During my time as an undergraduate geology student at Brigham Young University (B.S. 1984), the “days of Peleg” (Gen. 10:25) came up more than once. I fondly recall Professors Morris Peterson, Ken Hamblin, Lehi Hintze and others chatting with us students around campfires during geology field trips. I recall them making the point that there were better interpretations than the highly creative interpretation that it was the continents which were divided during the days of Peleg. These professors were the ones that first introduced me to the plainer understanding that “divided” was more likely intended to communicate a political reality that has continued uninterrupted to this day — that boundary lines or borders between tribes were established. They reinforced the fact that there is little biblical and no physical evidence to go out on a geological limb to claim that Gen. 10:25 refers to a catastrophic episode of continental drift.
There are those in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have a worldview akin to the Evangelical fundamentalist worldview which limits evidence of truth to a universally inerrant Bible. The reality however is that creation itself is a God given evidence of creation, every bit as authoritative as the Bible (or the opinions of general authorities). And so when we study geology for instance, we can obtain legitimate evidence from God about creation. I’m convinced that when we study geology, we obtain glimpses of the handiwork of God — we learn a little bit about God’s methods. Like when we study the Bible to learn about God’s ways, I think He considers our efforts to learn of His ways through other legitimate means to be worshipful acts.
Concerning Peleg, when we study geology, we see things like stratigraphic, fossil, and even glacial links spanning across continents that are no longer connected. And we also see how the magnetic orientation of the basalts on either side of mid-oceanic ridges is parallel, illustrating a constant, uniform spread of the seafloor rather than catastrophic one. Since the present is the key to the past (i.e., present processes can be used to model past processes, especially where there is the continuity of an ongoing process), the duration of seafloor spreading between continents can be established: the mid-Atlantic rift opened up approximately 20 million years ago and has been spreading at about 5 centimeters per year. This is of course too long to have happened during the lifespan of Peleg.
The entire point to the background I have presented is not to invite discussion of the specific details of the fossil, stratigraphic, glacial, or magnetic record, but to clearly establish that God used “PROCESS” in creation. And this evidence of God’s process is not limited to geology. The evidence for process in creation is clear in every science; biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. As a scientist and engineer (M.S., 1987), it pleases me to be able to understand that God, existing within time and space, uses process. Those who preach that God breathed (or spoke or waved His hand) the Earth into existence around 4,000 BC or 4 million or 400 million years ago need to explain why process is so apparent in a spontaneous creation. Whatever date spontaneous creationists choose for creation, it’s always mid-process. And that communicates to me that they believe God is trying to trick us, feigning process where none existed. Anyway, I like the restored gospel for that reason (among others) – it allows for the process that is evident. Those Latter-day Saints that deny it are a paradox to me.
I’m also convinced that just because we can discern process in God’s creation, that does not mean that His works are not miracles. For instance, rain is no less of a miracle just because we understand the water cycle. Now I do not doubt that God can “muscle” some wonderful things outside of conventional “process”. Perhaps some of Moses’ or Jesus’ miracles happened this way? I think some people like these kinds of miracles better. I tend to recognize all God’s miracles, whether we are oblivious to God’s process or are to some extent familiar with God’s process. But I do recognize an important distinction.
Whenever we go to the well of the mystery for an explanation of a miracle, we use a “chip”. And there is a direct relationship between number of chips used and the credibility of religion. Call it the “skepticism factor” if you like. Certainly, every religion uses chips. If we didn’t, I suppose our religion would be just another science. I for one don’t worship science. But when we use too many chips, especially in cases where there is no need to, we strain credibility and the skepticism factor goes way up.
The days of Peleg is one of those instances where there is no need to play one of our precious chips. No theological truth hangs on the balance. Sure God could have muscled the continents apart in some way foreign to our observations and understanding of process. But by playing that chip we actually undermine all those really important chips that we need in order for our religion to taste good, most importantly the mysteries of the resurrection and the events surrounding the restoration.
Bottom line, I have the flexibility to align my beliefs with the biblical interpretations of one or two apostles who opined that the continents were divided in the days of Peleg. Or I can place significant weight in God’s other witness to creation, i.e., creation itself, and believe the splitting of the continents occurred over millions of years. I have chosen the later because of the additional, supporting data points. Lest anyone worry for me, the First Presidency warned on May 4, 2007, that “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.”
