6,000 Years? Could Missing Generations Be The Missing Link?

[thesometimesaint]

Would a nonbeliever in Christ have a different answer as to how ice floats? Possibly but I seriously doubt they would credit Christ for it.

 

I don't discredit religion or even the Bible, just some interpretations of it. Something about "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...". Moreover the Bible was never intended to be a science journal.

 

By Joseph Smith

 

Christ . . . was anointed [in the pre-mortal world] with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things! . . . Well, now, Brother William [smith], 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 of old, from eternity [Micah 5:2]; 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!

       --Times and Seasons 5: 758, 1 January 1845

 

 

 

 

By Apostle Stephen L. Richards                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

...Objection is made to the methods employed in Biblical creation whereas in fact the Bible purports to give no method, no real definition of processes whatever.  Rather it makes authoritative statements of the facts of creation.  Who that is really interested in these major truths will take serious objection to the description of the organization of man: that he was made of the dust of the earth and that his spirit was breathed into him and that woman was made of his rib?  Indeed scientists are now all agreed that there is nothing in his physical body except the dust of the earth and those who are candid readily admit that they do not know what his spirit is or whence it came, nor do they know how woman was made.  I grant freely that I do not understand how a woman can be made of a rib, nor how a man's spirit can be-breathed into him but because I have been unable to understand or explain these expressions I have never been disposed to doubt the things of major import set forth in the account; namely, the author of creation, the subjects of creation, the order of creation, and the purpose of creation.

The time of creation has ever been a subject of much comment and dispute.  Yet I challenge anybody to produce from the Bible itself any finite limitation whatsoever of the periods of creation.  By strained inferential references and interpretations men have sought to set the time in days or periods of a thousand years, but I feel sure that no justification of such limitations is warranted by the scriptures themselves.  If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process.

 

From David O. McKay

 

 

Dear Brother Stokes

Your letter of February 11, 1957 has been received.

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position.  The book, “Man, His Origin and Destiny” was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church.

The book contains expressions of the author’s views for which he alone is responsible.

Sincerely your brother,

David O. McKay

 

By Brigham Young

 

"As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the
fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that
account has been handed down from age to age, and we have go it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. 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

 

By B.H.Roberts

 

"On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side of Adam's advent, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed bysome, is to fly in the face of facts so indisputably brought to light by the research of science in modern times, and this as set forth by men of the highest type in the intellectual and moral  world; not inferior men, or men of sensual and devilish temperament, but men who must be accounted as among the noblest and most self-sacrificing of the sons of men--of the type whence must come the noblest sons of God, since "the glory of God is intelligence" (D&C 93:36), and that too the glory of man."

 

 

By David O. McKay

 

Evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind.    

 

Here are more

 

 

So, while most theologians are regarding the developments of the natural sciences with fear & trembling, the chiefs of the Mormon religion are prepared to hail the discoveries of paleontology as an aid in establishing their peculiar beliefs.        [NY Times]

Evolution might account only for man's physical body; the addition of that "divine spark" that sets man apart from the other animals might have been the final step that created the man, Adam       [Article in The Instructor, a church publication]

Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood?  Why should man come so far if he is destined to go no farther?  A creature which has traveled such distances and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. [Raymond West, quoted by David O McKay]

Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.

In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies.

That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies.                            [Henry Eyring]

Furthermore, whether they were in Australia, Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere, the various forms of life on earth appeared and disappeared at the same time. To the faithful student of the scriptures, this precision reflects the ordered processes of God, the divine Creator.          [Article in The Ensign]

It would do no violence to my faith to learn that God had formed man in one way or another.        [David O McKay]

Our religion is not hostile to real science.  [1st Presidency, 1910]

It is only fair to warn parents and teachers that a young person is going to face a very substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the earth's age as millions of years, and that a young person might "throw the baby out with the bath" unless allowed to seek the truth, from whatever source, without prejudice.                 [Henry Eyring]

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again.              [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

 

The details of the physical creation are not given in scripture.  Indeed, why should they be? The Lord gave us the testimony of the rocks and bids us read.                    [steven Jones]

If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process.              [stephen L Richards]

Whatever the subject may be, the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ may be elaborated on without fear of anyone's objecting, and the teacher can be free to express his honest conviction regarding it, whether that subject be in geology, the history of the world, the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world,       [David O McKay]

Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.             [1st Presidency, 1931]

Many sympathetic to science interpret certain statements in LDS scripture to mean that God used a version of evolution to prepare bodies and environmental surrounding suitable for the premortal spirits.               [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God ... are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.    [Editorial in The Improvementt Era]

 

So if I am  to be a hypocrit so are these good Church members.

