Joseph Smith and Recycled Planets
by Jared* on July 1st, 2005As discussed in my last post, B.H. Roberts sought to account for the age of the earth and the fossils therein by invoking a statement by Joseph Smith that “our planet was made up of the fragments of a planet which previously existed; some mighty convulsions disrupted that creation and made it desolate. Both its animal and vegetable life forms were destroyed” (Gospel and Man’s Relationship to Diety). In his later work, The Truth, The Way, The Life, Roberts apparently abandoned this line of reasoning, which was part of the reason the Church refused to publish it–he was asserting that life and death had occured on this earth before Adam and Eve.
Given his importance to Latter-day Saints, we are desirious to know everything Joseph Smith had to say on any topic and slow to discount his words. The first step in investigating this topic is to determine exactly what was said. The statement comes from notes taken by William Clayton of a speech by Joseph on January 5, 1841 and is published in The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook. (I am unaware of any other sources; please provide others if you know of them.) Here is the relevant passage:
The world and earth are not synonymous terms. The world is the human family. This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live. The elements are eternal. That which has a begining will surely have an end. Take a ring, it is without beginning or end; cut it for a beginning place, and at the same time you have an ending place.A key, every principle proceeding from God is eternal, and any principle which is not eternal is of the Devil. The sun [the context suggests that this should be “Son.”] has no beginning or end, the rays which proceed from himself have no bounds, consequently are eternal. So it is with God. If the soul of man had a beginning it will surely have an end. In the translation, “without form and void” it should read “empty and desolate.” The word “created” should be formed or organized.
It is apparent from the surrounding sentences that Joseph’s main point concerns the eternal nature of element. In fact a footnote says that “the William P. McIntire account of this discourse indicates that the subject of ex nihilo creation was one of the major topics of discussion during this inaugural lyceum meeting.”
So we have a single, non-canonical statement taken from notes by William Clayton, that was not the main topic of Joseph’s speech. This seems to me, poor material with which to build arguments against modern science. James E. Talmage apparently thought so too:
The statement by Joseph Smith, quoted at the beginning of this article, has been amplified and applied by some of our people in a way unwarranted by the prophet’s utterance. This is no unusual incident in connection with the announcement of a great truth bearing the stamp of newness. Thus, the words of the prophet have been construed as meaning that great masses of material have come together in space to form this planet, and that the broken and disturbed state of the earth’s crust is an immediate result of these masses falling together in a disorderly way…Whatever 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. (Improvement Era, Vol. VII. MAY, 1904. No. 7.)
I have no training in geology, but I think it is a safe bet that the progress in geology over the 100 years that have passed since Talmage’s writing have only compounded the difficulties in maintaining the interpretation that he argues against.
The scientist Henry Eyring (father of Elder Henry B. Eyring) is reported to have said that “it would take a very fancy shovel to put the earth together in such an organized fashion so that the fossils and ages of rocks are arranged in such an orderly manner with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on top.”
In his Sunstone article, Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions, Duane Jeffery gives some treatment to this topic:
Some Latter-day Saints have tried to explain the fossil record with an uncanonized statement reportedly made by Joseph Smith that this earth was created from fragments of other earths. This sentiment is then extended to propose that dinosaurs, mammoths, and Australopithecines all come from other planets that have been destroyed, broken up, and recycled.What size were the fragments? I have encountered claims all the way from continent-sized portions, to tectonic plates, to specific geological formations complete with living bristlecone pines on them, to mere atoms. Suffice it to say that no scientific evidence whatever exists to support such a model, and massive amounts of data indicate that our planet has, from its beginning, been a single dynamic but integrated entity–with continued accretions of space dust and meteorites of course.
Jeffery goes on to discuss theological questions such a scenario also raises.
Notice that none of this has anything to do with whether Joseph Smith was right or wrong. Like the quote commonly attributed to him concerning the Constitution hanging by a thread, the statement of interest here is rather vague and any interpretation of it says more about what the interpreter thinks than what Joseph thought. It gives no information as to how we could verify the statement, where we should look to do so, or what we should find. Even an interpretation of his statement regarding the eternal nature of elements is questionable, given our knowledge of nuclear physics and relativity. (Physicists could probably make an even stronger point here.)