Others can reconcile the evidence differently than I do if they feel the trade-off (i.e., higher skepticism factor) is worth it. I certainly won’t preclude the possibility that God has really big muscles. 😉 I just don’t think He needs them here.
Rudolf,
I am a geology student at Texas A&M University. Just today I was sitting in a lecture about the early Cambrian radiation of phyla (an explosion of new phyla, families, genuses and species that occurred 543 million years ago). After discussing the various results of this revolutionary event in the history of the Earth, our instructor admitted that scientists still don’t really know WHY it happened.
I sat there debating with myself over whether or not I should consider this as “evidence” for divine intervention. On the one hand, the seemingly inexplicable has happened. On the other, I don’t want to be guilty of believing in the “God of the gaps.” I settled on a middle position much like what you have described. I marvel at how much we don’t know, and I likewise marvel at the miracles that we do understand.
I thank God that he has allowed us to discover so many of the wondrous processes he uses, and I don’t doubt his existence simply because I have learned a bit about him.
James
“Now I do not doubt that God can “muscle” some wonderful things outside of conventional “process”. Perhaps some of Moses’ or Jesus’ miracles happened this way?”
Perhaps God just used a process that we don’t understand yet. Or maybe we do, but we don’t think of it in that way.
If we are to use the “chips” analogy then might I suggest that our individual chips remaining are limited to the appropriate amount available less those chips dogmatically played on our behalf by the Church. More to the point, a central chip played by the Church is modern Prophets. We can’t necessarilly choose to reserve that chip for another play. I believe Joseph Fielding Smith was among those who advocated the “day’s of Peleg” theory for continental divide. He was the Prophet while doing so, so relegating his statements to the musing’s “of two or three apostles” seems to be understating the issue.
The concern I have with some of the conclusions of this post, seem to be part of a new general attitude the Church is adopting regarding former Prophetic utterances which the Church would prefer not to endorse. This notion is advocated in the 2007 First Presidency warning issued earlier. The idea is that anything that Church leaders may have said on a variety of topics may be incorrect – and this does not matter so long as it does not directly alter perceptions regarding the atonement. So if the whole polygamy thing was wrong, it is okay so long as we get the crucifixion right. The prophecy chip has been played, and frankly I think the rules state that once a chip has been put in play, it must remain in play. Whether that principle applies univerally may be debatable, but it is certainly the case with the class of chips Prophets come in.
Hi Rudolf,
Thanks for the post. This is off topic but I was wondering if you or anyone else has any theories as to what the Bible is trying to teach by having the early patriarchs live so long. I myself don’t believe they lived for 100s of years but I’m not sure what is being taught. I thought of this as you discussed the idea that the “days of Peleg” may refer to a political/social division rather than a geological one.
Reminds me of Noah’s grandson who divided the lands between Noah’s family and the others, according to their languages.
I too believe that Jehovah followed natural law and processes to bring about the organization of this world. What gives me thought though is how do we know that He doesn’t have the power to speed up the processes? I am not saying this to try to get to an age of 6,000 years for the earth. What I am saying is that what we might describe as a “catastrophic” time frame for continental drift, might just be a day in the life for God.
Having said that, I believe that the dividing in the times of Peleg could have been political in nature, however, we cannot rule out the geological until we have a perfect knowledge of the workings and timings of God.
Rudolph,
The timing of the continental drift theory that you cite may well be correct, but it may be that your assumption of the division of the land in the days of Peleg was across the Atlantic is in error.
The scriptures indicate that the Atlantic Ocean has always been the divider of the land mass since the days of Adam. Eden was “eastward” on the land mass, (Moses 3:8) and Adam’s grandson, Enos, moved the people of God from the place that Adam dwelt to the “land of Cainan, a journey from the east sea”( Moses 6:17, 41-42). The land division in the days of Peleg would therefore have been on the west of America, near the “boundaries of the everlasting hills.”