Edited August 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

We've discussed this verse in the past, so we don't need to retread the fact that some people think it means something else.  But as far as I can tell, the Chuch's only interpretation is the obvious one.

 

As long as the Church teaches that the Earth's "temporal existence" began at the Fall of Adam, the 6,000 year age of the Temporal Earth is pretty solid as far as doctrine is concerned.

 

At least until we make it to 3000.

 

 

 

I'd say there's a good chance the Lord is merely speaking to the current understanding, Ussher's chronology, the details of the Fall and creation not having been revealed.

[BCSpace]

We can argue what the 7000 years of temporal existence means, however. I think it means the time since the Fall of Adam..

 

 

It does.  The doctrine on the verse in the institute manual is as follows:

 

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.

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

 

[danielwoods]

Answers in Genesis isn't recognized scientific journal.

 

That is a post hoc ergo prompter hoc argument.

 

I don't recall anyone claiming that it was a scientific journal. 

 

I posted the article in response to the original question, are there gaps?

 

The article was pretty thorough I thought. If you think it missed some evidence, by all means point it out. Otherwise it appears you're knocking down arguments no one made.  

[thesometimesaint]

I don't recall anyone claiming that it was a scientific journal. 

 

I posted the article in response to the original question, are there gaps?

 

The article was pretty thorough I thought. If you think it missed some evidence, by all means point it out. Otherwise it appears you're knocking down arguments no one made.  

 

Oh there are plenty of those.

 

Yes there are gaps. But those gaps have nothing to do with neither the Missing Link in the evolution of man, or for actual genealogies

 

From your post:

 

Pull quote from the end of the article:

 

"Thus, the main arguments for fluidity in this case lack a firm basis. This lack of evidence for fluidity does not mean necessarily that fluidity has not occurred, because evidence might yet come to light. At present, however, one might easily conclude, at least as far as the biblical evidence is concerned, that no omissions, additions, or alterations (other than name conflations) have been made to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies."

 

That statement is essentially a rehash of the one Archbishop Ussher made some 400 years ago.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2012/10/archbishop-ussher-dates-the-creation-of-the-world/

 

A time when the Christian Bible was considered inviolate. Since that time our knowledge has moved on and no longer take the Bible as without error.

[cinepro]

We can argue what the 7000 years of temporal existence means, however. I think it means the time since the Fall of Adam..  However, there's nothing in that section that states nothing occurred previously.  The scriptural and scientific records are full of creation/destruction cycles. Nephites began their calendar over several times, as major events happened, ending the old way of doing things (and so did the Maya).

When we read one or two verses alone, without the context of modern knowledge and revelation, we often mistake our beliefs with actual knowledge.

 

If you're hypothesizing people, cities and civilizations rising and falling before the Fall of Adam, you might find LDS to be resistant to your theory.

[danielwoods]

Oh there are plenty of those.

 

Yes there are gaps. But those gaps have nothing to do with neither the Missing Link in the evolution of man, or for actual genealogies

 

From your post:

 

Pull quote from the end of the article:

 

"Thus, the main arguments for fluidity in this case lack a firm basis. This lack of evidence for fluidity does not mean necessarily that fluidity has not occurred, because evidence might yet come to light. At present, however, one might easily conclude, at least as far as the biblical evidence is concerned, that no omissions, additions, or alterations (other than name conflations) have been made to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies."

 

That statement is essentially a rehash of the one Archbishop Ussher made some 400 years ago.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2012/10/archbishop-ussher-dates-the-creation-of-the-world/

 

A time when the Christian Bible was considered inviolate. Since that time our knowledge has moved on and no longer take the Bible as without error.

 

 

Again, if you had read the article, the author also doesn't treat the Bible as without error. Rather, as historical evidence, and he looks at both sides of the issue. 

[thesometimesaint]

Again, if you had read the article, the author also doesn't treat the Bible as without error. Rather, as historical evidence, and he looks at both sides of the issue. 