What if Joseph really intended his audience to think that fossils came from recycled planets? Could it not be it a personal opinion, assumption, or speculation? Similar questions are currently in play regarding Joseph’s views on the geography of the Book of Mormon or the identity of the Lamanites. However, I do not think we need to argue over whether it was personal opinion or not because the statement is sufficiently vague that no specific meaning can be reliably attached to it. (I wonder if the word “fossil” was part of Joseph’s working vocabulary. My quick search on Gospelink 2001 did not return any usage of the word by Joseph. If anybody finds otherwise, please provide a reference in the comments.)
Finally, I think it would be useful to have a list of specific evidences that the scenario Roberts put forth would have to overcome or explain in order to be plausible. I invite readers to leave such in the comments–with references if possible. (Don’t worry about the age of the post, comment anyway.)
Perhaps Joseph was absolutely right in what he said. But until we know what he meant, or we uncover meanings consistent with available evidence, it seems best to put his statement aside for now. I think it unwise to use the statement as a weapon until we know which way it cuts.
[This is a cross-post at LDS Science Review.]
Joseph Smith may have been wrong about the creation of the earth. But without any evidence to the contrary, we ought to assume that he knew what he was talking about. After all, he actually met the man who created this planet. And he conversed with him and was taught by him. To the best of my knowledge, that is something that no professional geologist can claim. Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe in the fallibility of the geologists, than to believe in the fallibility of Joseph Smith. And we are more likely to err by siding with the scientists than by siding with the Prophet. If prophets have personal opinions that are false, even more so do scientists.
Posted by John W. Redelfs
without any evidence to the contrary, we ought to assume that he knew what he was talking about
Hi John,
Your point is taken, but what was Joseph talking about? Is there even a need to pick sides on this issue? The moment someone uses the word “geology” or “fossils,” they’ve gone beyond what Joseph said.
And what evidence to the contrary should be convincing if there were a side to choose? I suppose you don’t mean scientific evidence.
Posted by Jared
Nice post Jared. The actual quote by Joseph is an interesteing one but it does NOT say that this earth was cobbled together from huge chucks of previous planets.
This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live. The elements are eternal. That which has a begining will surely have an end.
The huge leap in interpretation has to do with what “broken up” means. Why must we assume that it was broken up into gigantic chunks instead of broken up into tiny particals?
(I assume this is the issue… right?)
Posted by Geoff J
One might argue that if Joseph had seen how the earth was formed from the sun during the formation of the solar system that what he said was entirely accurate. The error is in assuming that what we see is all there was. i.e. that the earth as formed from element was element as we see it now. Clearly those who know of the early days of solar formation know that element was most explicitly not in big complete chunks. I think those who assert that this is the way to think about it twist Joseph’s comments.
Posted by Clark
What happened? No more posts?
They’re percolating.
Posted by Jared
A lot of my posts over at my site have had quite a bit to do with evolution, but they could hardly be considered “reconciliatory” in nature. I just didn’t think they were “evolution-ish” to bring over here. What do you think?
I am thinking of maybe reposting what I have done so far and updating it to how much I have learned over the course of the discussion, which has been quite a bit.
Greg also reminded me that I still need to address the issues brought up in my “Creationists Sound Off!” post.
Posted by Jeffrey Giliam
Thought I would cross post a related comment:
“Among other support was an 1854 address by Apostle Orson Hyde. Hyde had argued that if Adam had been commanded to “re-plenish the earth,” how could this have been unless the earth had already been populated.”
To which I commented: not to mention, in the listings of the children of Noah is the one who divided the earth with the Gentiles.
What!? There were other people out there, after the flood, that they had to divide the earth with? At least if you read the Bible literally there were. Makes sense with Adam as well.
There is a textually supported reading that would support both and Adam and Noah as living in a world with other humans, much like Abraham did.
I think there is a *lot* of evidence that pre-Adamites were seriously entertained early in the church. However I also think that the basic model was akin to Noah. That is they saw things in cycles of *total* destruction and replenishing. The clearest example of this was the old naive Book of Mormon interpretations. But the obvious comment is that now we’ve taken the more nuanced view of the Book of Mormon mainstream, shouldn’t we do so with the other equivalent versions of the story with the Jaredites, the Noahites, and the Adamites?
