that were used in its construction? or the age of the stone?

My theory, and I'll be the first to admit it is not thought out very far but it works for me, is that this world, is one that had already passed away, then God re-organized this world into something useable by us...

To me, this explains the age of the materials this earth is made from, and the fossils of animals that were not part of our world.

Though this rock may be billions of years old, the time since the fall is much shorter.

While I apprecaite the creativity of your theory...it ust doesn't stand up to examination...you for get to consideer that there is a observable record of the earths existance for 4.5 billion years, there is a fossel record...showing a trail of evolution between species, there is DNA record...which also supports evolution, there is radiometric dating which also supports the 4.5 billion earth age. Basically there is nothing but ignorance or a dismissal of evidence or faith to support a young earth.

I think the better question is as I first began this thread is how do you reconcile this reality

[zerinus]

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.

Both you are mistaken, and science is incorrect.

Abraham 5:

13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord's time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

The seven days of creation before the Fall, took place according to Kolob's time, which is 1000 years to one day. So the earth took seven Kolob-days (=7,000 years) to be created by the power of God. After the Fall, Adam's reckoning of time changed to earth time, and the "7,000 years" of D&C 77 refers to earth years.

[Flyonthewall]

I don't see the fossil record as a problem, or the need of 100% extinction as a problem either.

I figure that God simply used the previous fauna as a pattern for what we have now. That is how some animals seem to not have changed and some have been modified for the present state of the earth.

Science is still trying to interpret things correctly. I am not bothered by science not matching up with things because interpretations change. Right now we think we have it right. Well they thought that they had it right when they thought the sun went around the earth. They just didn't know what they didn't know.

Same as today...we don't know what we don't know. We don't know what piece of the puzzle is missing so we create a picture from the interpretation of the data we have. We could be close...or we could be 180 degrees out.

[CV75]

And boy didn't the opportunity for accepting a more comfortable position with science and secualr reasoning within Mormonism get slapped back about 50 years in this last conference...what with Elder Neilson's strawman argument on the Big Bang theroy...which actually got a huge laugh of approval from the congregation

It was funny. I think he was using humor by casually juxtaposing the indifference inherent in some impersonal thing that happened (“somewhere”) with the very intentional and very personal act of God, as either relates to our souls here on earth.

Edited April 6, 2012 by CV75

[zerinus]

It was funny. I think he was using humor by casually juxtaposing the indifference inherent in some impersonal thing that happened (“somewhere”) with the very intentional and very personal act of God, as either relates to our souls here on earth.

The funny part for me is that I have read this several times, and can't make head or tail out of it. You appear to make a virtue out of incomprehensibility.

[Stargazer]

I don't have any problem at all with the temporal existence of the earth being a stretch 7,000 years long, and the age of the physical earth being 4.5 billion years. The universe is apparently 15 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million. I believe in the Big Bang. No problem with any of it.

I also happen to believe that man as we know him is descended from Adam and Eve, and they were put here at some point, not entirely clear if it was 6,000 years ago or some other number, and we're all descended from them. I don't believe that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was descended from Adam and Eve, because A&E were put here as initial colonial stock, essentially in parallel with Neanderthals (assuming they were still extant at the time of the GofE). If we share some DNA with Neanderthals, this is probably because we share the same planet with the same flora and fauna. We have to be able to eat what we find here, in other words. Not only that, but I think it would be extremely telling if we had completely distinctive DNA, and at this time in our development you either wouldn't be able to disbelieve in God, on biological science grounds, or else you would have to be convinced that our ancestors came here from the stars and would be looking for the remains of the spacecraft that brought us here, not to mention incredible scholarly arguments over whether we came here in a generation-ship, or there remains an FTL technology to discover. As it is, we think we came from here, and so our gaze is properly directed at the ground around our feet instead of the heaven above, at least literally.

When it comes to numbers in the scriptures, as God seems to use them, they aren't necessarily intended to be taken exactly, anyway. There is symbolism, numerology if you will, all over them. For instance, what is up with SEVEN? This number occurs every freaking where. 7 days of the week. 70 Elders of Israel. 7,000 years of its temporal existence. Forgive your enemy 70 times 7 times. Naaman is commanded to bathe 7 times in the Jordan.

Well, the number 7 has a certain implication, that being "spiritual perfection," "totality of perfection," or "completeness".