That the “earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided” is a very clear statement that the division was not a political one but was a physical division. A highway, or land-bridge, is to be “cast up” in the midst of the “Great Deep” that will return the earth to the way it was before it was divided. The greatest “deep” on the planet is the Pacific Ocean and the Lost Tribes will be coming across this land bridge to the Rocky Mountains. The Lost Tribes went north from Assyria. There has been much of Ephraim and Manasseh found in Europe but very few of the other lost tribes. They must therefore have gone east of the Urals into Siberia and Mongolia. That they are still in the north is indicated by the presence of ice that “shall flow down at their presence.” These people would be the indigenous tribes of those areas and would have no more remembrance of who they were than do the indigenous tribes of America.
If the Lord is going to “cast up” a land-bridge to return the land to the way it was, He therefore must have sunk this land-bridge in the days of Peleg. This may well be in synch with modern geological theories, considering the amount of seismic activity around the Pacific Rim. It may be that where we now have the Bering Sea was once a land-bridge that joined the continents.
-Theodore
While I would have to say that I agree with Rudolf for the most part, I have to also say that I think God knows His laws and processes far better than our science currently does. I have every hope that our science will eventually gain greater understanding, but we aren’t there yet.
That being true, I have to look at things we accomplish today that would have seemed miraculous, and non-process to those of the past, which we now look at as very truly explainable and acceptable within the process as we understand it. Eventually, I believe that all of God’s mysteries, and all miracles will be explainable and understandable.
As for Peleg; I really see nothing there that involves my faith. I would agree that there wasn’t a massive continental separation. I have often wondered if we are barking up the wrong ocean. So much of the Pacific is so shallow… But that is neither here nor there. I wasn’t there, so whether the Biblical text refers to political divisions, reprises the Tower of Babel, separation of tribes, or separation of continents, I really choose to not ante up any of my chips and you can deal me out =)
– Ed
I agree with what has been stated, this borders on the grey area that many do not like to venture into, the line that calls the prophets “subject to like passions” but nevertheless able to be the conduit for the Lord in both communication and literal power. The main crux that i feel is important is that what we as disciples actually do, is that we focus on the instructions of the prophet that lead us to Christ, that help us to come unto Him, this is confirmed by the Spirit and our conscience. Do not let the inconsequential details that neither science nor falliably translated records can confirm 100% detract us from righteousness and truth. Like Hugh Nibley said regarding the book of abraham translation, only an egyptian who actually lived back then knows what is really said by those characters.
As individuals we must ever focus on keeping the commandments, learning truth and embracing all of it and not letting ineffectual details distract us.
Hi Theodore
I think I follow your chain of scripture interpretation. Is this your personal discernment or are you drawing from others? Anyway, I think you are saying that the closing/flooding of the Bering land bridge is what scripture refers to when it talks of the land being divided. And a future opening of that land bridge would return the land to how it was before it divided. I am not particularly interested a dialog about the series of conclusions you reach to get to this idea. One thing you do, perhaps unwittingly, which does interest me is pose a natural process for division of the land (and later restoration of it), i.e., glaciation which of course raises and lowers sea level and has dramatic manifestation in the shallow seas of Beringia. I’m afraid though that geological evidence indicates that the land bridge most recently closed (and hence divided the land) over 7,000 years ago. If you accept a 6,000 year biblical chronology, this would be way too early for Peleg. Now that’s a big assumption about your beliefs on my part, but if you accept that, how does that play into your conjecture?
Anyway, thank you very much for commenting and presenting an alternative idea to the catastrophic seafloor spreading/continental drift many Latter-day Saints have in mind when they think of Peleg.
Rudy
Jake said and others also touched on the following:
“Perhaps God just used a process that we don’t understand yet. Or maybe we do, but we don’t think of it in that way.”
I thought I was clear in my blog that I believe God often use processes we don’t understand or for which we have insufficient data to even begin to hypothesize about? Oh well. Just to clarify, these kinds of acts of God are what I refer to as “mysteries”. As a Latter-day Saint who rejects that God’s handiwork was/is akin to magic, I have to believe there is process in everything He does.
thanks for commenting.
Rudy
Edwin said:
“I really choose to not ante up any of my chips and you can deal me out =)”
Well said!!!
best
Rudy
Hi Sireofmany
You said:
“… we cannot rule out the geological until we have a perfect knowledge of the workings and timings of God.”