Posted by Clark
shouldn’t we do so with the other equivalent versions of the story with the Jaredites, the Noahites, and the Adamites?
Yes, we should.
Posted by Geoff J
Interesting site. The CURRENTLY prevailing impact theory of Earth’s moon formation (as well as the increase in Earth’s mass and influence of its current inclination and axial rotation) seems to agree with what has been attributed to Joseph Smith. According to the theory, one protoplanet collided with another. The collision added core mass to the larger body (now called Earth) and ejected mass from both bodies which eventually formed the Moon. This “breaking up and remodeling” of these worlds and the creation of a stabilizing moon seems to have been a precurser to the establishment of life on earth.
As for how God created life here; it “is wisdom and it remaineth in Him.”
Posted by Dispatcher
Jared, I read your post and I basically agree with you on the subject. I have a proposition and I too am without geological training, however I wonder if Joseph was on the bullseye when he made that particular statement. Lets’ say the earth was made up of the fragments mentioned. True though, you would have to basically place all of the fossils in close proximity to one another in order to establish pre- existance to a believable point if not a reasonable point. That would obviously require thought, intention, purpose, etc., as opposed to letting nature take it’s course. As I search and ponder the book of genesis (P.oG.P.), I see it as that the earth was basically out there in space in a relatively remote location,as to the proximity of other spheres, and having no light upon it, as Moses or Abraham described , and thus see the earth as a somewhat sizable ice ball, as though the Gods put it in the freezer for a while. Now this in no way means then that the earth was not created from broken fragments of other planets before the dinosaurs. It is possible that the dinosaur existance was not considered in the eyes of God to be a “fallen” situation. It may be that they breathed a form of a somewhat different atmosphere than our present one, that may have then played a role in the formation of fossil fuel. It is reasonable to assume that the then source of light burned out and during its’ demise it caused the mighty convulsions that Joseph mentioned. But here is the thing, we don’t really know exactly what went on during these convulsions. It is again, apparent that a source of light was removed from the earth. Now lets’ say that another planet collided with it to cause the convulsions,okay but does that mean that the earth was broken up into fragments that later compose our earth today?Not necessarily. The convulsions may have been such that they caused all life form to cease, without causing the planet to defragment. And enter the book of genesis. Here we have an ice ball. God says,”put light upon it so that it can thaw out. as it thaws out the ice becomes water and the heat from the light eventually causes the waters to evaporate into the atmospere. The Lord could have simply let the light draw closer to earth or more likely move the earth to it. Now we have a planet, an earth void of all living things for the time being. So the question now is, is the earth in a fallen state at this time? These dinosaurs may not have commited sin that would defile the earth, like murder, whoredoms, and all the others. So we now must find reasonable solutions to connect the ends of it. Is it possible that the earth could provide the means to cause plants to grow, trees too, and yet be in a “non-fallen” state? Also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was obviously physical, but could the tree of life have been “spirituall” as opposed to physicall? That would support the idea of Adam being created from another planet. Then the Gods seperate the light from the darkness by causing the to spin on it’s axis. It would appear that real core of this,is to be able to come to the knowledge as to wether or not the earth was considered “fallen” before Adam fell.
I just wanted to mention that we need to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the condition of the earth, our planetary elements differ from the state of the planet before the fall? And if so, then logic and reason must prevail in saying that the state of our planet after the fall and more so in the decline of it’s stability over the centuries must state that the accuracy as to whether or not the earth did this or that long ago is nearly impossible. We are using a less than accurate calculation to define the afore, in accuracy. If that makes any sense. The reason being is that you can’t measure an accuracy of something without a standard. And the standard must not deviate in order to sustain the statement for a reasonable anchor to hook up to. Otherwise it is just plain B.S. , no offense to any reader. Now the obvious is, is that we simply do not have information as to the condition of the earth before the fall. Has anyone read the book “Earth in the beginning” by Eric Skousen? Could you please comment on it?
Larry,
I think maybe you are working too hard to make the creation accounts more literal than poetic or figurative.
I’ve previously written some thoughts on the fall (here and here.) Of course I am not entitled to seeric vision, but my suspicion is that the fall was not a single event that occured several thousand years ago, but a concept or process.