And the combination of 7 times 1,000 = 7,000 combines the meaning of 1,000, which is "immensity" or "fullness of quantity" (especially prominently in the Book of Revelation). So figuratively, it doesn't matter that the actual age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when we get down to the end of the Millenium, which is the end of the Earth's temporal existence, 7,000 figurative years will have passed, making the earth immensely complete. So to speak.

Why do people have to be so bloody literal minded? No accounting for it, I guess.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

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.

I just did.

Actually, God has been playing word and number games with us for thousands of years, and yet you're still expecting Him to speak plainly in words you can't possibly misunderstand? Well, He knows you don't believe Him no matter what He says anyway, so He's giving you some very merciful plausible deniability. As in:

God: Well, I told you all about it; quite clearly, I am sure.

Tarski: Clear? There was nothing clear about it! Number games, plays on words, you name it -- it looked like a whole bunch of confusing gobbledegook to me!

God: Yes, I know. You ought to be glad about that.

Tarski: How so?

God: Well, because of mercy! If it was all very clear so you understood every nuance of it, and yet still refused to believe, where do you think you'd be?

Tarski: Perdition?

God: Got it in one.

[DarkScythe]

both are true. Earth is 4.5 billions years old and Scripture only matters of the 6,000 years of it.

[zerinus]

I don't have any problem at all with the temporal existence of the earth being a stretch 7,000 years long, and the age of the physical earth being 4.5 billion years. The universe is apparently 15 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million. I believe in the Big Bang. No problem with any of it.

I also happen to believe that man as we know him is descended from Adam and Eve, and they were put here at some point, not entirely clear if it was 6,000 years ago or some other number, and we're all descended from them. I don't believe that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was descended from Adam and Eve, because A&E were put here as initial colonial stock, essentially in parallel with Neanderthals (assuming they were still extant at the time of the GofE). If we share some DNA with Neanderthals, this is probably because we share the same planet with the same flora and fauna. We have to be able to eat what we find here, in other words. Not only that, but I think it would be extremely telling if we had completely distinctive DNA, and at this time in our development you either wouldn't be able to disbelieve in God, on biological science grounds, or else you would have to be convinced that our ancestors came here from the stars and would be looking for the remains of the spacecraft that brought us here, not to mention incredible scholarly arguments over whether we came here in a generation-ship, or there remains an FTL technology to discover. As it is, we think we came from here, and so our gaze is properly directed at the ground around our feet instead of the heaven above, at least literally.

When it comes to numbers in the scriptures, as God seems to use them, they aren't necessarily intended to be taken exactly, anyway. There is symbolism, numerology if you will, all over them. For instance, what is up with SEVEN? This number occurs every freaking where. 7 days of the week. 70 Elders of Israel. 7,000 years of its temporal existence. Forgive your enemy 70 times 7 times. Naaman is commanded to bathe 7 times in the Jordan.

Well, the number 7 has a certain implication, that being "spiritual perfection," "totality of perfection," or "completeness".

And the combination of 7 times 1,000 = 7,000 combines the meaning of 1,000, which is "immensity" or "fullness of quantity" (especially prominently in the Book of Revelation). So figuratively, it doesn't matter that the actual age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when we get down to the end of the Millenium, which is the end of the Earth's temporal existence, 7,000 figurative years will have passed, making the earth immensely complete. So to speak.

Why do people have to be so bloody literal minded? No accounting for it, I guess.

Except that whenever we have been able to ascertain the exact number, 7 and 70 etc. have meant just that. Seve days of the week really are 7 days, and 70 elders really are 70 elders, and Naaman dipping himself 7 times really meant 7 times. So why not the "7,000 years" of the earth's continuance, or the 7 days of creation?

Edited April 6, 2012 by zerinus

[Stargazer]

Except that whenever we have been able to ascertain the exact number, 7 and 70 etc. have meant just that. Seve days of the week really are 7 days, and 70 elders really are 70 elders, and Naaman dipping himself 7 times really meant 7 times. So why not the "7,000 years" of the earth's continuance, or the 7 days of creation?

144,000 being 12,000 out of each tribe, except that Revelation leaves a tribe or so out. 12 apostles, except that the number is more like 15, these days. Seventy, except that a quorum of seventy can contain any number up to and including seventy. And were there always exactly 70 elders of Israel, or some other lesser number in practical matters, and do you really have to forgive your trespasser 490 times, or is 341 sufficient? 7,000 years, except that so far we seem to be 12 years into the 7th thousand years and we're still not starting up the Millenium. Your other examples? Sure, Naaman did indeed dip himself 7 times, but it would be hard to fudge that, and distinct numbers like 7 days likewise.

