Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

[_The CCC]

Phelps was Joseph's personal secretary. So it is unlikely that he ventured very far from what Joseph thought and said in the Times and Seasons.

"System" can mean the way it is done,, or this solar system, or even the whole universe, but I think that too is unlikely. Joseph was in a time when the ruminations of Archbishop Ussher were near universal in the Cristian world. What Joseph did was essentially the same as Ussher did but on a longer time scale.

I agree that his math(science) is nonexistent.

[_Themis]

Phelps was Joseph's personal secretary. So it is unlikely that he ventured very far from what Joseph thought and said in the Times and Seasons.

"System" can mean the way it is done,, or this solar system, or even the whole universe, but I think that too is unlikely. Joseph was in a time when the ruminations of Archbishop Ussher were near universal in the Cristian world. What Joseph did was essentially the same as Ussher did but on a longer time scale.

I agree that his math(science) is nonexistent.

So we don't have Joseph's opinion, just Phelps. I wouldn't suggest he wouldn't venture far from what Joseph thought. That's too big of an assumption. Keep in mind also that Joseph's ideas tended to change over time. The ideas of an old earth were circulating in his day and Joseph seemed to like new ideas which he then could incorporate into his religion.

[_The CCC]

Phelps was Joseph's personal secretary. So it is unlikely that he ventured very far from what Joseph thought and said in the Times and Seasons.

"System" can mean the way it is done,, or this solar system, or even the whole universe, but I think that too is unlikely. Joseph was in a time when the ruminations of Archbishop Ussher were near universal in the Cristian world. What Joseph did was essentially the same as Ussher did but on a longer time scale.

I agree that his math(science) is nonexistent.

So we don't have Joseph's opinion, just Phelps. I wouldn't suggest he wouldn't venture far from what Joseph thought. That's too big of an assumption. Keep in mind also that Joseph's ideas tended to change over time. The ideas of an old earth were circulating in his day and Joseph seemed to like new ideas which he then could incorporate into his religion.

As I said Phelps was Joseph's personal secretary. In those days that job was more like a personal assistant. One duty bound to follow the instructions of his employer. While Joseph was the Editor-in- Chief of the Times and Seasons. He didn't personally write every article. So there is no reason to assume Phelps was freelancing.

The idea of a very old earth goes back to the ancient Greeks. But no. The idea wasn't common in rural religious America of the early 19th Century. Let alone accepted.

Josephs idea's about a 2.5 billion year old earth were never incorporated in his religion. The closest they come to is in the Book Abraham which givers it as 6 creative periods of indeterminate length. Some have assumed it means 6,000 years but that is not a necessary conclusion. The LDS have a long history of accepting science and working the science into their philosophy if not directly their religion.
SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... _the_Earth

[_Themis]

As I said Phelps was Joseph's personal secretary. In those days that job was more like a personal assistant. One duty bound to follow the instructions of his employer. While Joseph was the Editor-in- Chief of the Times and Seasons. He didn't personally write every article. So there is no reason to assume Phelps was freelancing.

There is no reason to assume he is stating Joseph's beliefs. We don't have anything from Joseph and Phelps does not say the earth is billions of years old.

The idea of a very old earth goes back to the ancient Greeks. But no. The idea wasn't common in rural religious America of the early 19th Century. Let alone accepted.

It would be more accurate to say most people believed in a young earth, not that the idea of an older earth was uncommon or not known by many.

Josephs idea's about a 2.5 billion year old earth were never incorporated in his religion.

Joseph never made any statement to think he thought this. It is also wrong to say Phelps made the claim. Keep in mind again that Joseph's ideas changed over time as he was exposed to different ideas. Some he incorporated into his religion and others he didn't.

The LDS have a long history of accepting science and working the science into their philosophy if not directly their religion.

Yes different members can have different thoughts about the age of the earth. Most in the past have believed the literal 6k to 12 k. This is due to the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other statements made by Joseph and other Church leaders. The Book of Mormon was created with a literal view in mind. Joseph never had trouble changing his views and doing some editing after the fact. His ideas of the Godhead and FV changing over time is a classic example.

[_The CCC]

Yes different members can have different thoughts about the age of the earth. Most in the past have believed the literal 6k to 12 k. This is due to the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other statements made by Joseph and other Church leaders. The Book of Mormon was created with a literal view in mind. Joseph never had trouble changing his views and doing some editing after the fact. His ideas of the Godhead and FV changing over time is a classic example.

I wouldn't say most. Some vocal few maybe, but that is about it.
They really don't sit around in Sunday School trying to figure out what kind of dinosaur Jesus rode.

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon give an age to the earth. Church members as well as not are free to believe any age for the earth. There is no doctrine of the church as to the age of the earth.
(SEE 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 (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) 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.
As the editor Joseph Smith was entirely within his rights and responsibilities to make changes as he so desired.