I couldn’t agree more. I’m just not going to place my chips on it. Latter-day Saints look stupid when we fall on our swords for such when better understandings exist, understandings which don’t impact our theology or dedication one whit.
Rudy
“learning truth and embracing all of it and not letting ineffectual details distract us.”
So focus on the whole, and avoid being distracted by the parts. Interesting hermeneutics.
If a Prophet declares (prophetically) that something is so, the thing can never be irrelevant if your religion is built upon the foundation of Prophets and Apostles. If we dismiss everything not tied to a narrow definition of the atonement as unimportant, then you dismiss the majority of the restored corpus of doctrine. Essentially you kill the Church’s identity, and confuse the restored gospels import. Especially given that outside of the Godhead/trinity debate, there is little uniqueness to the LDS perspective of the atonement viewed narrowly. This undermines the whole premise of the Church.
Rudy,
They are conclusions I have reached from my pondering the scriptures. I don’t recall reading of these ideas from others.
D&C 133:26-27 states that “the ice shall flow down at their presence,” and that “an highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep.” This is opposite from the effect of glaciation. Therefore, according to the scriptures, the land must have sunk in the days of Peleg and will be raised again prior to the coming of the Lost Tribes.
-Theodore
Howdy Cowboy
Rhetorical questions:
On May 14, 1961, Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announced to a stake conference in Honolulu:
“We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.”
He added:
“The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.”
Can general authorities speak of things irrelevant to our savation? When they speak, especially when not in unison, can they ever be wrong?
Rudy
When asked about this statement by a reporter shortly after the moon landing, his answer was something like “So I was wrong.” JFS, himself, admitted that he could be wrong when speaking of things irrevelant to our salvation.
Larry P
Rudolph –
That is very interesting, I have heard the story before many times, but never actually read the direct quote. You will notice that in my comment I included the qualifier “prophetically” in paranthesis. I have always suggested the need to allow Prophets the privelege of mortal conjecture, which need not be held to the strict standards of prophetic/absolute utterances. I have never made much of this account because in each case where I have heard it discussed the person telling the story seemed to allude that President Smith’s comment was just that, personal opinion. In fact I recall that the first time I heard the story it was said that President Smith was responding to a question with watercooler candor kind of like:
“Pres. Smith, do you think man will ever land on the moon?”
Pres. Smith response: “No I don’t think so, it doesn’t seem to be in the program.”
Because this is the way I understood the account I never felt that President Smith’s comment should be held against him as failed prophecy. I will look up the account now for myself, but according to the thorough account you provided these comments seem to have some pretty glaring implications.
To answer your question, “can a Prophet ever be wrong, especially when not in unison.” Yes of course they can, this account proves that, and there are plenty of others which do the same. There are even occassions where the Brethren have been wrong in unison, Adam – God, Priesthood ban “folklore”. The follow up question should be, “can they be true Prophets when they prophesy, and turn out to be wrong?” I have trouble accepting that one, and the suggestion that the members can “write it down in their books” seems to be a clear attempt at being prescient.
Larry:
With my prior understanding of the circumstances, President Smith’s response to reporters always sounded appropriate. Given the context of Rudolphs telling of the account I think that changes. Of course President Smith would admit that he was wrong in that case, it was a demonstratable fact, what else could he say? Men who allow themselves to be sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, twice each year do not have the luxury of making incorrect “predictions” while retaining religious credibility.
“Now I do not doubt that God can ‘muscle’ some wonderful things outside of conventional ‘process.’ Perhaps some of Moses’ or Jesus’ miracles happened this way?”
This is a great post.
I do, however, think the term “muscle” sounds a little — well, limiting? After all, creation in and of itself is a tremendous display of muscle. I think I just am bothered (it’s not a personal thing, I’m speaking more about my disposition) by the idea that God follows natural law and “process,” and not the other way around. Not that you explicitly stated such, but that the word “muscle” just makes me think you implicitly sort of think of it that way.
Just to qualify, both my father and grandfather were reputable scientists, so I have no problem adopting difficult scientific conjectures/assumptions into gospel discussion. I don’t have an inherent problem with the “Big Bang,” for example — a theory that is challenged in recent years, incidentally.
Actually, it is because of different approaches to how things work — i.e., miracle or science? — that God becomes all the more mysterious and great. Isn’t his hand in all of it?