I haven’t read Skousen’s book. Sorry.
In light of Joseph Smith’s statement I think it’s worth noting that the elements heavier than oxygen are only formed during supernovae. Heavier-than-oxygen elements account for ~72% of the Earth’s composition. So if we consider that all of the atoms on the Earth have at one point or another been part of a star that was destroyed. This reconciles Joseph Smith’s statement with what science has to say on the issue of the formation of the Earth.
If it is true that our dna is like the animal dna, then here is a hint that we and the animals were created from the elements of this earth. It says “Dust of the earth”. We to this day don’t really know what that means. But if Joseph Smith the Prophet of God translated the book of Moses, P. o G.P., by the power of God,as it has been taught to me, then why would God tell Joseph something that was figurative and not literal, since Joseph was already revealing things that others would later refuse to
believe? And Joseph told us that God is a God of truth? Which is easier,
To tell of the Law of plural marraige or that Adam was either born of a woman or literally created from the dust of this earth?If born of another woman, then who? Explain, somebody, the natural law that will be in operation to cause the resurrection? Explain, somebody, the natural law at work when Jesus healed the withered arm to it’s normal length? Don’t say,”well, the healing took a few days or months to occur”, because the scriptures say that the people were astonished at the miracle, right then and there. That is the key phrase, Miracle. An event brought about by laws that exist without mortal approval. Mortals look to mortalize that which they cannot otherwise explain. Man did not evolve from apes etc. ther is simply no evidence whatsoever period. there is a huge gap between modern man and the last monkey advancement. If our dna is like animal dna and Adam was born of a woman………….
Larry,
Even on gospel terms you have a problem, because various Prophets and Apostles have seen various aspects of the creation story as figurative (creation from dust, rib, tree, fruit). As to why God wouldn’t lay everything out on the table, I don’t know. You’ll have to ask him.
Man did not evolve from apes etc. ther is simply no evidence whatsoever period.
Based on your statement, “If it is true that our dna is like the animal dna…” I don’t think you can make such an assertive statement. You may not like what the evidence suggests, or you may not be familiar with convincing evidence, but don’t kid yourself that there is not any evidence.
You cannot create something out of or from nothing. However, picture if you will, giving a verbal command to the elements nearby, though you cannot see them, and at incredible speed they form whatever you commanded to be formed. Is that possible? Of course it is, unless you know where the elements hang out, and can say otherwise.
Hi Jared, I considered something the other day that bears worth a look:
We as members of the church believe that God the Father procreated us with spirit bodies, which basically looks like the outter body. I’ve always considered the spirit body to be like paint primer, it holds the body and suface,in this case the eternal personage before the spirit body. It would seem then that a resurrected ape was needed to create a spirit body for the ape. A resurrected cro-magnon to produce the spirit body of the cro- magnon,a resurrected neanderthal for the spirit body of the, or ratherfor the neanderthal. Because it is difficult for me to imagine God begetting a spirit body in ape form that would later evolve along with the body into modern man.
Larry,
How the spirit dovetails with the physical is certainly a question, and any answer must be necessarily speculative. Perhaps the correspondance is not as rigid as you suggest. I can imagine a solution or two to the question, but at this point it is only imagination. Science knows nothing of spirit, and the revelations don’t give much detail.
I have found myself wondering if biblical man and biological man must be one and the same. It is a natural assumption but is it true? The scriptures tell us of “man” - the posterity of Adam - the children of Heavenly Father sent here to work out our salvation. They also mention just a few of the many types of the animals living here before Adam. Is it imposible that Homo Sapiens could have been among those creatures? If so, they would not be the only humans sent to the Earth without need to be tested according to accountability. Could this be a possible explainatin for pre-historic man as well as more primitive species now extinct?
Have you thought this might just be a case of definitions. The Lord calls Adam the first man. He always talks in terms of the plan of salvation. In these terms ‘man’ signifies that being susceptible to two deaths: earthly and spiritual. Along this line of thinking then, Adam was the first being who became susceptible to both deaths. Those who preceded Adam were only susceptible to the first death until Adam brought the second with his fall.