The LDS have no expectation of infallibility of men or anything done by men.
SEE Title Page of Book of Mormon
And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

The LDS are required to affirm the Truth Claims of the Church and by extension the Book of Mormon as well of other LDS Scripture. The age of the earth is not nor has it ever been a Truth Claim of the church. The closest any LDS Biblical/LDS Specific Scripture literalist interpretation comes in is that these people actually existed and they accurately described their interactions with their God.

The Godhead is a Biblical concept. The Trinity in most of the rest of Christianity is not.
SEE Articles of Faith #1
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

[_Themis]

I wouldn't say most. Some vocal few maybe, but that is about it.

LOL. The numbers may be decreasing but they are not juts a vocal few. If you look at the numbers with evolution you see only a minority of members who accept it.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/01/07/so-just-what-do-mormons-think-about-evolution/

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon give an age to the earth. Church members as well as not are free to believe any age for the earth. There is no doctrine of the church as to the age of the earth.

Well many think the Bible does just that. It does say 6 days of creation around 6000 years ago. The Book of Mormon doesn't specially, but the text brings up a lot of ideas and doctrine that only work with a young earth.

(SEE 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 (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) 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.
As the editor Joseph Smith was entirely within his rights and responsibilities to make changes as he so desired.

When quoting other sources you should make that known. People can easily think you are plagiarizing.
Joseph can make up what ever he likes. My point was about Joseph's ideas changing over time and changing his story to try and fit the new ideas. The FV and the Godhead are examples of this.

The LDS have no expectation of infallibility of men or anything done by men.
SEE Title Page of Book of Mormon
And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

My interest is not about the obviousness that no one is perfect. It's about looking at the evidence to see what it says.

The LDS are required to affirm the Truth Claims of the Church and by extension the Book of Mormon as well of other LDS Scripture. The age of the earth is not nor has it ever been a Truth Claim of the church. The closest any LDS Biblical/LDS Specific Scripture literalist interpretation comes in is that these people actually existed and they accurately described their interactions with their God.

I never suggested members had to believe a certain age to be in good standing or believe it necessary to obtain the celestial kingdom. Most of what the church teaches is not considered mandatory beliefs for exaltation.

The Godhead is a Biblical concept. The Trinity in most of the rest of Christianity is not.
SEE Articles of Faith #1
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Depends on how you want to interpret the Bible. The article of faith represents Joseph's later beliefs, not his earlier beliefs. Try reading lectures on faith. There is a reason they are no longer scripture.

[_The CCC]

I wouldn't say most. Some vocal few maybe, but that is about it.

LOL. The numbers may be decreasing but they are not juts a vocal few. If you look at the numbers with evolution you see only a minority of members who accept it.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/01/07/so-just-what-do-mormons-think-about-evolution/

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon give an age to the earth. Church members as well as not are free to believe any age for the earth. There is no doctrine of the church as to the age of the earth.

Well many think the Bible does just that. It does say 6 days of creation around 6000 years ago. The Book of Mormon doesn't specially, but the text brings up a lot of ideas and doctrine that only work with a young earth.

(SEE 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 (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) 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.
As the editor Joseph Smith was entirely within his rights and responsibilities to make changes as he so desired.

When quoting other sources you should make that known. People can easily think you are plagiarizing.
Joseph can make up what ever he likes. My point was about Joseph's ideas changing over time and changing his story to try and fit the new ideas. The FV and the Godhead are examples of this.

The LDS have no expectation of infallibility of men or anything done by men.
SEE Title Page of Book of Mormon
And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

My interest is not about the obviousness that no one is perfect. It's about looking at the evidence to see what it says.

The LDS are required to affirm the Truth Claims of the Church and by extension the Book of Mormon as well of other LDS Scripture. The age of the earth is not nor has it ever been a Truth Claim of the church. The closest any LDS Biblical/LDS Specific Scripture literalist interpretation comes in is that these people actually existed and they accurately described their interactions with their God.

I never suggested members had to believe a certain age to be in good standing or believe it necessary to obtain the celestial kingdom. Most of what the church teaches is not considered mandatory beliefs for exaltation.

The Godhead is a Biblical concept. The Trinity in most of the rest of Christianity is not.
SEE Articles of Faith #1
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Depends on how you want to interpret the Bible. The article of faith represents Joseph's later beliefs, not his earlier beliefs. Try reading lectures on faith. There is a reason they are no longer scripture.

Lots depends on how the question is phrased. The science of Evolution is well accepted among LDS members. However it is claimed by some that God can have nothing to do with it. Then naturally the LDS would disagree.
SEE Science is Agnostic
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=y ... mp=yhs-001

I know that many do. But if we're talking about what the LDS church actually teaches. Then we have to say it takes no position on the age of the earth. For me the evidence for a very old earth is overwhelming, and I have no problem with God doing it, whatever method he used. I accept the science.

My apologies I thought I did put in the Link.
SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

Mine too. The Book of Mormon is chock full of good but less than perfect people, and many down right awful ones. As I look around my world of today. I see the same thing.

Part of the Baptismal Interview is that they accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. That necessitates acceptance of the Book of Mormon. I agree there are many many things which they are not required to believe to make it into the Celestial Kingdom. But I believe God is kind. That he will gently teach me all that I am missing but need to know to make it there.

