www.massimo.bigsmart.com
Early LDS Teaching on the Age of the Earth
( 2.55 Billion years old )
W. W. Phelps, in a letter to William Smith, refers to the age of the earth. He, from the
context of the quote, apparently received his information from the papyri from which the
Book of Abraham is also taken. So you can compare, most scientists teach that the earth is
about 4.5 - 5 billion years old, with life being about 2.5 billion years old..
Christ . . . was anointed [in the pre-mortal world] with holy oil in heaven, and crowned
in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and
smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things! . . . Well, now, Brother
William [Smith], when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the
kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been
of old, from eternity [Micah 5:2]; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in
the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two
thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that
deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds
of thousands of years;--it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like
Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!
--Times and Seasons 5: 758, 1 January 1845
By Apostle Stephen L. Richards
Dear Friends:
The month of June approaches and with it many graduations. As you contemplate university
experiences will you take a moment to ponder a theme that may not have been in the
curriculum. It if shall prove helpful to your thinking I shall be grateful.
Why should not a man have a religion, a faith, an overbelief - one that may not be
susceptible to scientific and finite support? Is such a faith a weakness or a virtue? Let
us see. John Langdon-Davis, in a lengthy review of the history of the attitude of man
toward science and religion, tells us that practically every scientific contribution from
Aristotle to Darwin is attributable almost entirely to the religious urge of man to find
out more about God. The many spheres of Aristotle and the epicycles of Ptolemy were all of
them chosen by these early philosophers as explanations of the movement of the universe
because the spheres and the circles to them most nearly represented God. Both Galileo and
Newton felt that their revolutionary discoveries had inestimably contributed to a better
and higher understanding of God and his management of the universe. And even Charles
Darwin, the reputed author of evolution, contrary to much popular understanding, was
greatly grieved that his new law of natural selection should have been pronounced
anti-Christ. He wrote to his American friend, Asa Grav, "I had no intention to write
atheistically." So we see that the very founders of science were responding to the
religious urge. They had their overbelief, not proved by their findings of material facts.
They had their faith as their constant incentive.
Unfortunately, however, the tolerance and sympathy which in modern times have been
manifest for people having divergent views have not been shown so generously toward the
Bible itself. Many of the scientific world, having discovered that the earth is round and
not flat as the people of the Old Testament evidently believed it to be, have
ungenerously, and it seems to me, ruthlessly, thrown the good book into the discard with
unconcealed contempt. They point out with gloating satisfaction that the God of the
Hebrews is a capricious, jealous, tribal God fighting the battles of his favored people
and reveling in the defeat of their enemies.
What if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the
earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations
did interpret Him in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of
the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any
interpreter, even though he be inspired, present an interpretation and conception in terms
other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the
assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than
he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts
of the future and circumstances of the utmost novelty, how will the inspired man
interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression
with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore
ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the
Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers
possessed. The Bible gives an account of the creation of the world. It is simply stated.
It has been made the object of ridicule by some scholars.
And yet where is the man on the earth today who has the knowledge, the demonstrable facts
to gainsay the truth of the account? I do not pretend to have knowledge of scientific data
sufficient to bring proof for the assertion but I am advised that the order of creation as
stated in Genesis conforms substantially with the order established by scientific research
and deductions.
Objection is made to the methods employed in Biblical creation whereas in fact the Bible
purports to give no method, no real definition of processes whatever. Rather it makes
authoritative statements of the facts of creation. Who that is really interested in these
major truths will take serious objection to the description of the organization of man:
that he was made of the dust of the earth and that his spirit was breathed into him and
that woman was made of his rib? Indeed scientists are now all agreed that there is nothing
in his physical body except the dust of the earth and those who are candid readily admit
that they do not know what his spirit is or whence it came, nor do they know how woman was
made. I grant freely that I do not understand how a woman can be made of a rib, nor how a
man's spirit can be-breathed into him but because I have been unable to understand or
explain these expressions I have never been disposed to doubt the things of major import
set forth in the account; namely, the author of creation, the subjects of creation, the
order of creation, and the purpose of creation.
The time of creation has ever been a subject of much comment and dispute. Yet I challenge
anybody to produce from the Bible itself any finite limitation whatsoever of the periods
of creation. By strained inferential references and interpretations men have sought to set
the time in days or periods of a thousand years, but I feel sure that no justification of
such limitations is warranted by the scriptures themselves. If the evolutionary hypothesis
of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and
I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble
opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the
process.