I'm telling you that you're trying to hold the Lord to literal mathematics, but I don't think He cares about that. You can't number the number of his created worlds, and though He himself uses the example of sand on the seashore, I don't think there is a the slightest chance of a match between the number of stars in the Universe with the number of sand grains on all of earth's shores, and the number of Abraham's descendants isn't anywhere near enough to match the number of stars or planets in the Universe (or even this galaxy's, either). The Lord is constantly dealing in figurative numbers, symbols only suggestive of literal facts, and squishy, uncertain illustrations like the statue with head of gold and feet of clay.

And you want numeric precision and mathematical accuracy? Good luck with that one, Bijhan!

[zerinus]

144,000 being 12,000 out of each tribe, except that Revelation leaves a tribe or so out.

That could be an inadvertent omission. The figures are still being applied correctly.

12 apostles, except that the number is more like 15, these days.

That is not correct either. 12 Apostles are 12. The quorum consists of 12 Apostles. The remaining three are not part of that quorum, and do not officiate in that capacity.

Seventy, except that a quorum of seventy can contain any number up to and including seventy.

The same principle applies to the 12, the elders, priests, teachers, and deacons. It is part of the constitution of each quorum that it can still function as a quorum if some members (up to a predetermined figure) are absent or missing. But the quorum itself is still defined correctly by the appropriate number. It cannot exceed that number without being split.

And were there always exactly 70 elders of Israel, or some other lesser number in practical matters, . . .

See above.

. . . and do you really have to forgive your trespasser 490 times, or is 341 sufficient?

That is probably a figure of speech; but may even be taken literally. Are we really supposed to forgive someone an infinite number of times; or is there a cut off point where we can say "enough is enough"? What is that cut off point if there is one? If so, why not the figure that Jesus suggested? See D&C 98:39-40.

7,000 years, except that so far we seem to be 12 years into the 7th thousand years and we're still not starting up the Millenium.

Actually, according to my reckoning, that is more likely to work out as 8,000 years in total, rather than 7,000. An alternative possible calculation is that we are still in the 6^th thousand year.

Your other examples? Sure, Naaman did indeed dip himself 7 times, but it would be hard to fudge that, and distinct numbers like 7 days likewise.

I don't think that any of them need be fudged.

I'm telling you that you're trying to hold the Lord to literal mathematics, but I don't think He cares about that.

I think that in some things He does, and in some things He doesn't--in the same way as we might.

You can't number the number of his created worlds, and though He himself uses the example of sand on the seashore, I don't think there is a the slightest chance of a match between the number of stars in the Universe with the number of sand grains on all of earth's shores, and the number of Abraham's descendants isn't anywhere near enough to match the number of stars or planets in the Universe (or even this galaxy's, either).

In that particular example, the context makes clear that the comparison with the "sand on the seashore" is meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. It says, "as the sand ...", which makes it clear that it is not meant to be taken as an exact equivalence. But as far as the actual numbers are concerned, God makes it clear that He does know (and care) about the exact numbers:

Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

So numbers are indeed important, and God knows (and cares about) the exact numbers.

The Lord is constantly dealing in figurative numbers, symbols only suggestive of literal facts, and squishy, uncertain illustrations like the statue with head of gold and feet of clay.

I don't deny that figures of speech play an important role in revelatory language; but that does not mean that everything is figurative, or that God is not interested in exact numbers.

And you want numeric precision and mathematical accuracy? Good luck with that one, Bijhan!

LOL! Don't you just wish you knew your scriptures as well as I do? And by the way, you didn't even tell me if you read my book, and if so what you thought of it. No feedback, no nothing. Now don't say it is so bad you can't even tell me!

Edited April 6, 2012 by zerinus

[Robert F. Smith]

That is correct. This is why the publications are official doctrine. Doctrine may reside in the scriptures, but it's the 15 prophets and apostles who establish it (and as we learned in this last Conference, scriptures aren't necessarily the impetus for doctrine) and then publish it according to the Church's 2007 statement. Without this, we would not know that the water in John 3:5 is water baptism or that singles might have an opportunity in the next life to marry, or that abortion is "like unto murder". None of these and hundreds of other doctrines we take for granted are directly stated in the scriptures; it takes the prophets to know and find out they exist and communicate them to us by official publication.

