Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Conflicts with Science

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

Response to MormonThink page "Conflicts with Science"

Blacks and the Priesthood

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

The Greek Psalter Translation

Quick Navigation

• "The Sun Gets Its Light from Kolob"
• "From ancient dead animals and plants, it takes millions of years for oil and coal to form"
• "Age of the Earth and Dinosaurs"

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The leaders of the church, as well as gospel doctrine teachers the world over, have taught that many Biblical events and beliefs that people have had for centuries are indeed true, historical events.

FairMormon commentary

• Correct. FAIR believes that these Biblical events are true, historical events as well.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The LDS church teaches that the flood of Noah was a literal global and worldwide event, and that the flood was the Earth's baptism...."we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." January 1998 Ensign, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry Our comment: How much clearer can you get? The Ensign article makes it extremely clear what the LDS position is on Noah and the Flood. [The Ensign articles are all approved by the First presidency and almost considered scripture.]

FairMormon commentary

• The only item at issue here is that the Flood waters "covered the entire earth." We do believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, built and ark and floated safely away during a catastrophic flood. Whether the Flood covered the entire globe, or whether it only covered Noah's world, it makes absolutely no difference.
• If everything in the Ensign were "almost considered scripture," then one would be required to accept John Sorenson's 1984 articles on a limited Book of Mormon geography, despite the fact that most Church members believe in a hemispheric geography.

Additional information

• Global or local Flood—How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Even the LDS apologists admit that the church clearly teaches that story of Noah was a real event and it was a global flood: Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  
• It is correct that this is likely never to change, since a belief in either a global or local flood does not alter the teaching that Noah was an actual prophet who saved his family from a catastrophic flood that wiped out all those with whom he associated.
• The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood — one limited to the area in which Noah lived — is the best explanation of the available data. People of either view, or neither, can be members in good standing.
• Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints can hold different views on the issue of whether Noah's flood was local or global. Members of any given LDS congregation may have of a variety of points of view, and many have no firm opinion one way or the other.
• A belief in either a global or local flood is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally.

Additional information

• Global or local Flood—How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
[A] brief summary of problems with the Global Flood: 1. Ice. 2. Genetic Diversity. 3. Worldwide distribution of species. 4. Fish and coral. 5. No room on the ark. 6. No geological record. 7.Where did the water go? 8. How did the carnivores survive? ....Critic's comment: The idea of a universal flood simply does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. How can an honest person deny his/her God-given intelligence and seriously believe in such an obvious myth? And setting aside the impossibilities of Noah's tale for a minute, are we really to believe that every single inhabitant of the earth (save 8 people) were all so absolutely wicked, including the children, that they all deserved to be killed? And who would want to worship a God anyway that would murder all but 8 of his children on earth because they had grown too wicked?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  Pay close attention to this bizarre contradiction: "How can an honest person deny his/her God-given intelligence and seriously believe in such an obvious myth?...And who would want to worship a God anyway that would murder all but 8 of his children..." The critic argues that you must by denying your "God-given" intelligence if you believe in God!
•   The author is using sarcastic reasoning  —The critic makes sarcastic claims that are intended to generate an emotional reaction.
  The argument "who would want to worship a God...that would murder..." isn't an argument against Latter-day Saints, but against a belief in any sort of supreme being. The critics simply don't want you to believe in God at all.
•   Believers not being honest  —Critics imply that if you do not accept their view, that you are "intellectually dishonest."
  The critic implies that the believer is dishonest for believing in the Bible.
• We agree that the evidence is against a global flood, which is why some believe that the flood was local in scope. This does not, however, place us at odds with the Church since we believe that Noah existed, that he was a prophet, and that he and his family were saved from a catastrophic flood by following God's commandments.

"The Sun Gets Its Light from Kolob"

MormonThink states...

"The Sun Gets Its Light from Kolob"

FairMormon Response

Book of Abraham > Theological Questions Regarding the Book of Abraham

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Conflicts with Science

Summary: Critics have raised several theological issues with the Book of Abraham. These include questions about race, lying, the inclusion of a God with an erect phallus in Facsimile 2, its inclusion of multiple gods instead of a singular god, and its relationship to science.

---

Lying

Some have asked why God commanded Abraham to lie in Abraham 2:24. In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:34 says, "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." Why would God command Abraham to do something that would throw him down to hell?

There are two ways of approaching this issue.

Approach #1: Lying is Not Okay

The first approach to this question would start from the assumption that lying is not good. From there, it would seek evidence that Abraham actually did not lie to Pharaoh about Sarai being Abraham's sister instead of hish wife.

There is a case to be made that Abraham did not lie. Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson have laid out some evidence that might support this view:

One important thing to keep in mind is that Genesis 20:12 identifies Sarai as Abraham’s half-­sister. “So it is at least possible that Sarah belonged to Abraham’s extended family and was thus considered to be his ‘sister’ in the sense of a near blood relative.” With this in mind, Abraham appears to have been using somewhat ambiguous terminology and not necessarily making an outright false statement. This ambiguous language may also have been playing on Mesopotamian legal definitions, but this point is debated.

Whether or not this tactic would have played well in a Mesopotamian context, it would have worked in ancient Egyptian, since in that language “a wife was often called the ‘sister’ (snt) of her husband, but not because they had the same parents: instead, the term was one of affection, indicating that the family relationship between husband and wife by marriage was as close as that between real brother and sister.” This appears to reinforce the point that Abraham could be viewed as taking advantage of an ambiguity that would have worked especially well in thwarting the murderous intentions of the Egyptians. “The custom of referring to one’s wife (hm.t) as one’s sister (sn.t)” in ancient Egyptian culture therefore takes on deep significance for this passage. “For an Egyptian audience, Abram’s calling Sarai his sister would not have precluded her being his wife.”

Finally, it is noteworthy that a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls called the Genesis Apocryphon depicts Abraham being warned in a dream of the danger he faced when traveling into Egypt because of Sarai’s beauty. This in turn prompted his equivocation with Pharaoh. While this text does not overtly say that God told Abraham to “lie” about his relationship with Sarai, it heavily implies that he was divinely forewarned of the situation. This harmonizes nicely with the account in the Book of Abraham.

Approach #2: Lying is Not Wrong in Some Circumstances

The other approach would be under the assumption that lying is not wrong under certain circumstances such as when one puts themselves or others in grave danger without the misrepresentation of truth. Abraham's story would naturally fit into that worldview.

