First two statements for your consideration, one from Brigham Young, another from Orson Pratt relating to the question of the age of the earth.
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. 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; they are facts--they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and 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. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth. We can now take a hymn book and read its contents; but if we had never learned our letters and knew nothing about type or paper or their uses, and should take up a book and look at it, it would be a great mystery; and still more so would it be to see a person read line after line, and give expression therefrom to the sentiments of himself or others. But this is no mystery to us now, because we have learned our letters, and then learned to place those letters into syllables, the syllables into words, and the words into sentences. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.14, p.116, Brigham Young, May 14, 1871. Emphasis added).
Orson Pratt
In have no doubt a great many changes have taken place upon our globe since that great change wrought upon it at the time of the creation. There certainly was a great change wrought upon it then, for we are told that when the Lord organized the earth it was enveloped in a great ocean of water, there being no dry land in sight. But the Lord, by his power and word, or, in other words, by his immutable laws, caused that the waters should be gathered together into one place, and hence the dry land appeared. I do not suppose that this change was effected in the twinkling of an eye; I believe the Lord has certain established laws by which he accomplished his wonderful works pertaining to all his creations. How long this submerged earth had an existence before the Lord commanded the great deep, that enveloped the whole surface of the same, to be removed, is not for me to say; no one can tell how many years, or thousands of years, or how many millions of years, this earth may have existed in the form of partial or imperfect organizations before this great event happened, of which Moses gives an account. The periods mentioned in the history, as recorded in the 1st chapter of Genesis, are represented as beginning with the evening and ending with the morning. Seven such periods are mentioned. How long these periods, called days, were, I cannot tell; it is very evident they were not governed by the rotation of the earth on its axis, because the sun did not give light during the first three days or periods. It was on the fourth day that the lord caused the light of the sun to shine upon this little speck of creation. But there were three days prior to that, when the sun did not shine upon the earth. What then was to distinguish between the light and the darkness we of course cannot say. There was an eternity of past durations, before the period, called "the first day." The materials we, as Latter-day Saints, believe existed from all eternity, the materials had no beginning; they were not created. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.18, p.316 - p.317, Orson Pratt, December 3, 1876. Emphasis added).
So the actual age of the earth is an open question.
You should know that there has been and continues to be a difference of opinion, even among some LDS leaders regarding to the question of the Evolution of Man. The Church has no official position on this question. I have some materials on this that I could send to you, if you would like to read up on the question. I do not believe that the creation accounts were intended to give us a complete history of the creation. You may, however, find interesting the article by two associates of mine, particularly as it relates to how the various days of creation and the chronology of the earth as currently accepted by scientists. See Michael D. Rhodes and J. Ward Moody, “Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham,” in Astronomy, Papyrus and Covenant, 17-35). The link is here:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.
Another perspective from a Jewish non-LDS physicist can be found in Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom(New York: Free press, 1997). He reads the Genesis accounts in terms of the entire Universe, while the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses accounts seems to place those events from the perspective of the earth.
As far as the flood, I think it is fair to say that most LDS scientists accept the account as real, but interpret the flood as a localized destructive event, rather than one that covered the world. This is also my view. The scriptures talk about the waters covering the “earth,” but the Hebrew word for earth is eretz and it is the same word for “land” and was likely not intended originally to refer to the entire planet. Later interpreters, in my view, placed a more universal interpretation on the account and tended to see those events as typological. I think they were real, but localized to a region such as Mesopotamia.
Origin of Man (April 1910 Statement)
Priesthood Quorums' Table.
Improvement Era, Vol. XIII, April 1910, Nr. 6
Origin of Man.-"In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?"
This question comes from several High Priests' quorums.
Of course, all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1:26, 27; 2: 7; also in the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2: 27; and in the Book of-Abraham 5:7. The latter statement reads: "And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit) and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject. Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.
For helpful discussion of the subject, see IMPROVEMENT ERA, Vol. XI, August 1908, No. 10, page 778, article, "Creation and Growth of Adam;" also article by the First Presidency, "Origin of Man," Vol. XIII, No. 1, page 75, 1909.
No comments:
Post a Comment