 

It is not even good historical evidence. A better way to look at it is as Priesthood lineage. Not as genealogy.

[Rob Osborn]

Would a nonbeliever in Christ have a different answer as to how ice floats? Possibly but I seriously doubt they would credit Christ for it.

 

I don't discredit religion or even the Bible, just some interpretations of it. Something about "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...". Moreover the Bible was never intended to be a science journal.

 

By Joseph Smith

 

Christ . . . was anointed [in the pre-mortal world] with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things! . . . Well, now, Brother William [smith], 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 of old, from eternity [Micah 5:2]; 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!

       --Times and Seasons 5: 758, 1 January 1845

 

 

 

 

By Apostle Stephen L. Richards                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

...Objection is made to the methods employed in Biblical creation whereas in fact the Bible purports to give no method, no real definition of processes whatever.  Rather it makes authoritative statements of the facts of creation.  Who that is really interested in these major truths will take serious objection to the description of the organization of man: that he was made of the dust of the earth and that his spirit was breathed into him and that woman was made of his rib?  Indeed scientists are now all agreed that there is nothing in his physical body except the dust of the earth and those who are candid readily admit that they do not know what his spirit is or whence it came, nor do they know how woman was made.  I grant freely that I do not understand how a woman can be made of a rib, nor how a man's spirit can be-breathed into him but because I have been unable to understand or explain these expressions I have never been disposed to doubt the things of major import set forth in the account; namely, the author of creation, the subjects of creation, the order of creation, and the purpose of creation.

The time of creation has ever been a subject of much comment and dispute.  Yet I challenge anybody to produce from the Bible itself any finite limitation whatsoever of the periods of creation.  By strained inferential references and interpretations men have sought to set the time in days or periods of a thousand years, but I feel sure that no justification of such limitations is warranted by the scriptures themselves.  If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process.

 

From David O. McKay

 

 

Dear Brother Stokes

Your letter of February 11, 1957 has been received.

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position.  The book, “Man, His Origin and Destiny” was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church.

The book contains expressions of the author’s views for which he alone is responsible.

Sincerely your brother,

David O. McKay

 

By Brigham Young

 

"As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the

fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that

account has been handed down from age to age, and we have go it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. 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

 

By B.H.Roberts

 

"On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side of Adam's advent, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed bysome, is to fly in the face of facts so indisputably brought to light by the research of science in modern times, and this as set forth by men of the highest type in the intellectual and moral  world; not inferior men, or men of sensual and devilish temperament, but men who must be accounted as among the noblest and most self-sacrificing of the sons of men--of the type whence must come the noblest sons of God, since "the glory of God is intelligence" (D&C 93:36), and that too the glory of man."

 

 

By David O. McKay

 

Evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind.    

 

Here are more

 

 

So, while most theologians are regarding the developments of the natural sciences with fear & trembling, the chiefs of the Mormon religion are prepared to hail the discoveries of paleontology as an aid in establishing their peculiar beliefs.        [NY Times]

Evolution might account only for man's physical body; the addition of that "divine spark" that sets man apart from the other animals might have been the final step that created the man, Adam       [Article in The Instructor, a church publication]

Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood?  Why should man come so far if he is destined to go no farther?  A creature which has traveled such distances and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. [Raymond West, quoted by David O McKay]

Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.

In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies.

That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies.                            [Henry Eyring]

Furthermore, whether they were in Australia, Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere, the various forms of life on earth appeared and disappeared at the same time. To the faithful student of the scriptures, this precision reflects the ordered processes of God, the divine Creator.          [Article in The Ensign]

It would do no violence to my faith to learn that God had formed man in one way or another.        [David O McKay]

Our religion is not hostile to real science.  [1st Presidency, 1910]

It is only fair to warn parents and teachers that a young person is going to face a very substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the earth's age as millions of years, and that a young person might "throw the baby out with the bath" unless allowed to seek the truth, from whatever source, without prejudice.                 [Henry Eyring]

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again.              [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

 

The details of the physical creation are not given in scripture.  Indeed, why should they be? The Lord gave us the testimony of the rocks and bids us read.                    [steven Jones]

If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process.              [stephen L Richards]

Whatever the subject may be, the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ may be elaborated on without fear of anyone's objecting, and the teacher can be free to express his honest conviction regarding it, whether that subject be in geology, the history of the world, the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world,       [David O McKay]

Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.             [1st Presidency, 1931]

Many sympathetic to science interpret certain statements in LDS scripture to mean that God used a version of evolution to prepare bodies and environmental surrounding suitable for the premortal spirits.               [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God ... are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.    [Editorial in The Improvementt Era]

 

So if I am  to be a hypocrit so are these good Church members.