One interesting note that might support this view is that Joseph Smith's definition of lying likely differed from a modern one. This is important because we know that God speaks unto men after their language so that they can come to understanding (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24) and He would have given the translation of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, including passages like 2 Nephi 9:34, with his definitions in mind.

"Lying" today would be defined as "misrepresnting the truth." Joseph Smith's definition, however, likely differed from the modern one. The 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary defined lying as follows:

1. To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive, or with an immoral design.

Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Acts 5:3.

2. To exhibit a false representation; to say or do that which deceives another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

Lying is only such when morality requires that you tell the truth, according to Webster's. Under this definiton of lying, scriptures like 2 Nephi 9:34 can be easily reconciled with Abraham 2:24.

Mention of Plural Gods

Some critics have taken issue with the fact that certain scriptures in The Church of Jesus Christ's canon seem to portray only one God being responsible for the Creation of the earth (2 Nephi 2꞉14; Jacob 4꞉9; Moses 2). Others, like the Book of Abraham, portray multiple gods creating the earth (Abraham 4, 5).

Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Latter-day Saint doctrine views God as one, but not in the same sense as Nicene trinitarianism. Nicene trinitarianism sees God as a singular substance rather than three separate and distinct beings like Latter-day Saints. This is not a contradiction. It merely demonstrates that Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene Trinitarianism.

Min as God with an Erect Phallus

Some critics have taken issue with Joseph Smith's explanation of Facsimile 2, Figure 7. Critic Jeremy Runnells wrote:

One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7. Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…” It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex. Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure). In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne.

Runnells' concern displays an immaturity about sexuality and a lack of sophistication as to why God would be portrayed this way.

This attitude, reflected by some, is a good example of how our modern, sexually-obsessed society can easily misinterpret religious art. We see an erect penis in a drawing and think "pornography," whereas an ancient Egyptian would have seen one and thought of fertility, virility, and life. Hence, the depiction of Min with an erection was a sign of his life-giving ability. We have analogies in Northwest Semitic depictions of God. (El is both called and depicted as a virile bull in the Ugaritic texts, both because of his procreative powers and his greatness over the other gods.)

Another thing to keep in mind is the remarkable prevalence of syncretism between Near Eastern cultures, particularly in the exchange of religious ideas and iconography. We know ancient Hebrews and other Near Eastern people used a phallic God to depict “the God of the Bible” all the time. The Canaanite god Baal, for example, shares the same epithet with Yahweh ("cloud rider") in Psalm 68:4.

This concern, again, lacks sophistication and maturity about sex and ancient religion.

Race

One of the most troubling aspects to readers of the Book of Abraham is its apparent support for the The Church of Jesus Christ's historical restrictions on Black individuls from receiving the priesthood and entering Latter-day Saint temples.

Book of Abraham and the Historical Priesthood and Temple Restrictions

The Book of Abraham contains a passage in which the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh is described as being “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,” because of a “curse … pertaining to the Priesthood” associated with his descent from Ham (Abraham 1:26–27). Historically, some in the Church referenced this passage in efforts to justify the mid-19th- to late-20th-century policy that prohibited men of Black African descent from priesthood ordination and Black men and women from temple ordinances.

However, contemporary scholarship and historical analysis show that the Book of Abraham cannot be accurately cited as a doctrinal foundation for those racial restrictions:

Historical Use vs. Textual Content

While the Book of Abraham mentions a lineage lacking the right to priesthood, the text does not mention race, skin color, or Black Africans, nor does it provide any explanation for why that lineage was barred beyond its own ancient narrative context. The specific reasons for the priesthood exclusion in the policy are not found in the scripture itself.

Ancient Context of “Curses” and Inheritance

According to John S. Thompson’s analysis, the Book of Abraham reflects an ancient legal-cultural concept of cursing as disinheritance, not racial inferiority. In ancient Near Eastern legal language, being “cursed” could mean being cut off from inheritance — including priesthood rights — due to violation of covenant-related legal norms, and this status could affect descendants simply because they could not receive what an ancestor no longer held. This model, Thompson shows, was common in ancient legal traditions and is applied in the Book of Abraham without any reference to modern racial categories.

Lack of Original Doctrinal Application

Significantly, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used the Book of Abraham to institute or justify a race-based priesthood restriction in his lifetime, nor that early Church leaders immediately applied it to policy in that way. An article on the topic notes that even Brigham Young and other early administrators who supported the historical ban did not explicitly cite this text as the doctrinal source for the policy.

Modern Interpretations and Disavowals

Scholars and the Church’s own historical essays have clarified that the priesthood restriction was not formally rooted in a revealed, canonical doctrinal basis that is clearly articulated in the Book of Abraham. Interpretations tying the passage to Black Africans and racial characteristics emerged later under the influence of broader nineteenth-century racial theories, rather than from the scripture itself. Contemporary Church statements have disavowed past explanations that linked race to divine curse or inferiority.

Textual, historical, and contextual analyses indicate that the Book of Abraham does not support the historical exclusion of people of Black African descent from priesthood ordination or temple ordinances. Its ancient narrative about lineage and inherited blessings was later misappropriated by some as a justification for racialized policy, but objectively, the text does not articulate a racial priesthood ban nor provide the doctrinal grounding that such a policy would require.

Further Reading

• Shannon, Avram R. "'That Lineage': Rival Priesthood Claims in Abraham 1." In Abraham and His Family in Scripture, History, and Tradition: Proceedings of the Conference Held May 3 & 10, 2025 at Brigham Young University, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John S. Thompson, Matthew L. Bowen, and David R. Seely, 2 vols. (Interpreter Foundation; Eborn Books, 2025), 1:207–39.
• Smoot, Stephen O., John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson. "The Priesthood Ban and the Book of Abraham." In BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 4 (2022): 56–64.
• Thompson, John S. "'Being of That Linage': Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham." Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022) : 97–146.

Science

Two interesting questions were posed by Jeremy Runnells, author of the CES Letter, a document that is critical of the Church.

Newtonian Physics?

The first assertion from Runnells is as follows:

The Book of Abraham teaches an incorrect Newtonian view of the universe. These Newtonian astronomical concepts, mechanics, and models of the universe have since been succeeded and substantially modified by 20th century Einsteinian physics.