I prefer to think that God’s union with the universe is infinite, so “process” and “muscle” are one and the same power — God creates, muscles into will, “breathes life,” divides the sea, lets science run its course, His course — all these powers are God’s powers. Why make a distinction between natural law and God’s law?
I suppose there might be room for an argument about the nature of the fall in here somewhere. Still —
By the way, doesn’t everyone know the moon landings were staged?
By the way, doesn’t everyone know the moon landings were staged?
Just a hypothetical, but if that were to be determined true you can bet that many of the people who so quickly dismiss JFS comments as human error, would suddenly hear a prophecy in those comments.
As a side note, I think your comments addressing the order of creation are more important than may seem on the surface. There is a lot of ambiguity in our Church surrounding God’s influence/subjectivity to natural law. Everything we read in the creation accounts suggests that God directed nature, and nature followed its commandment if you will. I think the ambiguity comes from the various interpretations of Joseph Smiths comments against creation ex nihlo, coupled of course with observations in the natural world. Theologically speaking, I think it is important to recognize that all things are subject to him and not the other way around.
I don’t know much about President Smith’s remarks regarding man being on the moon, but I have heard of them before–and sometimes I wonder if he was right.
Human beings don’t live on the moon, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Sure, we visited there once and we may again. But some say that the salvation of the human race lies in getting some of us off this planet, in case something were to go terribly wrong. Perhaps President Smith meant that when the Saviour comes again that He won’t have to send a special dispatch of angels out to retrieve the off-worlders. Or maybe he will. I don’t know!
Regarding revealed and un-revealed science, prophecies and explainations thus far, one HAS to take in account the larger picture, ie., that of an eternal perspective, looking through the eyes of the Creator himself.
Gods are bound by Eternal Law. They cannot go beyond such without ceasing their power, dominion and so forth.
However, their whole existence uses boundlessness within that parameter…and since we cannot understand infiniteness until we “get” there, excepting a few mysteries that are personally explained on a revelation basis, a God’s overall expression of creation, control of matter, miracles, or any other extention of the spiritual into physical is simply not explainable or understood by mortal intelligence.
I definitely agree to the descriptive use of the word PROCESS. All progress from the carnal to spiritual, from mortality to immortality is a PROCESS. “Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a LITTLE, THERE a LITTLE”…applies to every atom of science, religion, and the whole of existence.
Secondly: As to the authenticity & application of prophecy or comment from any Prophet…..we are told to, after hearing or reading, to take it to the Lord in prayer, on our knees, and GET for ourselves a true testimony of it’s veracity…etc. Not to rely on MAN, but to have the Holy Ghost witness to our spirit….spirit to spirit for FURTHER light and KNOWLEDGE!
An unfallible PROCESS in ALL THINGS !!!
Thirdly: In our own private PROCESS of gaining understanding of all these things, IF it is NOT necessary in the CURRENT stage of progress…in the attainment of our OWN IMMORTALITY and ETERNAL LIFE…we are wasting our time and energy. Again, looking through the eyes of our creator, His intent for the WHOLE of mortality is for that. There are bounds set that will retard or speed our progress…according to our positioning ourselves in alignment with His will and powers.
2 Nephi 32:…almost the whole chapter gives the GREATEST insight into scientific or any other pursuit.
Pay attention to the command to “consecrate” your performance unto the Lord………getting you heaven on your side in any WORTHY pursuit / answers to all questions.
Sam/Rudolf:
For what it is worth, I have not found a clear source for the Joseph Fielding Smith quotes stated above. I have found several second hand accounts, generally on sites critical the Mormonism, which give the exact same statements mentioned by Rudolph. I don’t doubt that the statements are correct, but I generally want to have a more authoritative source for credibilities sake.
Sam – There are always abstract ways of interpreting “Prophecies” to make them correct or incorrect. However President Joseph Fielding Smith comments were very much to the point. He did not employ illusory language that is usually characteristic of statements intending an abstact interpretation. His comments taken litterally render him incorrect, and the tenor of his comments seem very authoritative.
Rudolf – Do you know of a primary source where this account can be researched in better detail?