 

Would a nonbeliever in Christ have a different answer as to how ice floats? Possibly but I seriously doubt they would credit Christ for it.

 

I don't discredit religion or even the Bible, just some interpretations of it. Something about "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...". Moreover the Bible was never intended to be a science journal.

 

By Joseph Smith

 

Christ . . . was anointed [in the pre-mortal world] with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things! . . . Well, now, Brother William [smith], 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 of old, from eternity [Micah 5:2]; 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!

       --Times and Seasons 5: 758, 1 January 1845

 

 

 

 

By Apostle Stephen L. Richards                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

...Objection is made to the methods employed in Biblical creation whereas in fact the Bible purports to give no method, no real definition of processes whatever.  Rather it makes authoritative statements of the facts of creation.  Who that is really interested in these major truths will take serious objection to the description of the organization of man: that he was made of the dust of the earth and that his spirit was breathed into him and that woman was made of his rib?  Indeed scientists are now all agreed that there is nothing in his physical body except the dust of the earth and those who are candid readily admit that they do not know what his spirit is or whence it came, nor do they know how woman was made.  I grant freely that I do not understand how a woman can be made of a rib, nor how a man's spirit can be-breathed into him but because I have been unable to understand or explain these expressions I have never been disposed to doubt the things of major import set forth in the account; namely, the author of creation, the subjects of creation, the order of creation, and the purpose of creation.

The time of creation has ever been a subject of much comment and dispute.  Yet I challenge anybody to produce from the Bible itself any finite limitation whatsoever of the periods of creation.  By strained inferential references and interpretations men have sought to set the time in days or periods of a thousand years, but I feel sure that no justification of such limitations is warranted by the scriptures themselves.  If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process.

 

From David O. McKay

 

 

Dear Brother Stokes

Your letter of February 11, 1957 has been received.

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position.  The book, “Man, His Origin and Destiny” was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church.

The book contains expressions of the author’s views for which he alone is responsible.

Sincerely your brother,

David O. McKay

 

By Brigham Young

 

"As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the

fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that

account has been handed down from age to age, and we have go it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. 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

 

By B.H.Roberts

 

"On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side of Adam's advent, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed bysome, is to fly in the face of facts so indisputably brought to light by the research of science in modern times, and this as set forth by men of the highest type in the intellectual and moral  world; not inferior men, or men of sensual and devilish temperament, but men who must be accounted as among the noblest and most self-sacrificing of the sons of men--of the type whence must come the noblest sons of God, since "the glory of God is intelligence" (D&C 93:36), and that too the glory of man."

 

 

By David O. McKay

 

Evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind.    

 

Here are more

 

 

So, while most theologians are regarding the developments of the natural sciences with fear & trembling, the chiefs of the Mormon religion are prepared to hail the discoveries of paleontology as an aid in establishing their peculiar beliefs.        [NY Times]

Evolution might account only for man's physical body; the addition of that "divine spark" that sets man apart from the other animals might have been the final step that created the man, Adam       [Article in The Instructor, a church publication]

Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood?  Why should man come so far if he is destined to go no farther?  A creature which has traveled such distances and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. [Raymond West, quoted by David O McKay]

Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.

In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies.

That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies.                            [Henry Eyring]

Furthermore, whether they were in Australia, Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere, the various forms of life on earth appeared and disappeared at the same time. To the faithful student of the scriptures, this precision reflects the ordered processes of God, the divine Creator.          [Article in The Ensign]

It would do no violence to my faith to learn that God had formed man in one way or another.        [David O McKay]

Our religion is not hostile to real science.  [1st Presidency, 1910]

It is only fair to warn parents and teachers that a young person is going to face a very substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the earth's age as millions of years, and that a young person might "throw the baby out with the bath" unless allowed to seek the truth, from whatever source, without prejudice.                 [Henry Eyring]