What we find in Abraham 3 and the official scriptures of the LDS Church regarding science reflects a Newtonian world concept. Just as the Catholic Church's Ptolemaic cosmology was displaced by the new Copernican and Newtonian world model, however, the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view has since been displaced by Einstein's twentieth-century science.

Keith E. Norman, an LDS scholar, has written that for the LDS Church:

It is no longer possible to pretend there is no conflict.

Norman continues:

Scientific cosmology began its leap forward just when Mormon doctrine was becoming stabilized. The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy. This new scientific cosmology poses a serious challenge to the Mormon version of the universe.

Grant Palmer, a Mormon historian and CES teacher for 34 years, wrote:

Many of the astronomical and cosmological ideas found in both Joseph Smith’s environment and in the Book of Abraham have become out of vogue, and some of these Newtonian concepts are scientific relics. The evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham reflects concepts of Joseph Smith’s time and place rather than those of an ancient world.

This charge was adequately addressed by Sarah Allen, quoted at length below:

The Book of Abraham does not teach a Newtonian view of the universe. It teaches a geocentric one. This means that the ancient cultures believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and stars revolved around it instead of the other way around. There are numerous articles written about this concept, demonstrating how and why Jeremy is wrong in his assertion. As we know, Heavenly Father teaches us new concepts according to our own understanding and language. This is what He was doing here with Abraham.

Jeremy appears not to have even read his own cited source, an article published in Sunstone Magazine in 1986. The article was written by a man named Keith Norman (whose expertise is in early Christianity, not science) who admits in the article that, when it comes to theoretical physics, “I am still struggling with books on the subject written for the layman.” Most importantly, the article isn’t even about the Book of Abraham or its cosmology. It argues that Einsteinian physics point toward “creation ex nihilo” as being the truth over the Latter-day Saint view that matter is eternal. Norman only cites the Book of Abraham one time in the entire article, when quoting a line about Kolob while speculating about a possible “solution” to his self-created dilemma:

Precisely because Mormons believe in a plurality of gods, we are logically led to speculate as to their locations or spheres of dominion. The astronomical assertions in the Pearl of Great Price may indicate that God rules within our own galaxy, the Milky Way: “Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest” (Abr. 3:9; cf. facsimile 2, esp. fig. 5). Does each God have his and her own galaxy or cluster of galaxies? The Milky Way galaxy alone has over 100 billion stars, quite enough to accommodate the phrase “worlds without number.” And ours is just average-sized as galaxies go, one of 100 billion. In other words, there are as many galaxies in the universe as there are stars in our galaxy.

The problem is, theoretical physics doesn’t support creation ex nihilo as proposed in this article. Now, physics is not my forte, so if I misstate anything here, I hope someone will correct me. But Stephen Hawking, easily the most brilliant scientific mind of our generation, stated this:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe after the Big Bang will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them.

Dense matter existed before the Big Bang, according to Hawking, and because we can’t observe what happened prior to that event, it’s simply not defined in the theory. The Big Bang Wikipedia page states that, “The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, and…as an event [it] is also colloquially referred to as the ‘birth’ of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them…work.”

So, the universe existed in an initial state before the Big Bang happened, just like Hawking said. Because scientists can’t measure time and space prior to the Big Bang, some scientists say that it was “nothing,” but they don’t mean that word the way that Norman interprets it. They mean it the way that Hawking interprets it.

This theory Hawking was describing is called the “initial singularity” theory. Other theories have been proposed, like the "M-theory”/multiverse theory or the “loop quantum gravity”/LQG theory. Regardless of which theory you support, however, they all suggest that something existed before the Big Bang and thus, the universe was not created from nothing. It’s just that it was immeasurable and unobservable, so we don’t have the resources yet to fully understand it. It’s hard to define it accurately, so some scientists don’t bother to try.

Norman seems to have misunderstood what those other scientists were saying, and his article is a theoretical one based on that misunderstanding. The Big Bang theory does not support creation ex nihilo as Norman posits, and therefore, science does not disprove Latter-day Saint cosmology.

However, the main point is, none of that has anything to do with the Book of Abraham’s view of the universe. The article does not claim what Jeremy says it does…or what Grant Palmer says it does. Palmer was a former CES employee who lost his testimony, then published an anti-LDS book after he retired. One of his main sources for his assertion that the Book of Abraham teaches a Newtonian view of the universe is this exact article, using this exact same quote that Jeremy does. This tells me that Palmer’s book is likely Jeremy’s true source for this claim, as it did not come from the article itself. The article never makes the claim that the Book of Abraham’s cosmology is Newtonian.

Moreover, ancient cultures, like the Egyptians and the Israelites, also believed that creation came from something already existing, just like Hawking and other modern physicists do. The account of the creation given in the Book of Abraham aligns perfectly with that view, while the belief in creation ex nihilo was highly prominent in the 1800s. Rather than support the trending view in Joseph’s day as claimed, the Book of Abraham actually counters it.

Kolob Getting Light from Kae-e-vanrash?

Runnells articulated another problem with the Book of Abraham's supposed presentation of science:

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun receives its “light from the revolutions of Kolob.” We now know, however, that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion. The sun does not shine because it gets its light from any other star or any other external source.

Sarah Allen's next blog post, responding to Runnells, answered aptly:

No, Facsimile 2, Figure 5 states that it “is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from the revolutions of Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash…the governing power….” Joseph didn’t state that “the sun receives its light from the revolutions of Kolob.” He wasn’t making any kind of grand, prophetic, cosmological declaration about the way the universe works. He stated pretty clearly that those words were said by ancient Egyptians. That was their way of describing the universe according to their understanding. It was not Joseph’s. While he was teaching them astronomy, Abraham was likening gospel truths to concepts that the Egyptians already understood. It doesn’t have to be accurate to our understanding today to have made sense to them.

And, as Jim Bennett points out, we don’t know what “the medium of Kae-e-vanrash” is. Who are we to say that doesn’t involve thermonuculear fusion? Why can’t Kae-e-vanrash be God setting in motion the process of hydrogen atoms combining to create energy? Just because ancient Egyptians had no concept of nuclear reaction doesn’t mean they were completely wrong about everything. There is much we don’t know yet about how the universe works and what God’s role is in governing it. What we do know are just drops in the bucket compared to the light and knowledge we’ll gain in the eternities. Dismissing this concept out of hand as nonsense—especially when you don’t seem to understand the actual point being made about God channeling His power through various mediums in order to govern the universe—is shortsighted.

