Variant LDS Creationism
by Jared* on January 18th, 2007Mormons usually are not particularly unique in their creationism. Except for a few details on the timing of creation and the creation of Adam and Eve, they usually let other segments of Christianity do the work for them and follow their lead. However at WeaverResearch there are some new (or at least uncommon) twists to young-earth creationism.
Their guiding philosophy, of course, is that the scriptures and statements by various Church leaders (many of which are quoted) can be taken at face value as accurate in their description of natural history. In contrast to many young-earth creationists, WeaverResearch does not attribute most of the fossil record to Noah’s flood. Evolution is right out, so how does one explain the principle of faunal succession? The answer at WeaverResearch is that the order of fossilization corresponds to reproductive fecundity. At the fall of Adam and Eve (and presumably again after Noah’s flood), all of the existing organisms began to reproduce and fill the earth. However, the rates of reproduction differed and so less complex organisms filled the earth and were fossilized before more complex organisms.
A foundational scripture for WeaverResearch is Doctrine and Covenants 121:12
And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness; [emphasis added]
Using other scriptures the term ‘times and seasons’ is interpreted to refer to the orbit, tilt and rotation of the earth. According to WeaverResearch, changing the ‘times and seasons’ is not a poetic way of saying that God controls the destiny of the earth (as Daniel 2:21 suggests), rather the letter from Liberty Jail is an explicit acknowledgment that God has subjected the earth to catastrophies such that scientific methods of determining time are skewed. Apparently God has done this on purpose, and yet, paradoxically, the confusion can be overcome by anybody with a Bible.
Perhaps the centerpiece of the website is a geological and archeological correlation with the scriptures. This chart shows carbon-14 dates and where they really line up with scriptural dates, with the same done for major geological events. The Permian extinction correlates with Noah’s flood, of course the continents separate with Peleg, and a few other events are shown correlated to Abraham, Moses and Christ. Thus, according to the chart, you can find the actual scriptural date on which events, otherwise thought to be ancient, occurred.
Although interesting, this approach leaves a lot of questions unanswered; here are a few of mine:
1. C-14 dating has been used on ancient Egypitian artifacts to obtain dates in agreement with those derived from other historical sources. Yet according to the correction curve for carbon dating, this should be impossible for anything older than about 2,000 years ago. How can this be?
2. Some radiometric dating techniques can be used over a very wide time range. Argon-argon dating, for example, has been used for some of the most ancient rocks (eg. 4.5 billion years ago), and yet under optimal conditions it can also be used for much more recent dates, such as the Mt. Vesuvius eruption of 79 AD. Imagine a geologist dates the lava from a volcanic explosion using argon-argon and gets a date of 15,000 years ago. The remains of a tree that was burned and covered by the lava are found and C-14 dated to 15,000 years ago as well. According to WeaverResearch, this correlates to about 3,750 years ago (between Abraham and Moses). The problem is that rocks dated by argon-argon to 50 million years ago would also correlate to 3,750 years ago. If the correlation chart is right, then given the right outcrop, dating could give you younger rocks laid down before older ones–an obvious problem. Why would rocks formed at the same time give such different (correlated) ages when measured by the same method? Or stated another way, what governs whether isotopes in a rock formed between Abraham and Moses decay super-fast to appear 50 million years old versus 15,000 years old–a difference of over two orders of magnitude?
3. If the order of fossilization is a function of relative rate of reproduction, why does it also happen to correlate with the order of morphological transitions, like for tetrapods moving onto land or mammals moving back into water?
4. Were dinosaurs really that much more fertile than rodents or birds?
5. When different dating methods that use different assumptions agree (isotopes, tree rings, varves, sediment layers, ice core layers), isn’t that pretty good evidence of their reliability? Would catastrophies that throw up mountain ranges overnight, cause isotopes to decay at rates never observed by humans, and wipe out species also be expected to add layers to seasonal records in accordance with isotope decay rates?
In regard to evolution, I will just point out that faunal succession is only one line of evidence. Others include biogeography, anatomy, and genetics. They each tell a pretty consistent story.
Despite the problems, those who think that the standard of true belief does not allow for concessions to the natural sciences may find WeaverResearch a breath of fresh air. Others will wish for winds of change.
[Comments–both pro and con–on WeaverResearch are welcome. I just ask that they remain respectful; good people will be found on both sides.]
Jared*,
This post reminded me of something that made the rounds among geologists about 10 years ago called Usshering in the Millenium. It is a humorous reconciliation of geologic time to Archbishop Ussher’s “calculation” of the age of the earth.