According to this line of thought, the exact time of Adam’s life on earth is not very relevant. He brought the second death to all those who preceded him as well as all those who came after. Just like the Savior brought salvation from the two deaths for all those who preceded Him as well as those who followed Him.
Rich
Ted and Rich, I have a proposal: Is it possible that the pre-historic creatures who lived on this planet,before Adam, didn’t evolve at all but lived on the earth during the same stretch of time? What I mean is , suppose the different type of species of pre-historic man lived at same time periods and inter-mated or cross-bred, however you want to word it, and not necessarily evolved in the way we would think of it? And also, the plan of salvation, as you know, is for those who have free agency. Do you think they might have had free agency or basically survived by their natural instincts?
I was curious about the creation of Adam and Eve. I expressed before that I felt that it would very well be possible for Heavenly Father to mingle his seed with the elements of the “new” earth, Adams’ earth that is, and thus produce the body of Adam, and eventually Eve. See, that is another consideration, we simply don’t know if there wasn’t a “cleansing” of the “new” planet that preceeded Adams’ arrival. We just assume that it remained in the same condition from the time of its destruction to the time Adam was placed upon it.
The tree of life, remained in the garden for a while after the fall. Of course the new idea is that Adams’ body slowly changed from immortal to mortal and not necessarily over night. Never the less he was immediately driven forth from it. So it would seem that there is an element of some physicleness, physicality, of the tree of life vs. the once forbidden tree. The problem is, is that it still leads us back to this: was Adam truly created of this earth or an immortal earth? Another consideration: can Heavenly Father also produce physical beings? If so, then He could have sired Adam, and yet leave room for Jesus to be His only begotten in the mortal flesh, brought Adam here… but now we have to ask,”well, why didn’t He simply bring Eve as well?” Why did He go to all the trouble of making up some b.s. story about the rib and so forth if it was absolutely unlike what truly occured? I mean I can comprehend the personage of spirit, mortal body, resurrected body, so why would it be difficult for me to comprehend that Adam was created from another earth this way or thata way?
I was in the Denver Temple yesterday. The Temple President, didn’t catch his name, was speaking to us as we waited to start the endowment. He was speaking of Temple symbolism, and other basic concepts. He didn’t say we couldn’t speak of this outside of the Temple. When asked by someone in the room if we could get a copy of what he was teaching he referred to the whole of the papers as not being able to be released to us for study because they should not leave the Temple. He was holding a handful of papers, about 10 pages worth and was skipping around to topics he chose as he had a very limited time to speak to us. Some things he spoke of related to the endowment and others to general concepts about the nature of man. Later my husband spoke with him and found he was there at the request of one of our stakes. Your stake can request your Temple President to speak at your Temple. He said many things and gave the sources. I couldn’t take notes, obviously, but I remember his quoting Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.
He said that Adam and Eve were created in the very same way that we were created. They had a physical mother and father. He said that Adam and Eve were transplanted from another planet to this planet. The President also said that the rib from Adam was figurative.
The following is my commentary on the information mentioned above.
If Adam was brought from another planet and, as the creation is expounded to us, was commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, then Adam and Eve must have attained a physical age old enough to reproduce, ie; post puberty. With all the above being assumed true, then Adam and Eve were conceived by physical parents, born and raised, to the age of puberty, at least, and then commanded to reproduce. Regarding their rearing: as children are born helpless and totally dependant on others for their care, it would seem to logical they were raised by their parents, their memory was blocked and they were placed on the Earth. Since Adam was the first man, it implies, to me, that they were raised elsewhere and then brought to earth, thus making Adam the first man and Father of all mankind on the earth.
What has confused me until now is the populating of Earth. Was incest practiced? With this new knowledge it becomes quite possible that Adam was placed on earth first to fulfill that he was the first man and father of all and then other men and women from other worlds were brought here in order to marry with the children of Adam and Eve in order to populate the earth. This would concur with the present day finding of skeletons of humans of very large stature, 8-16 feet tall, and the mentioning in the bible of the giants of which Goliath was a member.
Does anyone know what source the Temple President was using to make these statements? I want to read them for myself.
Cathy,
This blog is not very active these days, but see the following post for some additional info:
Adam and Eve: Obscuring a Plain and Precious Truth?.