Take into consideration that Kolob is a metaphor for Jesus Christ. Joseph essentially stated that the sun borrows or obtains its light from the Son. D&C 88:6-13 teaches us that the Light of Christ is in the sun and the light of the sun and the power by which it was made, and in the moon, and stars, and earth, and all of us and all things, filling the immensity of space, giving life to all things, governing all things, and is the power of God who sits on His throne in the midst of all things and in the bosom of eternity. It’s Priesthood power. Since Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and Jehovah is the one who formed the universe under God’s guidance and direction, through the power of the Priesthood, of course the sun got its light from Christ. That doesn’t mean it can’t also get its light from thermonuclear fusion. That is simply the means through which Christ provided the sun with its light. All things are governed by the power of God, including nuclear reactions.

In Abraham 3, the discussion begins with Jehovah teaching Abraham about the governing order, using astronomy as a metaphor. Kolob is the greatest of all, and then the power gradually lessons as it descends down the line. The sun is greater than the moon, which is in turn greater than the stars, etc. It’s the same gradation we see in the Three Degrees of Glory: the Celestial Kingdom has a higher glory than the Terrestrial Kingdom, which in turn has a higher glory than the Telestial Kingdom. The Kingdoms are defined by their proximity to Christ and the Father, just like the description of the universe Jehovah gives Abraham.

It’s here that “[t]he conversation between Abraham and the Lord shifts from a discussion of heavenly bodies to spiritual beings. This reflects a play on words that Egyptians often use between a star (ach) and a spirit (ich). The shift is done by means of a comparison: ‘Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; … as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other’ (Abraham 3:17–18). In an Egyptian context, the play on words would strengthen the parallel. … The Egyptian play on words between star and spirit allows the astronomical teachings to flow seamlessly into teachings about the preexistence which follow immediately thereafter.”

The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual sums all of this up nicely:

Abraham learned that wherever there are two stars one will be greater than the other, and that there are other stars greater than those two, until Kolob, which is the greatest of all. He learned that it is not size that makes one star or planet greater than another, but rather its proximity to Kolob. So it is with the children of God—their greatness and glory will depend upon their proximity to the Creator, Jesus Christ, who is “nearest unto the throne of God,” “the great one,” “the first creation,” and is “set to govern all those which belong to the same order.” Thus the great star, Kolob, is a symbol of Jesus Christ.

As we draw nearer to Christ, the more of His power will reach us and the greater we can become. This was the concept that Joseph was teaching us, using the facsimile as an illustration, and what Abraham was trying to teach the Egyptians. Neither of them was giving us a physics lesson.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

"From ancient dead animals and plants, it takes millions of years for oil and coal to form"

MormonThink states...

"The fossils of animals and plants that have lived and died on this earth are thousands and millions of years old. From ancient dead animals and plants, it takes millions of years for oil and coal to form."

FairMormon Response

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about the Holy Bible

Latter-day Saints and the Bible	The Bible as the word of God The 8th Article of Faith The King James Version The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Reliability of the Bible	Biblical inerrancy Textual variants in the Bible Textual criticism of the Bible Doctrinal completeness of the Bible The Documentary Hypothesis
Creation	Cosmology The Creation Age of the Earth Evolution Adam and Eve as historical figures Death before the Fall of Adam and Eve Fall of Adam and Eve
Genesis	Pre-Flood ages of prophets The Flood Peleg Tower of Babel Sodom and Gomorrah
Understanding the Bible	Scriptural interpretations Tips for studying the bible Leaders on bible interpretation Common issues in interpretation and proof-texting Alleged contradictions in scripture Jonah and the whale Authorship of New Testament books Pauline teachings
Cultural issues	Old Testament practices Violence in the scriptures Slavery in the scriptures Sexism in the scriptures Racism and the scriptures Understanding biblical numbers and stories Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
The Bible and the Book of Mormon	Bible passages in the Book of Mormon Isaiah and the Book of Mormon KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon The New Testament and the Book of Mormon The Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon The Documentary Hypothesis and the Book of Mormon

What does the Church teach on the subject of death before the Fall of Adam?

Lehi said that "all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created"

The LDS Bible Dictionary states that, "Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2꞉22; Moses 6꞉48). 2 Nephi 2꞉22 describes how Adam and Eve became subject to physical death, when the Book of Mormon prophet Lehi taught that

if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (2 Nephi 2꞉22)

Because this is the only scripture that indicates this, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of "all things." Does it mean "all things in the garden", or "all things on the entire earth", or something else?

The second scripture referenced, Moses 6꞉48, describes how "spiritual death" entered the world:

Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.

Current Church manuals take a cautionary approach to interpreting 2 Nephi 2꞉22

Current Church manuals take a cautionary approach to interpreting this verse by considering only how it affected Adam and Eve. For example, from Gospel Principles manual, page 28:

1979 Gospel Principles	2014 Gospel Principles	Comment
Adam and Eve were foreordained to become the parents of the human race.	Adam and Eve were foreordained to become our first parents.	Instead of being the "parents of the human race," Adam and Eve are now "our first parents." We are only concerned with Adam.
She was called Eve because she was the mother of all living (see Moses 4꞉26)	Eve was "the mother of all living" (Moses 4꞉26)	The phrase "mother of all living" is now in quotes to indicate a direct quote from Moses 4꞉26.
She was given to Adam because God said "that is was not good that man should be alone."	God brought Adam and Eve together in marriage because "it was not good that the man should be alone."
When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. They were not able to have children. There was no death.	When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, "they would have had no children" (2 Nephi 2꞉23). There was no death.	Again, the text is changed to indicate that scripture is being quoted. The original statement that they "were not able to have children" is changed to the scriptural statement that they "would have had no children." The specific reason why they would not have had children is not indicated, whereas previously it was stated that they were incapable of having children in their "pre-Fall" state.
God commanded them to have children and learn to control the earth.	God commanded them to have children.	The assumption that Adam and Eve were in "control" of the entire earth has been completely removed.
Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the world as we now know it.	Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the world.	The assumption that the world outside the garden was "as we now know it" has been completely removed.

More recently, in 2016 the Church's official magazine for youth, the New Era:

There were no spirit children of Heavenly Father on the earth before Adam and Eve were created. In addition, "for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family. (emphasis added)"

Was there no death on the entire earth before the Fall?