“Secondly: As to the authenticity & application of prophecy or comment from any Prophet…..we are told to, after hearing or reading, to take it to the Lord in prayer, on our knees, and GET for ourselves a true testimony of it’s veracity…etc. Not to rely on MAN, but to have the Holy Ghost witness to our spirit….spirit to spirit for FURTHER light and KNOWLEDGE!
An unfallible PROCESS in ALL THINGS !!!”
While your comments reflect common sentiment within Mormon culture, the implication is not to see whether or not the Prophet is right or wrong. The idea is to move member support to personal witness as opposed to following on “borrowed light”. More specifically, members are taught that if they pray to know whether a Prophecy, policy, whatever, put forward by the leaders of the Church is true, they should pray and God will tell them through The Holy Ghost that it is true. Again a little research into the Adam-god history makes this point. Orson Pratt, along with a few more silent others, was very opposed to this doctrine put forth by President Brigham Young. It was debated, and became an issue of conflict between Elder Pratt and Pres. Young for a very long time. It does not appear that Orson ever personally accepted the doctrine, and yet he was made to accept it and do so publicly before the church, otherwise face excommunication. This kind of goes back to the control argument, but it could be argued that your statements echoing sentiments within the church is nothing more than a call to conformity.
Thirdly: In our own private PROCESS of gaining understanding of all these things, IF it is NOT necessary in the CURRENT stage of progress…in the attainment of our OWN IMMORTALITY and ETERNAL LIFE…we are wasting our time and energy. Again, looking through the eyes of our creator, His intent for the WHOLE of mortality is for that. There are bounds set that will retard or speed our progress…according to our positioning ourselves in alignment with His will and powers.
I keep hearing this justification for overlooking the “mysteries” which seem incredible from the Church. What about learning any detail of revelation or the Gospel broadly is not valuable to our eternal progress? This argument could be used to discount much of what is revealed in the scriptures, and much of what modern Prophets have said. Was the Lord wasting Moses’s precious time when he showed him worlds without number, and the inhabitants thereof, and commanded that he should write. Was the Lord wasting Nephi’s and John the Revelators time when he employed biblical imagery to show them the history of the world, with emphasis on the end of times. Not only did he command them to write, according to LDS theology, but he had an eloborate scheme of who was ORDAINED to write what. Concerning the creation, apparently the Lord saw fit to not only have the account recorded and preserved through the Bible in our day, he also commissioned and brought forth other writings through revelation to Joseph Smith two additional retellings of the event in The Pearl of Great Price. If the gospel and prophetic utterances are relevant at all, then it is all relevant to our progress and development. If God saw fit to bring these issues to the table in our day by our modern Prophets, then he likely intended for us to adress them long before we attained perfection in gospel compliance. I make that point to squelch any rebuttal that, “eventually (meaning after we have attained perfection) God we will need to learn these things, but for now all I have to do is repent of my sins and do whatever the Church says”.
Hi, Cowboy.
Yes, I agree completely. I wasn’t attempting to rescue President Smith’s “prophecy”; I was pointing out a possible and interesting kernel of truth.
I have appreciated your thoughtful comments.
Hi Cowboy, others.
The following FAIR wiki links may help communicate that Latter-day apostles and even prophets are capable of error. Error is corroborated in the Bible record and by clear statements from Nephi and Moroni about their experiences in their written records.
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Fallibility_of_prophets
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Changing_doctrine
One great evidence in the Church that speculation is what is often being uttered or documented as opposed to absolute truth is disagreement among the General Authorities of the Church. And of course you mentioned Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. As I think you know, their theological disagreement was much broader than the example you gave. To that example I would add later disagreements concerning evolution and pre-Adamites. Heck, even Joseph Smith later corrected the words he used to represent the revelation given him and which we now have as the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. There have also been many lesser disagreements among apostles about the “authoritative sounding” statements of individual apostles.
I appreciate what appears to be areminder from you to pray to know truth. You’ll get no argument here. I would also admonish those seeking truth not to chuck God’s original witness of creation. And by that of course I mean creation itself. I would also put out a reminder not to confuse short references to creation in for instance Moses’ PoGP account, and especially not later speculation about those references, and the glorious, clarifying detail that can only come through serious examination of creation.