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again.              [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

 

The details of the physical creation are not given in scripture.  Indeed, why should they be? The Lord gave us the testimony of the rocks and bids us read.                    [steven Jones]

If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process.              [stephen L Richards]

Whatever the subject may be, the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ may be elaborated on without fear of anyone's objecting, and the teacher can be free to express his honest conviction regarding it, whether that subject be in geology, the history of the world, the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world,       [David O McKay]

Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.             [1st Presidency, 1931]

Many sympathetic to science interpret certain statements in LDS scripture to mean that God used a version of evolution to prepare bodies and environmental surrounding suitable for the premortal spirits.               [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God ... are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.    [Editorial in The Improvementt Era]

 

So if I am  to be a hypocrit so are these good Church members.

 

hypocrit because you discredit a website that bases its material from the bible but yet you dont have a problem with people who believe in Christ which comes ultimately from the same source- the Bible.

[Freedom]

Then why do we still teach it?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/01/old-testament-times-at-a-glance?lang=eng

Uh, just because it was not specifically written for our day does not mean it is not true. Do you suppose that when Joseph Smith received the revelation he put it away because it was written for his great great grand children? Great Expectations was not written for our day but we still read it and study it in school.

[Freedom]

So what should be done? Should we just discard all of scripture as irelevance? The Book of Mormon was written specifically for latter days- our days.

No, but we must realize that it was received when it was received, and we have to understand the culture, language, and other biases of the original recipient in order to fully understand it. The same rule that applies to Isaiah applies to the D&C and Book of Mormon.

[Freedom]

We need a 21st century version of section 77.

We do, it is called General Conference April 2013.

[Freedom]

If you're hypothesizing people, cities and civilizations rising and falling before the Fall of Adam, you might find LDS to be resistant to your theory.

I am LDS and I am not resistant to this theory.

[Rob Osborn]

No, but we must realize that it was received when it was received, and we have to understand the culture, language, and other biases of the original recipient in order to fully understand it. The same rule that applies to Isaiah applies to the D&C and Book of Mormon.

So what parts of scripture do you believe?

[Freedom]

So what parts of scripture do you believe?

I do not understand your comment as it has nothing to do with my comment. You have produced, I think,a non sequitur. Something does not have to be written for my day in order for me to believe it to be true. I do not reject a historical document as false on the basis that it was not written for a 21st century English speaking citizen of the United States. Perhaps you can connect the dots for me.

Nevertheless, I just discovered that someone else agrees with me:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/gardners-book-of-mormon-myths-number.html

[Rob Osborn]

I do not understand your comment as it has nothing to do with my comment. You have produced, I think,a non sequitur. Something does not have to be written for my day in order for me to believe it to be true. I do not reject a historical document as false on the basis that it was not written for a 21st century English speaking citizen of the United States. Perhaps you can connect the dots for me.Nevertheless, I just discovered that someone else agrees with me:http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/gardners-book-of-mormon-myths-number.html

There are elements written to both the future Lamanites and gentile. The writings were to come forth for the purpose of convincing of all people to come unto Christ nd to know Jesus Christ. Basically, its number one purpose is as a missionary tool to convince us to come unto Christ. So, are you suggesting that the Book of Mormon has now run its course and no longer applies? No more people are comingunto Christ because its outdated? Is that your claim?

[cinepro]

I am LDS and I am not resistant to this theory.

 

You could be LDS and also believe Jesus was not the Son of God and the Baptism isn't necessary for salvation.  Obviously my statement didn't mean that every person on the rolls of the Church would believe a certain way. 

[Freedom]

There are elements written to both the future Lamanites and gentile. The writings were to come forth for the purpose of convincing of all people to come unto Christ nd to know Jesus Christ. Basically, its number one purpose is as a missionary tool to convince us to come unto Christ. So, are you suggesting that the Book of Mormon has now run its course and no longer applies? No more people are comingunto Christ because its outdated? Is that your claim?

Another non sequiter. I think Hamblin expressed it as well as I can. Mormon was writing a book according to his own understanding so it was not possible for him to write it for our day. He had no concept of what our day would be like so all he could have done was to write to his own day. The truths are still truths, but we can only understand it by understanding him, just as we can only understand the book of Isaiah by understanding Isaiah, and the only way we can understand the teachings of Joseph Smith is by understanding the man Joseph Smith. The only thing written for our day is that which is written in our day. We cannot read the book of mormon through our 21st century eyes, we have to read it through the eyes of Mormon. This is why Genesis is so often misunderstood. It can only be understood in an ancient context, written by primitive people.