The Church does not take an official position on this issue

⍗

Statements about matters about which there is no official doctrine

J. Reuben Clark	This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency: Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church.... When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President. Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.
Harold B. Lee	Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church: All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man." I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.
First Presidency	This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website): Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote: Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible? Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility. There is more material on official doctrine in the Church in this link.
References	Notes (click to expand) Back to Top

There is overwhelming geological evidence of death having occurred on the earth for many millions of years

There is overwhelming geological evidence of death having occurred on the earth for many millions of years. For example, oil deposits are formed from the decomposed remains of ancient plants and animals.

This is where some accounts of Church teachings appear to contradict science, since many Latter-day Saint leaders and Church manuals have taught that there was no physical death on the entire earth prior to the fall of Adam.

No death anywhere?

This interpretation has been shared by many Church authors, including President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Consequently, the concept of no death before the Fall on the entire earth has made its way into many Church instructional manuals. For example, the LDS Bible Dictionary, which was included as an addition to the LDS edition of the King James Bible in 1979, includes the following statement that "death entered the world" as a result of the Fall:

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Nephi 2꞉22; Moses 6꞉48).

The current edition of the Bible Dictionary, however, has a lightly edited entry "Fall of Adam":

1979 edition The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3,4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurances in the hstory of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the "forbidden fruit," Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the "first flesh" upon the earth (Moses 3꞉7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam's fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14꞉16-17). Italics removed in present day edition.

Present day edition The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2–4 and Moses 3-4. The Fall of Adam and Eve is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3꞉7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s Fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14꞉16-17).

Note that some aspects focus the death upon Adam and Eve.

There are other aspects that could be read to imply a wider impact (esp., "the whole creation fell and became mortal".)

Death for other created things?

Other leaders have seen pre-Fall death of plants and/or animals as compatible with LDS doctrine, with the doctrine of "no death" applying only to Adam and Eve within the garden, and not the wider physical creation.

The important point to remember is that the question of the scope of "death before the Fall" does not affect our salvation, and is simply an academic exercise.

Bible Dictionary editor Elder McConkie pointed out—the Bible Dictionary is neither infallible, nor an arbiter of Church doctrine:

[As for the] "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only."

The Bible Dictionary itself also cautions against assuming that its contents reflect "an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

One must also not overlook an earlier debate on the issue of "pre-Adamites" between Elder Brigham H. Roberts of the Seventy and then-Elder Joseph Fielding Smith was brought to an end at the instruction of the First Presidency. Part of the debate centered around whether there was death prior to the Fall. At the request of the First Presidency, Elder James E. Talmage gave a talk in the tabernacle, entitled "The Earth and Man." In it, he spoke of fossilized animals and plants and said:

These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.

With the approval of the First Presidency, this address was published in the Deseret News, as a Church pamphlet, and later in The Instructor. Clearly, then, a universal lack of death prior to the fall is not a necessary belief within the Church, since leaders and members have held both positions.

Elder Talmage's position was made quite clear in a letter he wrote in response to a question about these matters:

I cannot agree with your conception that there was no death of plants and animals anywhere upon this earth prior to the transgression of Adam, unless we assume that the history of Adam and Eve dates back many hundreds of thousands of years. The trouble with some theologians—even including many of our own good people—is that they undertake to fix the date of Adam's transgression as being approximately 4000 years before Christ and therefore about 5932 years ago. If Adam was placed upon the earth only that comparatively short time ago the rocks clearly demonstrated that life and death have been in existence and operative in this earth for ages prior to that time.

The First Presidency eventually instructed the general authorities:

Both parties [i.e., Elders Smith and Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. 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.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race.

Reflecting on this episode, Elder Talmage wrote in his diary:

...Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good.

Elder Jeffery R. Holland notes that there was no human death on the earth prior to the Fall of Adam

Elder Jeffery R. Holland, at the April 2015 General Conference, stated,

[T]here was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death.

What was the state of things on the Earth prior to the placement of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

The "period of our planet's creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man" is excluded from the period of the Earth's "temporal existence"

The following is from the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), 167-171, "Section 77 Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation." off-site

D&C 77꞉6-7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

"‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity." (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.) (emphasis added)

The manual specifically excludes the "period of our planet's creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man" from the period defined as the Earth's "temporal existence." Nothing is implied or stated regarding "death before the Fall."

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

"Age of the Earth and Dinosaurs"

MormonThink states...

"Age of the Earth and Dinosaurs"

FairMormon Response

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about the Holy Bible

Latter-day Saints and the Bible	The Bible as the word of God The 8th Article of Faith The King James Version The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Reliability of the Bible	Biblical inerrancy Textual variants in the Bible Textual criticism of the Bible Doctrinal completeness of the Bible The Documentary Hypothesis
Creation	Cosmology The Creation Age of the Earth Evolution Adam and Eve as historical figures Death before the Fall of Adam and Eve Fall of Adam and Eve
Genesis	Pre-Flood ages of prophets The Flood Peleg Tower of Babel Sodom and Gomorrah
Understanding the Bible	Scriptural interpretations Tips for studying the bible Leaders on bible interpretation Common issues in interpretation and proof-texting Alleged contradictions in scripture Jonah and the whale Authorship of New Testament books Pauline teachings
Cultural issues	Old Testament practices Violence in the scriptures Slavery in the scriptures Sexism in the scriptures Racism and the scriptures Understanding biblical numbers and stories Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
The Bible and the Book of Mormon	Bible passages in the Book of Mormon Isaiah and the Book of Mormon KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon The New Testament and the Book of Mormon The Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon The Documentary Hypothesis and the Book of Mormon

How do we reconcile the actual age of the earth to the "seven thousand years of its continuance" mentioned in D&C 77:6?

The Church does not take an official position on this issue

⍗

Statements about matters about which there is no official doctrine

J. Reuben Clark	This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency: Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church.... When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President. Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.
Harold B. Lee	Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church: All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man." I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.
First Presidency	This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website): Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote: Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible? Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility. There is more material on official doctrine in the Church in this link.
References	Notes (click to expand) Back to Top

The Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the earth's "seven thousand years of continuance, or its temporal existence"

Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7 contains the only canonized statement specifically identifying the age of the earth:

6 Q[uestion]. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A[nswer]. 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.

7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

The phrase "temporal existence" of the earth does not include the creative and preparatory period

The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002) chapter "Section 77 Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation" states that the seven thousand years "do not include the period of our planet's creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man."