I’m convinced that those who study science, really anything, obtain glimpses of God’s handiwork others do not enjoy. These compassionate glimpses from God are certainly not binding on others. Hence I’ve told no one “how to play their chips” — all I’ve given is what I believe to be prudent counsel. I’m also convinced that it is not so much these glimpses which we receive from God which will give us the advantage in Heaven, but rather (you got it) it’s that process that is used to discover and commit to our brains and truth that we will take. So we should try to get comfortable with it here.
Thank you to all for your participation in this blog.
Best
Rudy
p.s., It appears you would like to challenge Joseph Fielding Smith’s quote about travel to the moon. I have provided what I have. The best corroboration would be JFS’s acknowledgment that “I was wrong”.
Sam:
Sorry for the confusion.
Rudolf:
In light of your response I evidently failed to articulate my comments very well. I agree with a a great deal of what you said.
My point about the creation accounts was directed to Sharon who took the “don’t worry about it” approach to traditional religious perspectives on creation vs hard physical evidence to the contrary. I was not intending to suggest a correct perspective, rather to just make the point that the issue is relvevant even though many would suggest it plays no vital role in our salvation, evidenced by the fact that it is recorded thrice in LDS scripture, and a fourth if the endowment is to be counted.
I agree that any claim which suggests that the broad scientific community has an invested interest in disproving religious claims, is entirely without merit. Quite frankly a careful observation of the circumstances highly suggests the opposite. If God and religion could be universally proven realities so that all are in agreement surrounding details thereto, scientists would not have to forfeit their discipline. Surely perspectives would be altered/enhanced, but no kingdom would come crashing down. Earthly claims to authority and subordinate allegiences would not be jeopardized. Funding for scientific “things” would not be cut, and while some would “eat crow” about their formally held beliefs, nobody would be accused of being a liar, or committing fraud or deceit. Obviously the stakes are not the same, seeing that all of these things jeopardize the religious communities if a case could be universally made disproving the existence of God or the truthfullness of the worlds religions. Parenthetically I should here state that I am not advocating atheism, nor do I personally espouse atheistic notions. I am stating that if any groups motives should be held suspect for positions taken in the “creation vs evolution” debate, religion has much more invested in specific outcomes.
Rudolf:
Just a quick response the fallibility of Prophets. This is the place where I think a persons faith takes control of this issue. I cannot prove that evidence of statements made by Prophets or Apostles, that are found to be in error, constitute absolute proof that the person in question is therefore a false Prophet/Apostle. This becomes the place where each of us determines what we will believe given the evidence. My personal feelings are that I find nothing even remotely convincing from Prophetic utterances which would cause me to believe that the leaders of the Church are tapped into divine influence. To counter these feelings many people will refer to recent conference talks, or the proclamation to the family, etc, as proof that the leaders of the Church or truly inspired. The suggestion is that obviously things which teach such good principles could come from no other source than God. I agree most of what is said in conference is good advice, and useful for practical living. How could anyone dispute that the principles taught in the proclamation to family are not key for building healthy and better communities. All the same, there is nothing from any of these sources that could not be contrived by many thoughtful people and organizations. Nearly every example where a Prophet goes out on a limb to say something prescient, ie JFS and the moon landing, they are later dismissed as personal musings. This does nothing to further faith, and lack of evidence in this circumstance is evidence to the contrary.
Rudolf:
Sorry I don’t mean to be superfluos with all of the posts. A follow up to your Post Script comment.
I wasn’t actually challenging your reference to Joseph Fielding Smiths comments at the Honolulu conference, I was hoping you could provide me with a primary resource for studying the account in its entirety. I can’t seem to find anything on the net which is steering me in the right direction. With all of the consistency I have found in the quote from both pro LDS and LDS critical sites, I don’t doubt the accuracy of the account. I am just somewhat OCD with research sometimes.
Thanks,
CB
My dad, who was a physicist and electronics engineer, wrote something like this in one of his journals:
“I hereby give God permission to create life in which ever way He chooses. If that be by evolution, then so be it.”
I’ve never agreed with him that evolution was the end-all-be-all process, but I do believe there is a process involved. My personal belief (not exactly borne out by evidence, but more by spiritual deduction) is that God is a God of infinite variety. Emphasis on the infinite. That is His glory…expansion of His kingdom infinitely. So, in that case, which is more logical to believe…that a dog evolved into a whale, as some claim, or that He used concepts of the physiology of each in common, just on different scales?