The Lectures on Faith are still around, but are superseded by the Doctrine and Covenants. I have no problem with Joseph Smith learning more about the Godhead as time went on. However I reject the idea that there was a wholesale revision on his part. The First Vision account really is his beliefs.

[_Themis]

Lots depends on how the question is phrased. The science of Evolution is well accepted among LDS members. However it is claimed by some that God can have nothing to do with it. Then naturally the LDS would disagree.
SEE Science is Agnostic
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=y ... mp=yhs-001

I agree that it depend on how the member sees evolution. The point was that members who believe in a young earth are not some small group, but have been the majority and may still be in the majority.

I know that many do. But if we're talking about what the LDS church actually teaches. Then we have to say it takes no position on the age of the earth. For me the evidence for a very old earth is overwhelming, and I have no problem with God doing it, whatever method he used. I accept the science.

The problem is with standard scriptures of the church. The church has stayed away from directly saying it, but they do accept things like a global flood.

My apologies I thought I did put in the Link.
SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

Keep in mind this statement from the church was not meant to make things more clear but less. It helps them to be able to distance themselves from previous teachings without having to admit they don't really have any communication with deity. The statement is quite vague.

Mine too. The Book of Mormon is chock full of good but less than perfect people, and many down right awful ones. As I look around my world of today. I see the same thing.

It's full of two dimensional fictional characters. They tend to be either very good or very evil. We don't see this in the real world or good writing. It's becoming so obvious that even some members who cannot accept Joseph was a fraud are going with inspired fiction.

Part of the Baptismal Interview is that they accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. That necessitates acceptance of the Book of Mormon. I agree there are many many things which they are not required to believe to make it into the Celestial Kingdom. But I believe God is kind. That he will gently teach me all that I am missing but need to know to make it there.

The church is fine with inspired fiction as long as they don't promote the idea to other members. If God was kind he would not be so absent and hidden. The test of faith excuse is a sham. What kind of test does a kind God require you to guess for the right God and right beliefs, and punish you if you don't get the right ones?

The Lectures on Faith are still around, but are superseded by the Doctrine and Covenants. I have no problem with Joseph Smith learning more about the Godhead as time went on. However I reject the idea that there was a wholesale revision on his part. The First Vision account really is his beliefs.

They were once part of the D & C. They show that Joseph was only too willing to change his claims about the FV to fit his changes in how he wants to present God Jesus and HG.

[_spotlight]

There is nearly the same amount of organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if all the fossils were still alive. This indicates the demise of all living things in a single global event.

I'm not even sure of exactly what it is this is claiming, but I'd like to point out that life abhors a vacuum, and so we should expect that at all times throughout Earth's development since life came about, life will come to utilize all of the available space, soil, water, etc. that is suitable for life. This may change as the climate changes, but it would make sense for their to be about as much life on Earth today as there was at any other time in Earth's history where the climatic conditions were similar. But again, I'm not sure what this claim is even saying.

The claim is that the quantity of fossils is consistent with the destruction of one intact biosphere.

"Creationists seem enamored of the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He said that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karroo Formation could be resurrected, there would be 21 of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1% of the vertebrate fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs.

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.

One can account for all the carbon in coal only by postulating a tropical rain forest over the entire world.

But this is impossible, because many of the animals in the fossil record require low productivity regions to survive. Grazing animals that live on grass can not live in tropical rain forests, because carpeting grasses do not live there. Now we have too many animals on each acre and almost too much plant matter. But we are not through.

The oil and natural gas is the result of the decay of organic matter.

There are 201 x 10^18 grams of carbon in the hydrocarbons of the earth. In all of the world's living things, there are only 0.3 x 10^18 grams of carbon. There is 670 times more carbon in petroleum than there is in every living plant and animal on earth.

The worldwide quantity of dead coccoliths would cover the earth to a depth of one meter.

There are enough dead diatoms to cover the earth uniformly to a depth of 70 feet.

There are 6.42 x 10^22 grams of carbon in the limestones of the earth and only 3 x 10^17 grams of carbon in the biosphere of the earth. The flood must have buried 214,000 times more living matter in limestone alone than is currently on the earth.

The fossil record can not even begin to be considered the remains of one preflood biosphere."

[_spotlight]

Nowhere in the world is it possible to see the complete geologic column as a single structure. It is always found in bits and pieces, and mostly with pieces missing. Globally, a worldwide flood could create the illusion of a geologic column.

Firstly, explain to me why there is a single geologic column. Different places on Earth have different past histories, and hence would be expected to show evidence of what happened right there, but not everywhere else. Secondly, if the Flood happened globally, and formed the geological column all at once, then wouldn't we expect a more uniform geoligical column? Your point isn't even internally consistent.

"The concept quite prevalent among some Christians that the geologic column does not exist is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (1987, p. 163) write:

"Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence."

They are wrong. Not only is the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it in North Dakota, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

(Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989;
A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517) "