D&C 77:6–7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

"‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity." (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

The chronological extent of the earth's creative period is not detailed specifically in scripture.

It should be noted that these verses refer to the Book of Revelation, which is well-known for its dense numerical symbolism. It may, then, be premature to regard such numbers as literal and precise.

Scriptures are not intended to provide scientific information

The language in our scriptures from which such dating of the "age of the earth" is drawn is not intended to provide the kinds of scientific information that some people insist on having. Brigham Young stated that we have no revealed knowledge on the topic:

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or 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.
Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:116. (emphasis added)

The scriptures do not specify the age of the Earth

The placement of Adam at 4,000 BC has a rather long history. Perhaps the most famous attempt was made by the Irish Anglican Bishop of Ussher, who calculated the date as 4,004 (and even calculated it down to the month and day!). Such a dating, however, is not in our scriptures, even if a version of it has been included into our Bible Dictionary.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article "Earth," states unequivocally:

The scriptures do not say how old the earth is, and the Church has taken no official stand on this question. Nor does the Church consider it to be a central issue for salvation.

There are varying opinions among Latter-day Saints on the age of the earth. Some believe in a "young earth." Many Saints accept an old earth in the billions of years. Many probably have no strong opinions or thoughts one way or the other.

The scripture may be taken either literally or figuratively

Like many passages in scripture, this one is open to some interpretation. A literal reading has led some to conclude that the Earth is 7,000 years old. But others take a more symbolic or figurative interpretation that the 1,000-year dispensations are figurative in the sense of "large spans of time." This follows the Hebrew use of "thousand" ('elef), which sometimes meant a literal one thousand, and other times was more generically used to indicate "a large amount."

Brigham Young (1871): "whether the Lord...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"

Brigham Young:

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or 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.

John S. Lewis: "Considering that Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 refers to "…this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence," what led Phelps to speak of Earth as 2,555 million years old?"

The antiquity of Earth was a subject of active debate in the early nineteenth century. Some adherents of a conservative interpretation of scripture ignored or sought to explain away the overwhelming evidence from geology. The more liberal scientific interpretations of geological history suggested an age of 100,000 to millions of years for Earth. Almost alone, W. W. Phelps, Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham scribe, offered a vastly larger perspective. In the Times and Seasons, a letter from Phelps to the Prophet’s brother William states:

That eternity, agreeable to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system [Page 76](not the world)3 almost 2555 millions of years; and to know 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!

...
Considering that Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 refers to "…this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence," what led Phelps to speak of Earth as 2,555 million years old? The answer appears to be straightforward. Though 7000 Earth years is in conflict with all physical, chemical, genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence, 7000 years of God is not ruled out. The arithmetic is easy. One day of God is 1000 years of man, and therefore in Joseph Smith’s reckoning, a day of God is 365 × 1000 days of man. The 2.555 billion years in question therefore corresponds to 2,555,000,000/365,000 years of God, which is 7000 years of God for each day of Earth’s existence. A more careful calculation, using the true average length of the year including leap years (365.257 days) gives 2,556,799,000 Earth years. Clearly Joseph Smith did not intend the "7000 years" of Earth’s age to refer to Earth years. —(Click here to read more)

John S. Lewis, "The Scale of Creation in Space and Time,"

Improvement Era 1909 regards an ancient earth as consistent with scripture

The editor of the Improvement Era wrote:

Several students have asked to know whether the ideas contained in the seventh Y. M. M.I.A. Manual lesson are in harmony with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith as found in section 77 of the Doctrine and Covenants. A careful reading of the 7th lesson, also of the Book of Abraham, and the section referred to in the Doctrine and Covenants will demonstrate that there is no conflict. The Manual, as I understand it, simply gives the scientific deductions concerning the geological age of the earth. It does not pretend to say how old the earth is, but points out the scientific conclusions on this subject. The Book of Abraham in the 3rd and 4th chapters, very distinctly points out, or conveys, the idea that the creative days or periods included long periods of time. This is plainly set forth on pages 56 to 59 in the Manual. We are not told how long these periods were. It is only demonstrated in the Manual that science declares the creation to have covered very long periods of time; and that Joseph the Prophet, through the Book of Abraham, also declared that long periods of time were consumed in the preparation of the earth for man; which the prophet did before the scientists or religious leaders had announced this truth. It seems to me unnec- essary to discuss. much less try to decide, in class, the length of the time. The prophet declares it was long periods. Science, as is stated, gives millions of years as the length of time. There is positively and absolutely no definite solution of the problem given either in science or in revelation; but the fact is clearly expressed, and that is all that is sought to be done, that both science and the Prophet Joseph ascribe long periods of time to the formation of the earth....

The idea to be obtained out of our Manual in regard to these matters is not to settle upon things that are not revealed, and to decide things that cannot be decided; but it is the purpose of the Manual to show that, in a general way, Joseph Smith the Prophet, by the inspiration of God, announced truths then generally unknown but which have since been declared by men of science.

The editor concludes by introducing remarks by Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve on the age of the Earth.

John A. Widtsoe in Improvement Era 1909 on the age of the earth

The scientific doctrine of the great age of the earth, rests largely upon the evidence of the orderly arrangement of plant and animal fossils in the rocks constituting the upper portion of the earth’s crust. Those who hold to the six day theory of creation, claim that in accordance with the above quotation from the Prophet Joseph, these stratilied rocks, containing fossils, are fragments of other worlds, and do not represent processes that have taken place on this earth. Why fossils may have been formed on other worlds, but not on the earth, is nearly as difficult to understand as the doctrine that living, intelligent beings are found only on the earth. Modern science has developed a doctrine like that of Joseph Smith, which teaches that heavenly bodies may be made up of fragments of destroyed worlds, but the parts of destroyed worlds which go to build new heavenly bodies are minute, even microscopic in size. There are numerous strong evidences against the view that large sections of other worlds were brought together to form this earth (see an article by Dr. J. E. Talmage, Improvement Era vol 7, p 481). Primarily, it would not be the way of nature, as we know it. God, who is nature's master, does his work in a natural manner.... The more the matter is carefully examined, the firmer grows the belief that the creation of the earth occupied immense time periods, the exact length of which is not yet given to man to know. This view does not in any way discredit the book of books, the Holy Bible. The Bible must be read with understanding minds; as :1 hook, it must no more be held to a word. than a man desires so to be held. By verse and chapter and book, the Bible will be found an accurate, inspired record of the most wonderful and valuable events and doctrines of the world. However, it must not be forgotten that the Apostle Paul has reminded us that "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." God reveals himself in nature; and when nature is read understandingly God may thereby in part be comprehended. There is no conflict between the story of the rocks and the Bible, except as man has made it. Finally, it must be said that so far as living a correct gospel life is concerned, it matters little whether or not we know the time God consumed in making the earth a fit habitation for man.