[Rob Osborn]

Another non sequiter. I think Hamblin expressed it as well as I can. Mormon was writing a book according to his own understanding so it was not possible for him to write it for our day. He had no concept of what our day would be like so all he could have done was to write to his own day. The truths are still truths, but we can only understand it by understanding him, just as we can only understand the book of Isaiah by understanding Isaiah, and the only way we can understand the teachings of Joseph Smith is by understanding the man Joseph Smith. The only thing written for our day is that which is written in our day. We cannot read the book of mormon through our 21st century eyes, we have to read it through the eyes of Mormon. This is why Genesis is so often misunderstood. It can only be understood in an ancient context, written by primitive people.

Well, I completely disagree. Lets leave it at that.

[Freedom]

Well, I completely disagree. Lets leave it at that.

I would suggest you read a general conference talk from 1950 and compare it to a talk from this past conference and see which one was written for today. Today's issues are not mentioned in the book of mormon because Mormon had no idea what the internet, gay rights and host of other issues would bring. He could only preach to us about the issues he knew and understood.

[changed]

Thanks for all the posts!  Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to the thread, some very interesting quotes in there (but can everyone play nice?)
 

 there's nothing in that section that states nothing occurred previously.  The scriptural and scientific records are full of creation/destruction cycles. ..

 

If you're hypothesizing people, cities and civilizations rising and falling before the Fall of Adam, you might find LDS to be resistant to your theory.

For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power.  And there are many that now stand,(Moses 1:35)


there does seem to be a pattern of new worlds - new earth - being built on the ruins of older ones..

(New Testament | Revelation 21:1)
1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away...

It is interesting to ponder the first death, the first man Adam, and when Eden happend - in each of these cycles, is there a new Adam, a new atonement, a new flood, etc. etc.? or is once sufficient for all the worlds/earths/ages?  we are told Adam was "first", but we are also told that other worlds have already passed away (before ours), so what do we make of that?  Are we told a little about the first world in Gen... and then skip forward a few million generations.. to the world in which we now live?

Edited August 22, 2013 by changed

[Rob Osborn]

I would suggest you read a general conference talk from 1950 and compare it to a talk from this past conference and see which one was written for today. Today's issues are not mentioned in the book of mormon because Mormon had no idea what the internet, gay rights and host of other issues would bring. He could only preach to us about the issues he knew and understood.

You are wrong on so many levels. For starters, the BoM warns of secret combinations in government. Now we know that the book was written first and foremost for the Lamanite remnants. Let me ask this- what is the number one problem we see in Mexico, and Central America, South America? Corruption in government- secret combinations.

Lets start with that.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

 

"hypocrit because you discredit a website that bases its material from the bible but yet you dont have a problem with people who believe in Christ which comes ultimately from the same source- the Bible".

 

Answers in Genesis is not a science book but a nonsense blog of young earth creationism.

 

Something about; We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may, comes to mind.

 

BTW The Saints don't get their beliefs just from the Bible.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for all the posts!  Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to the thread, some very interesting quotes in there (but can everyone play nice?)

 

 

For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power.  And there are many that now stand,(Moses 1:35)

there does seem to be a pattern of new worlds - new earth - being built on the ruins of older ones..

(New Testament | Revelation 21:1)

1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away...

It is interesting to ponder the first death, the first man Adam, and when Eden happend - in each of these cycles, is there a new Adam, a new atonement, a new flood, etc. etc.? or is once sufficient for all the worlds/earths/ages?  we are told Adam was "first", but we are also told that other worlds have already passed away (before ours), so what do we make of that?  Are we told a little about the first world in Gen... and then skip forward a few million generations.. to the world in which we now live?

 

Idiom of speech. We also speak of the America's as the "new world".

[changed]

Idiom of speech. We also speak of the America's as the "new world".

exactly - "new world" can mean "new age" or new time period, a place (Disney Wrold), a group of people (world of music) .. there are worlds within worlds, multiple worlds that now stand... and only one of these ill-defined worlds was formed ~6,000 years ago.