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly.”
Regardless of all their hard work and imagination the argument of the folks at WeaverResearch rests up a translation of Genesis with which much of the Church agrees but which is, I believe, in error. The argument goes that God created the earth in 6 days and a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years. Therefore the earth is 6,000 years. Now all this rests upon the Hebrew word Yom (ywom). Yom/ywom can be translated into English as a 24 hour period (day) or as an undefined period of time (age, as in the age of Aquarius).
The information I have is from Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D. paper, “The Hebrew Word “Yom” Used with a Number in Genesis 1. When the writer wishes to indicate a numbered day (24 hours) , such as “the third day” they will put a prefix before the number and a prefix in front of the word day (yom). For example Gen. 22: 4
“Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.”
In Hebrew it is written,
“bayywom hasselisi wayyissa’ ’aberaam ’et-‘enayw wayyare’ ’et-hammaqwom merahoq:” (I’ve altered the Hebrew spelling to conform to English spelling)
Notice the first word “bayywom” or bay-ywom (yom) meaning “on-day”. Now look at the second word “hasselisi” or “has-selisi” meaning “the-third”. The two words are translated to mean “on the third day (24 hour period)”. If the writer then means a 24-hour period, day (yom/ywom) and the number will have a prefex as we see with ‘bay-ywom has-selisi’.
However, there is one instance and only one in the Hebrew bible in which ‘yom/ywom’ and ‘selisi’ were used and neither had a prefex attached to either word.
Gen. 1: 13 “And the evening and the morning were the third day.”
In Hebrew this is: “wayehi-‘ereb wayehî-boqer ywom selisi:”
Neither ‘ywon’ nor ‘selisi’ have a prefix attached to them. This is not the form by which Hebrew writers indicate a numbered 24-hr period. This is the only time place in the Hebrew bible in which ‘ywon’ and ‘selisi’ are used without prefixes. This indicates that meaning in Gen 1:13 is not a 24-hr period but rather the other meaning: an undefined period of time. In other words Gen 1:13 should read “And the evening and morning were the third period/age.”
What is true for the ‘third day’ is true for the other ‘days’ of creation. The term yom/ywom and the number are given without prefixes. In other words, these are 24-hr time periods.
WeaverResearch, unfortunately began their project with a mistranslation of the creation story. From that point on they fit data to their mistranslation.
Interesting comment, Rich. I had a semester of biblical Hebrew, but that was almost 10 years ago and I didn’t get much past sentences like, “the man ate the fruit of the tree.” So I don’t really know.
To be fair, I think WeaverResearch is more dependent on scriptures like D&C 77 that refer to the 7,000 years of the earth’s temporal nature and the Ussher chronology.
On D&C 77, I like Jeff Lindsay’s discussion on his website Mormanity of which you are probably aware. He writes: “D&C 77 refers to God’s dealing with man under the present time period (the collection of dispensations of the past several thousand years), and does not say anything about the time of the Creation or age of the earth, or even the antiquity of other humans or humanoids.”
Rich
Rich,
I like it too, although I doubt it reflects what Joseph Smith thought.
Do you think so? There is a problem with a literal interpretation of what Joseph wrote, “We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, …”
I think we can accept that when ‘day’ is mentioned it is an undefined period of time. This is how day is written in the Hebrew bible. However, Joseph wrote “on the seventh day he finished his work.” Thus His work wasn’t finished until the seventh day. Now both the Hebrew bible and the book of Moses says the Lord rested. This is in contradiction with what Joseph wrote. Also, the way Joseph wrote the passage, he indicates that man was also created on the seventh day not the sixth as the Hebrew bible and the book of Moses states. Now I don’t think the Lord is going to tell Moses one thing and Joseph something else.
What I think Joseph is writing about are the dispensations of man’s temporal existence. For in the same sentence Joseph continues not with the creation but with the seventh dispensation, “even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and fudge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.” None of these things are mentioned as part of the creation of the earth in Genesis and Moses. It seems pretty clear to me that the subject of the quote is the dispensations of man and not the creation of the earth. It is the dispensations of man that the Lord would be concerned about and not a geologic lesson on who long it takes to create an earth.
