Raymond (40) there are arguably places where prophets have said life’s been going on longer than 7000 years. (Depending upon how one takes the 2.5 billion figure)

I definitely agree that Mormons have no really good theological reason to embrace young earth creationism. However many buy into the “no death before the fall” rather than the “no death in the garden before the fall” view. That gives one a de facto young earth creationism. Not to mention those who believe that the flood story literally meant all life on earth except what fit on the ark end up with a de facto young earth at the time of Noah. I don’t think those readings are correct mind you. But I can understand those who don’t have much nuance in how they read thinking along those lines.

Ben S (43) It’s interesting that Joseph Fielding Smith rejected the sort of cataclysmic dispensations that Brigham Young embraced, which some used to explain dinosaurs. Of course there is a connection between Smith and Carson in terms of the 7th Day Adventism apologetics as you noted.

Raymond (47) Yes I agree with that. But D&C 77 has that phrase “temporal existence” which tends to push the idea that it’s dealing with it’s fully existence. There are reasons to reject that (not the least of which being the D&C 77 appears composed from fairly fragmentary notes – and looking at similar speeches where there were multiple note takers gives us reason to be a tad skeptical of reading too much into particular words).

Henry Eyring was not afraid to sit down with Joseph Fielding Smith and share his own view of what science says about the age of the earth and its development over time, a topic where Smith was not especially knowledgable. Smith’s was respectful of Eyring’s understanding and did not denounce him as departing from the doctrines of the Church, even though it differed significantly from Smith’s own viewpoint. As I understand it, when Smith published his own views in a book, it had specifically not had an endorsement from the First Presidency, and Elder Talmage of the Twelve WAS then endorsed in giving a talk in the Tabernacle and publishing a Church pamphlet which offered acceptance of modern geology, and thus a rejection of YEC.

This issue is a good place for Church members to learn the distinction between actual Church doctrines, which members are expected to believe in, and opinions of individual Church leaders, even if they are Apostles or Seventies. Most of all, the lack of any urgency by the Church to require members to believe any particular variation of beliefs about the details of the creation of the earth and life means that it does not really matter, to your salvation or anyone else’s, what you believe about it, and that members should NOT demand that other members agree with their own views.

But I also feel the general public should be able to expect scholars to be able to explain themselves succinctly, logically, and often. If that doesn’t happen, or cannot happen, I see no fault in people believing things that they would not believe if they knew all the facts.

And if someone does know all the facts, but still chooses to believe a certain way, then I believe the issue is not as clear and obvious as I or the scholarly community like to believe. So, bringing it back to Ben Carson, since, due to both his impressive life and professional experiences and the few opportunities I have listened to him speak, I consider him to be a sensical human being, I have to accept believing in a young earth and six-day creation really is rational for him. Likely, this is because he belongs to a religious group that believes such things, and he has had sufficient, life-changing spiritual experiences to sufficiently outweigh his scientific skepticism.

I have had the same kind of experiences on different matters, to the point where I believe there is an invisible God who really does help me make decisions in my everyday life, and that I was promised this invisible God could never leave me because a man dunked me in a large bathtub and a bunch of other men touched my hair for a couple minutes and told me to do something. All this despite the fact that I don’t generally think groups that exclude females should have any power or make any decisions for other people. My life is full of contradictions that make sense to me. Why not the same for everyone else, too?

All that said, I have little problem with inspired scripture being “wrong,” to use binary language.

“Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.”

Reading it naturally, I think most people would say this is talking about an earth that is only 7,000 years old. That’s not the only way to read it, but it’s the most straightforward one.

Packbear, as my presidential pick in #26 suggests, I don’t agree with the standard Republican position on education. :) But I can understand why people like it, and I think Ben Carson likely does believe in it.

Joseph Fielding Smith was very much a YEC, once writing that he was “of the firm opinion, perhaps… almost conviction, that the dinosaurs lived here with man less than six thousand years ago.”

To the contrary, I respect someone who is genuine enough to be honest about what he believes, even when he knows other people will make fun of it or think he is wrong. And Joel, as a Republican, Ben probably thinks education should be given back to the states, so there’s probably no risk of him imposing his ideas in classrooms across the country. :)”

I agree, don’t you? :)

To the contrary, I respect someone who is genuine enough to be honest about what he believes, even when he knows other people will make fun of it or think he is wrong. And Joel, as a Republican, Ben probably thinks education should be given back to the states, so there’s probably no risk of him imposing his ideas in classrooms across the country. :)

Latter-day Saints have no excuse for embracing Young Earth Creationism. Joseph Smith rejected creation ex nihilo. Both the Book of Moses and D&C 76 insist that our earth is only one of uncountable worlds inhabited by God’s children that are at different stages of their development. The Book of Abraham teaches that our premortal life with God predates the creation, and that rather than being instantaneous miracles, the creation required existing materials, craftsmanship and time. Most of all, God is a material being who is NOT utterly unlike the world he made for us, and did NOT bring time and matter into existence in an instant. Many YEC believers insist that our earth is the sole home of humanity. Their concept of God and his purposes and our relationship to him are very distinct from theirs.

It would be a bit like Mitt Romney wanting textbooks on the history of the Americas to include a few chapters on the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites. But he was pretty good at recognizing the difference between his sphere of religious beliefs and tenets and the public, secular sphere.

Thus I find his views on evolution to be highly concerning, and those regarding global warming. They suggest that he does not, and thus likely will not, turn to experts when a crisis occurs.We have the National Academy of Sciences, which provides advice to the President, and to the country on issues of science and technology. I’m not sure that someone who so entirely rejects scientific evidence on issues such as the age of the earth, or the patterns of climate would be someone I want in charge these days.

And apologies for participating in the thread jack.