Charles W. Penrose in Improvement Era 1909 on the age of the earth

In times past a large portion of the religious world, following perhaps the chronology of the scriptures given by Archbishop Usher, believed that the creation took place in the year 4004 before Christ. but this no longer prevails among enlightened people, and has been exploded by researches and developments and scientific observation. Geology, or "the science of the earth." has demonstrated the fallacy of the idea that the earth is such a young; planet in this universe. We do not regard geology as sufficiently scientific to determine exactly the period when this globe rolled into organized existence, revolving on its own axis and traveling [sic] on its career round the sun, but the data furnished by thoroughly sincere and truth exploring geologists are sufficiently definite and reliable to prove that this planet existed and moved and had its being long ages before the six-thousand-years period....

The light thus thrown on the process of creation and the periods thereof , throws hack the age of the earth at least :1 period of six thousand years before the time set forth in the chronology, which for 3 long time was accepted in Christendom. Readers of the Bible should understand that the figures placed at the head of chapters therein are in It large degree speculative and unreliable: some of them, showing the periods from the birth of some of the patriarchs to that of others. are measurably correct, because they are computed from statements given in the sacred record. But those ventured as starting points on which to calculate the age of the earth, are altogether mere matters of conjecture? That which we have referred to as given by modern revelation does not die- close. or profess to disclose, the actual age of the earth. It only starts from the period alluded to in Genesis 1: 3, when "God said, Let there be light; and there was light." How many ages upon ages passed from the time called "in the beginning," to that when God called forth the light out of the midst of the darkness, cannot be gleaned from any revelation or scripture ancient or modem, that is now known to man.

Neither the periods nor the processes of the development of the earth from the nucleus or starting point of its organized development are revealed in the sacred writings, but there may have been eons of ages between the time mentioned as "in the beginning" until the time when "God said, Let there be light; and there was light." And it should not be thought that this command of Deity was the actual creation or formation of light, for that is an eternal principle or manifestation of an eternal essence. It was simply the bringing forth of light to penetrate "the darkness which was upon the face of the deep." So, when after several periods in the order of creation "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night," and further, when it is said, "God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also," it is not to be understood that they were for the first time brought into being, but that they were disclosed to this globe, and their influence was brought to bear upon it by the clearing away of the dense mists that had surrounded this planet.

James E. Talmage, a geologist, spoke of the earth forming from other bodies

A clear distinction must be made between theory and fact. The observations last referred to are in no sense representative of theory, but, on the contrary, stand as demonstrated facts. The planetesimal hypothesis suggests the formation of worlds—of this earth, at 1east—by the coming together of small but discrete particles, world-dust, if you please, but not large masses of structural character. However, the theory does not deny that during the early formative stages of the earth, ponderous masses may have thus fallen together; but neither theory nor observed facts war- rant the belief that the present structure of the outer parts of the earth is in any way due to the structure of the infalling bodies, Whether particles comparable to dust, or masses of greater size. Approximately nine-tenths of the land surface today consists of stratified or sedimentary rocks. These are composed of the debris of earlier formations, which material by erosion, transportation, and re-deposition has been laid down as orderly beds at the bottom of ocean, sea, or lake. Even the oldest eruptive and metamorphic rocks known to us appear to consist of the material of yet more ancient rocks, changed and made over in the construction of the formations as we now observe them. He would be rash in- deed, who would attempt to affirm that he had identified any rock formation as part of the so-called first or primitive crust. What- ever may have been the character of the planetesimal bodies, the existing structure of the earth’s crust is the result of causes less remote than the original accretion of these bodies,—causes of a kind yet operating,—disintegration, removal, and re-deposition in the case of these dimentaries, volcanism and metamorphism in the case of crystalline rocks.

Was Brigham Young a "young earth creationist"?

The Church does not take an official position on this issue

⍗

Statements about matters about which there is no official doctrine

J. Reuben Clark	This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency: Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church.... When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President. Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.
Harold B. Lee	Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church: All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man." I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.
First Presidency	This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website): Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote: Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible? Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility. There is more material on official doctrine in the Church in this link.
References	Notes (click to expand) Back to Top

Whether or not a prophet knows how old the earth is says nothing about whether he can teach the truths about Jesus Christ necessary for salvation

It is claimed that Brigham Young was a "young earth creationist" (YEC). This is someone who believes the earth was created in the recent past, usually 6-7,000 years ago, based upon a literal and fundamentalist reading of Genesis. For example, critic George D. Smith writes that

Brigham Young ridiculed geologists who "tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years."

• Did Brigham Young ridicule geologists who believe that the earth has existed for millions of years?
• Was Brigham a young earth creationist?
• Does Brigham knowledge (or lack of) regarding modern science challenge his status as a prophet?

Note: This wiki section was based partly on a review of G.D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy. As such, it focuses on that author's presentation of the data. To read the full review, follow the link. Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)

The meaning of the passage is completely reversed when viewed in context. Brigham was not mocking those who accept an earth greater than six thousand years old—he is giving this idea his provisional approval and insists that while young earth creationism (as we would call it) may be a problem for traditional Christians, it is not a problem for the Latter-day Saints. An examination of the passage cited by George D. Smith (displayed in blue) in context clearly shows this:

You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or 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.
Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:115-116. (emphasis added)

Whether or not a prophet knows how old the earth is says nothing about whether he can teach the truths about Jesus Christ necessary for salvation.

Related article:

Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders

However, in this case, some critics have twisted the documentary sources to make Brigham Young say something that is completely the opposite of what he intended.

For example, George D. Smith writes that

Brigham Young ridiculed geologists who "tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years."

G. D. Smith quotes Journal of Discourses, 12:271, for this assertion. He gets the citation wrong (it is at 14:115) but he might benefit from reading 12:271—it provides Brigham’s insistence that plural marriage had little to do with early persecution of Joseph and the church.

What did Brigham really say?