Then look at the term ‘man’s temporal existence’. How do we define what the Lord means by man (got that from Nibley)? And how does that relate to ‘temporal existence’? I think the term the Lord means when he talks about ‘man’ must relate to the plan of salvation. Salvation is being saved from the physical death but also the second death, the spiritual death. Thus I believe the meaning of ‘man’ is a creation susceptible to both deaths. Prior to Adam, humans could only undergo the physical death. The second death hadn’t been introduced yet as Adam hadn’t yet fallen. I think ‘temporal existence’ corresponds to that time that humans became susceptible to the second death. Thus the being the Lord calls ‘man’ didn’t show up on the earth until the introduction of the second death.
Joseph seems to be discussing the dispensation of man, the creature susceptible to both deaths. Everything the Lord has given to us is to help us to obtain the Celestial Kingdom. And it is this paradigm through which we need to interpret His word.
Rich
Rich,
I had in mind D&C 77:6. Also D&C 88 which talks of the revelation of God’s doing in each thousand years from the first to the seventh. I think Joseph probably accepted the Ussher chronology–why wouldn’t he? Note that I’m not referencing the length of creation, but the time back to Adam’s fall.
I guess my overall point is that I think there is a legitimate scriptural case to be made for the Joseph Fielding Smith point of view. Indeed, if it were not for modern science we would probably all think it was the correct interpretation. Over time we re-interpret scripture or find things that the original authors did not have in mind, and that is fine. We are a learning Church, something people forget. I just doubt that Joseph had such subtlties in mind, particularly as early at 1832. I think Joseph probably thought that Adam’s fall was the beginning of physical death on the earth, and that it happened 4,000 B.C., and that colored at least his early revelations.
You may be right. The Lord can only work with the level of knowledge held by each prophet. And that Joseph may have indeed have believed that the earth was created in 6 thousand years. That does not alter the fact that what Joseph wrote in these particular scriptures does not fit the creation paradigm of Genesis and Moses. Therefore I find it difficult to use these scriptures as the basis of the 6,000 year creation thesis. D&C 77 and Genesis + Moses seem to be discussing different things. D&C 77 seems to be talking about the dispensations of man and Genesis + Moses are talking about the creation of the earth. Now one can certainly argue that Joseph may have seen them as one in the same. And, perhaps he did. This doesn’t alter the fact that he doesn’t seem to be talking about the creation of the earth. I think he was talking about the dispensations of man and knew he was talking about these dispensations. And, I believe he knew he was not talking about the creation of the earth at this time.
Just a thought.
Rich
Jared, as I look back on my comments I don’t think I addressed your comments on Joseph Fielding Smith. I agree there was a legitimate scriptual case to be made for Joseph Fielding Smith’s position. Nevertheless, his view was opposed by a number of Church leaders at the time. Pres. Smith wanted to make his position Church doctrine but the Presidency refused to do so.
To say he was justified then, is not to say we are justfied today. Obviously WeaverResearch does. They have that right. But in lieu of what we know now, to view these scriptures using the same paradigm which enlighted Pres. Smith does not seem justifiable.
Rich
Rich,
I think we pretty much agree. You and I are willing to let outside information inform our understanding of scripture, but not all people are.
You’re full of crap Jared. Creationists are among the foremost attackers of Mormonism using tactics not so different than those they use against scientists. Rich Deem is a prime example. Check out his web site and specifically a quote attributed to Zegura from a 2004 study. Then read what Zegura actually wrote. Deems “proofs” also contradict themselves. Zegura concludes that the ancestors of Native Americans came from the Altay Mountains (thousands of miles from the Bering Straits) but Deem quotes earlier research concluding that they were paleo-Siberians. At one point Deem seems to imply that the ancestors of Native Americans were Eskimoes. Nowhere does he mention Q-P36, a pre-Columbian lineage common to Jews and Native Americans.
Doug,
I’m sorry but I really don’t know what you are getting at. What is it that I’ve written that you are taking issue with here? From your comment, you seem to be down on creationists. Perhaps you are confusing my polite treatment of WeaverResearch with agreement?
Great site!
Is there any mileage in re-incarnation whereby ‘we’ helped create this earth quite literally, progressing as fast as we could through material bodies? If the story of the possessed swine is true then there is plenty of scope for dis-embodied spirits to take other bodies of a non-human nature. There would be great symmetry if we could claim to create this earth until our penultimate incarnation (mortal man) where those who made it this far get a chance at the final re-birth into our final evolved state?
As for prophets I get the feeling they are pressured to provide answers when God himself may well have provided no answers - Pres. Hinkley was fairly brave to suggest that he doesn’t know all doctrine on TV (though its a shame he retracted himslef for our benefit.)