If it were otherwise, then there is no need for the Church to exist.

The LDS Church has produced plenty of "official" publications in furtherance of its objective to promulgate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God on Earth, and in doing so the General Authorities who often contribute to such publications carry "treasure in earthen vessels" (II Cor 4:7), that is, they are fallible humans made of clay who attempt to fulfill the grand commission they have been given to preach the Gospel. However, since the publications you refer to (including those containing the words of General Authorities) have over time carried divergent messages on some issues, it seems suspect to hold to the rigid position you so frequently maintain.

Such a position reminds me of the rabbinic practice of interpreting Holy Scripture (the Hebrew Bible) in order to apply it to modern life, the very interpretations themselves being eventually codified in the Talmud -- which then takes on a deuterocanonical status.

You ought to be very cautious about touting this sort of parascripture, since it contains within itself plenty of instances of internal contradictions. The only way for us to know for certain whether some particular interpretation is of God is to pray about it and to obtain the witness of the Holy Spirit. Meantime, "official publication" does not constitute doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

And boy didn't the opportunity for accepting a more comfortable position with science and secualr reasoning within Mormonism get slapped back about 50 years in this last conference...what with Elder Neilson's strawman argument on the Big Bang theroy...which actually got a huge laugh of approval from the congregation

Vox populi, vox Dei? How many physicists were in that congregation? Is Elder Neilson a physicist and does he understand the basics of the Big Bang? Is this how one establishes LDS theology & doctrine? Or are you creating your own strawman, Craig?

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't have any problem at all with the temporal existence of the earth being a stretch 7,000 years long, and the age of the physical earth being 4.5 billion years. The universe is apparently 15 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million. I believe in the Big Bang. No problem with any of it.

I also happen to believe that man as we know him is descended from Adam and Eve, and they were put here at some point, not entirely clear if it was 6,000 years ago or some other number, and we're all descended from them. I don't believe that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was descended from Adam and Eve, because A&E were put here as initial colonial stock, essentially in parallel with Neanderthals (assuming they were still extant at the time of the GofE). If we share some DNA with Neanderthals, this is probably because we share the same planet with the same flora and fauna. We have to be able to eat what we find here, in other words. Not only that, but I think it would be extremely telling if we had completely distinctive DNA, and at this time in our development you either wouldn't be able to disbelieve in God, on biological science grounds, or else you would have to be convinced that our ancestors came here from the stars and would be looking for the remains of the spacecraft that brought us here, not to mention incredible scholarly arguments over whether we came here in a generation-ship, or there remains an FTL technology to discover. As it is, we think we came from here, and so our gaze is properly directed at the ground around our feet instead of the heaven above, at least literally.

When it comes to numbers in the scriptures, as God seems to use them, they aren't necessarily intended to be taken exactly, anyway. There is symbolism, numerology if you will, all over them. For instance, what is up with SEVEN? This number occurs every freaking where. 7 days of the week. 70 Elders of Israel. 7,000 years of its temporal existence. Forgive your enemy 70 times 7 times. Naaman is commanded to bathe 7 times in the Jordan.

Well, the number 7 has a certain implication, that being "spiritual perfection," "totality of perfection," or "completeness".

And the combination of 7 times 1,000 = 7,000 combines the meaning of 1,000, which is "immensity" or "fullness of quantity" (especially prominently in the Book of Revelation). So figuratively, it doesn't matter that the actual age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when we get down to the end of the Millenium, which is the end of the Earth's temporal existence, 7,000 figurative years will have passed, making the earth immensely complete. So to speak.

Why do people have to be so bloody literal minded? No accounting for it, I guess.

I love your phrase "initial colonial stock" since it shows that you actually understand that LDS theology need not support either creationism or evolutionary theory, but rather transmission of life from other worlds, which kicks the chicken & egg question down the road apiece.

D&C 77:7 interprets the meaning of the seals, each one being taken to represent a thousand years. The same applies to 77:6, where the sealed book in Rev 5:1 is said to contain the revealed will of God, His mysteries, and works, i.e., the hidden things of His economy (His way and concerns) during a set period, which some on this Board believe must be taken literally in the midst of all manner of figurative and allegorical interpretations. D&C 77 is no more a scientific work than is Genesis 1 - 2 (ritual drama), and it borders on the ridiculous to forget that.