Brigham in his own words

The source cited says nothing of the kind. Brigham begins by remarking that he is not surprised that unbelief prevails, since apostate "religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science." To Brigham, this state of affairs creates a conflict in which men of science must reject truths discovered through science if they are to accept creedal Christianity. He then proceeds to give an example: "You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has."

There is no ridicule here: Brigham points out that geologists "have good reason" to believe that the earth is extremely old. "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago," Brigham has the geologists reply, "our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain."

Concludes Brigham, "In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are."

See also:

BYU criticized for teaching evolution and 'old earth'

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 277. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review)) Rod Meldrum, comment on FAIR blog, (8 Sept 2008, 18h57) off-site

How do dinosaurs fit into God's plan?

The Church does not take an official position on this issue

⍗

Statements about matters about which there is no official doctrine

J. Reuben Clark	This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency: Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church.... When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President. Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.
Harold B. Lee	Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church: All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man." I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.
First Presidency	This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website): Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote: Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible? Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility. There is more material on official doctrine in the Church in this link.
References	Notes (click to expand) Back to Top

The core of the problem is that the scriptures and the revelations simply don't talk about dinosaurs

My seminary class has questions regarding the dinosaurs. They seem to be stuck on "where" and "when." How do they fit into the creation story presented by the scriptures?

Your seminary students are probably hung up on the following issues:

1. Scientists say dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago, and became extinct due to a cataclysmic event, probably an asteroid that struck the earth. This is what your students are taught in school, because it reflects the scientific consensus.
2. It is generally believed by many members of the Church that the fall of Adam and Eve took place around 4,000 B.C., and that before this there was no death in the world.
3. How do we square #1 with #2? How do we account for fossils that appear to be millions of years old, if we conclude there was no death before about 6,000 years ago?

The core of the problem is that the scriptures and the revelations simply don't talk about dinosaurs, and are inconclusive about whether there was physical death for other organisms before Adam and Eve's fall. This leaves each person to decide for themselves how the fossils we have discovered fit into the timeline of the plan of salvation. There generally two possible solutions that have been adopted by intelligent, faithful Latter-day Saints:

• Some take the approach that the earth is very old, that there was death before the Fall, and that the dinosaurs lived and died in a era long before the story of Adam and Eve begins.
• Some have reasoned that there was no death before the Fall, so the dinosaurs must have lived alongside Adam and the early patriarchs, perhaps dying in (maybe even after) the Flood. (See: Death before the fall main article FAIRWiki link.)
• Some, based on the teachings of Joseph Smith that the earth was organized out of existing material rather than created from nothing, have even concluded that dinosaurs never existed on this world, and that the bones we've found are actually from the destroyed remains of other planets. This is not a popularly held notion today, and it contradicts the findings of modern paleontology. In fact, Brigham Young University has a paleontology museum.

The scriptures — especially the creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple endowment — are not concerned with laying out a comprehensive history of the earth

The three important points to get across to your students are:

1. The scriptures — especially the creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple endowment — are not concerned with laying out a comprehensive history of the earth. They are concerned with telling the story of God's covenant relationship with men, a covenant he first established with Adam and Eve. Anything outside this story is simply not relevant to the issue the scriptures are dealing with.
2. Latter-day Saints are ultimately interested in truth, whatever and wherever it may be. We should not be afraid of learning new things that may contradict our previous assumptions, and we should not be overly dogmatic about things that are peripheral to the gospel message (that message being Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed, the keys of the priesthood are on the earth). In other words, have an open mind, but not a gaping one.
3. Ultimately, our salvation does not depend on when we believed the dinosaurs lived, or even if we believe there was (or was not) death before the Fall. Our salvation lies in hearing the word the Lord and then doing it.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

John Dehlin,"348-349: Simon Southerton, DNA, Lamanites and the Book of Mormon," Mormon Stories Podcast (21 May 2012).   http://mormonstories.org/348-349-simon-southerton-dna-lamanites-and-the-book-of-mormon/

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Belief in Evolution

FairMormon commentary

• The Church's response: Official statements regarding organic evolution===
  • First Presidency letter, "The Origin of Man" (November 1909) This was reprinted in 2002 (“The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26)
  • First Presidency statement, "Words in Season" (December 1910)
  • First Presidency letter, "'Mormon' View of Evolution" (September 1925)
• Despite the fact that the Church has no official position on evolution beyond those expressed by the First Presidency, some general authorities and lay members have considered evolution to be at variance with scriptural teaching. This view is well summarized by Elder Bruce R. McConkie's statement, "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution." Other authors, including Joseph Fielding Smith, held similar views.

Other Church authorities and members have seen much of value in evolutionary theory, even if they have not endorsed every aspect of it. Examples include James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and LDS chemist Henry Eyring.

Additional information

• Evolution—How does the Church reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of Adam? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Implausibility of Adam and Eve being the First Humans

FairMormon commentary

• There has been a great deal of controversy among Church members over the issue of pre-Adamites. Some general authorities accepted their existence, while others completely denied it. The most famous disagreement was between Elders B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith.

Additional information

• Pre-Adamites—There is scientific evidence of human habitation for many thousands of years. How do we reconcile this with the idea that Adam lived approximately 6,000 years ago? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
From the FAIR apologists Like the FARMS apologists, the FAIR apologists also seem to be at odds with the church teachings. Most FAIR apologists accept the data supported by science to agree that there was no global flood. Our response to FAIR: You could probably believe whatever you want about anything taught in the LDS Church and they are not going to kick you out of the church. Of course believing in the story of Noah isn't one of the temple recommend interview questions. That isn't the issue. It also doesn't doesn't mean you can dismiss the huge problems this creates for the church if the story of Noah and a global flood isn't true as the church teaches.

FairMormon commentary

• The critic is assuming that the entire story of Noah is a fiction. Latter-day Saints (including those who are members of FAIR) believe in the story of Noah. We believe that Noah existed, that he was commanded to build an ark, and that he and his family were saved from a catastrophic flood by doing so. FAIR is not at odds with church teachings regarding Noah.
• The only thing at issue is the scope of the flood, and differences in belief on that point are not essential to salvation. So what if Church leaders believe that the Flood covered the entire globe? So what if some believe, based upon scientific evidence, that the Flood was local in scope? It simply makes no difference to the teachings in the Church that Noah was a prophet, and that he did as God commanded him.

Additional information

• Global or local Flood—How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth? (Link)