I accidentally submitted my last comment without finishing. I was just saying that D&C 77:12 is not a case of God telling Joseph one thing and Moses another. It was actually refering to the physical creation, in which Adam was place upon the earth on the seventh day as opposed to the spiritual creation in which he was place upon the spirit earth on the sixth day.
One interesting point that is almost always missed in this verse has to do with the earth being sanctified on the seventh day of physical creation. God compares it with the earth being sanctified during the Millenium. We can assume that any attribute of the sanctified earth during the Millenium would apply to the sanctified earth on the seventh day of physical creation. One attribute is that there will be no death during the Millenium. In other words, the condition of deathlessness among living things was not introduced until the earth was sanctified on the seventh day. Prehistoric life could have lived and died for billions of years.
Sorry about the break in my comments. If have more to say, but I will wait until I know someone reads this before I add anything more.
It looks like I didn’t accidentally submit the first part of my comment after all. I must have simply deleted it.
I actually started my comment by saying I am confused that references to Genesis and Moses would be used in a discussion of physical creation. Brigham Young once said that Genesis chapter 1 is a description of the spiritual creation. I thought it was understood that Genesis 1 and Moses 2 describes the spiritual creation while Genesis 2 and Moses 3 describes the seventh day of physical creation. In other words, both Genesis and Moses skip the 6 days of physical creation and jump directly to the seventh day.
Something I read by a biblical scholar named William Whiston make this clear. He found that in Genesis 1, “Elohim” was translated to “God.” After the first few verses of chapter 2, the combination of “Jehovah Elohim” was translated to “Lord God.” This is confusing to William and other biblical scholars. To us it just means that Elohim had sole resposibility for the spiritual creation. The physical creation was a joint effort between Jehovah and Elohim. It is easy to find where the discussion of the spiritual creation ends and the physical creation starts. Just look for the first occurance of “Lord God.”
This is consistent with Abraham 3 & 4, which only describes the physical creation. In Genesis it says that God created the spirit world. In Abraham it says the Gods (plural) created the physical world. “Gods” is just a short cut for saying Lord God, or in the original, Jehovah Elohim.
In the comment I accidentally deleted, I went on to discuss D&C 77:12, which is now in my previous comment. Notice that D&C 77:12 is consistent with Genesis 2 and Moses 3 in saying that Adam was created on the seventh day of physical creation.
I recently spoke to a friend in the church who also felt that much of Genesis was dealing with the spiritual creation. But I beg leave to differ. A great mist of water went up from the earth to water the ground. As though if the grass, the trees, and other vegetation didn’t get water, then they would dry up and wither away. So how could we be speaking of the “spiritual”. which is eternal in nature? What is terribly troubling to me is how you silly fools are so concerned about the long,long ago theories of how earth was created and all that and yet you don’t care a thing about how your beloved country is being taken over by people who were taught from their youth to hate us and now they are beginning to oppress us , financially, religiously, they threaten our security. Woe unto this nation!
you should be willing to here all oppinions and not just your own because it makes you look scared
None to answere? That only figures. We don’t want to hear about our National duties because we are so righteous that God no longer expects us to care! You people are sinners and we are better than you! Thank you O’ God of Heaven for making us more righteous than those around us! Yea we know that thou lovest us more than all the rest because they are spiritual loosers from the pre- existance! We know that we are chosen above them all because thou findest favour with us more than them! Give us commandments to destroy them, for you love us more!
I saw something on t.v. the other nite about evolution, I’m sorry, Evilution, vs. Intelligent Design. It was up in Dover, Pa. They held court and decided that Intelligent Design was a mask for “Creationsm”. Well it goes both ways. Evilution is just a mask for Athiesm, which is connected to “creationsm.” But I would like to ask the so-called scientist a couple of questions. First is: Do you know what the word “creation” means? It means to organize or to reorganize that which already exists. These scientists have taken the raw elements of the earth and have made them into I-pods, blackberry’s, cell phones, computers, big screen t.v., and so forth, for intelligent purposes,with an intelligent design behind it. They send spacecraft into outter space to find other intelligent life forms to also see as to wether or not they are more progressed than we are. At what? In discovering greater ways to create greater things.To harness the elements thereof. These scientist are creators and yet deny the “creation” theory of the Bible. Hypocrites! The Bible simply tells of an intelligent life form with the ability to create planets and lifeform from the raw elements. Would this not give incentive to the scientists to explore these possibilities from other planets? How can the “Creation” theory therefore by disregarded by these so-caled brilliant men?