It is said that a man seldom secures a philosophy of life until after he has passed the
age of thirty. Perhaps I have been a bit premature in handing out to you this bit of
philosophy. I thank you for your patience in reading it. If you will take the counsel of
one who loves science and reveres religion, permit me to admonish you: Never close your
mind or your heart; ever keep them open to the reception of both knowledge and spiritual
impressions. Both true science and true religion are the exponents of truth. Their fields
are different, their provinces are distinct, but their purposes are identical--to
enlighten man, to give him power, to make him good and bring him joy. Never abandon a
time-tested thing of worth until you are very, very sure that the new is better. Be not
ashamed of faith in God. It has been the incentive for the noblest things of life.
Sincerely your friend,
[signed] Stephen L. Richards
A member of the Council of Twelve
Stephen L Richards, "An Open Letter to College Students" Improvement Era
36:451-453, 484-485. June 1933.
President McKay Letter
This is a copy of the words of a letter from David O. McKay. President McKay gave
permission for the public publication of this letter.
DAVID O. McKAY, PRESIDENT
February 15, 1957
Professor William Lee Stokes
2970 South 15th East
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Brother Stokes
Your letter of February 11, 1957 has been received.
On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book,
Man, His Origin and Destiny was not published by the Church, and is not
approved by the Church.
The book contains expressions of the authors views for which he alone is
responsible.
Sincerely your brother,
David O. McKay
(President).
You can find tons of other information on our church and evolution, at this web site
http://www.frii.com/~allsop/eyring-l/faq/evolution
Now for some quotes.
"As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses,
or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the
fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that
account has been handed down from age to age, and we have go it, no matter whether it is
correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it in
six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in
the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of
creation
there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain,
for there is no mystery except to the ignorant." (Brigham Young, JD, vol. 14, p.
116.)
"On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side
of Adam's advent, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed bysome, is to fly in
the face of facts so indisputably brought to light by the research of science in modern
times, and this as set forth by men of the highest type in the intellectual and moral
world; not inferior men, or men of sensual and devilish temperament, but men who must be
accounted as among the noblest and most self-sacrificing of the sons of men--of the type
whence must come the noblest sons of God, since "the glory of God is
intelligence" (D&C 93:36), and that too the glory of man." [ B. H. Roberts ]
Evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems
to the inquiring mind. [David O McKay]
So, while most theologians are regarding the developments of the natural sciences with
fear & trembling, the chiefs of the Mormon religion are prepared to hail the
discoveries of paleontology as an aid in establishing their peculiar beliefs. [NY Times]
Evolution might account only for man's physical body; the addition of that "divine
spark" that sets man apart from the other animals might have been the final step that
created the man, Adam [Article in The Instructor, a church publication]
Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood? Why should man come so far if he is
destined to go no farther? A creature which has traveled such distances and fought such
battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob
the grave of its victory. [Raymond West, quoted by David O McKay]
Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to
the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the
physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.
In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle
scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas
that gloss over inconsistencies.
That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children or students will be
able to see that when they begin their scientific studies. [Henry Eyring]
Furthermore, whether they were in Australia, Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere, the
various forms of life on earth appeared and disappeared at the same time. To the faithful
student of the scriptures, this precision reflects the ordered processes of God, the
divine Creator. [Article in The Ensign]
It would do no violence to my faith to learn that God had formed man in one way or
another. [David O McKay]
Our religion is not hostile to real science. [1st Presidency, 1910]
It is only fair to warn parents and teachers that a young person is going to face a very
substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the earth's age as millions of years,
and that a young person might "throw the baby out with the bath" unless allowed
to seek the truth, from whatever source, without prejudice. [Henry Eyring]
The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has
promised that he will tell that when he comes again. [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]
The details of the physical creation are not given in scripture. Indeed, why should they
be? The Lord gave us the testimony of the rocks and bids us read. [Steven Jones]
If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is
ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it
shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently
comprehensive to include the whole of the process. [Stephen L Richards]
Whatever the subject may be, the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ may be
elaborated on without fear of anyone's objecting, and the teacher can be free to express
his honest conviction regarding it, whether that subject be in geology, the history of the
world, the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world, [David O McKay]
Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the
salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in
the realm of the Church. [1st Presidency, 1931]
Many sympathetic to science interpret certain statements in LDS scripture to mean that God
used a version of evolution to prepare bodies and environmental surrounding suitable for
the premortal spirits. [Encyclopedia of Mormonism]
Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection,
through the direction and power of God ... are questions not fully answered in the
revealed word of God. [Editorial in The Improvement
Sign My
Guestbook
View My
Guestbook
www.massimo.bigsmart.com