So what if there are 16 million different varieties of bacteria (my exaggeration…I have no idea how many varieties there are). God has time on His side and if He wants to make 16 million varieties of anything, He certainly can. If that is inconsistent with our notions of evolution, that’s our problem, not His.
Cowboy
It’s a chore responding to many people in a single post. Sorry for your confusion. Thank you for the slack.
In response to your last post, I believe that faith is ultimately a choice one can make. If one chooses faith, one can ascribe blessings they receive to that choice. Many observe an increase in blessings. Those blessings are what keep people aligned with the Gospel. And certain other people who have chosen faith may not recognize blessings and decide their choice for faith was misplaced. Others may persevere.
It’s all a choice. And choice is a worshipful thing. Going out on a limb is an inherently worshipful act.
You said: “Nearly every example where a Prophet goes out on a limb to say something prescient, ie JFS and the moon landing, they are later dismissed as personal musings. This does nothing to further faith, and lack of evidence in this circumstance is evidence to the contrary.”
I can’t fully agree with your entire statement, but I can say that I hate to be constrained to invest my precious chips. 😉 I’ll mix my metaphors and acknowledge that at some point, limbs have a tendency to break.
r.
2 Peter 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
1. Using scientific interpretation of rocks is no where near the same level as an Apostle or a Prophet.. even if they are not speaking for the church. I would believe them faster than I would believe 1 million scientists. Even if they sound ridiculous to the world.
2. The scriptures say that we err when we think the world has continued on as it always has. In other words.. just because a process is happening today in one way or even in the last hundred years.. doesn’t mean it’s always done that process that way.
3. God could create in an instant if He wanted to. We have no proof that he doesn’t do that. All we have is what it looks like to us today. (Science) It doesn’t mean He is trying to “trick” us. It just means we don’t understand it. What we do have are the scriptures and prophets. Make sure you only give credence to true messengers.
The Lord may have used a long process to divide the land, and he may not have. We don’t know. We do have apostles with the opinion that he did not. For me.. that holds more weight than any measurement we can make today.
Hi Ben
I believe I largely disagree with you for the same reason I disagree with fundamentalists about creation.
You said:
I have to disagree with you. Scripture testifies of God’s creation and so does creation itself. This was the crux of Galileo’s argument with the medieval Roman Catholic Church. It was a good argument then and is still the correct one today. I will, however, concede that both scripture and creation itself need to be interpreted. However, if you are inclined to believe scientists got it wrong when they first observed for instance the water cycle or when they noticed that the sea-floor is spreading slowly, I encourage you to become better acquainted with science. Tell you what, I will believe in 15 prophets and apostle speaking in unison about a more or less instantaneous division of the continents over 1,000,000 scientists who embrace sea-floor spreading as the mechanism for continental drift. 😉 Have you got that level of unison among the prophets and apostles?
You said:
You rightly point out that rates change. No doubt that this occurs. But if you believe that when rates change, the physical evidence does not change along with it, well, this is another thing that an effort to become better acquainted with science could help you with. In geology for instance, “deposition” of sedimentary rocks would happen differently if rates changed (pick up a book on geomorphology or sedimentology). Additionally, the size of crystals in metamorphic rocks would be different if generation rates changed. And magnetically aligned bands on each side of mid-oceanic ridges would not show such parallelism and consistency if rates were meaningfully different than they are today, as you insist.
You said:
You appear to be proposing the kind of creation fundamentalist Christians do. For reasons I discussed in my blog, I disagree with them and I disagree with you, although I will say that God has been known to “muscle” some things. And by that I mean, continue to work through “process”, but process we can not observe today and/or don’t understand. It’s just that where we do understand the process, like the water cycle or sea-floor spreading, there is no need to appeal to this “muscle” or more radically, the “instantaneous” creation you and fundamentalist Christians suggest. When there is no need to play this chip, but members do anyway, they look foolish. Frankly, by doing so they undermine the very gospel they say they love.
You said:
Well, you started out with a reasonable statement — the hedging was good. And I agree it’s always good to listen to apostles. But when they do not speak in unison, you need to be careful NOT to preclude other reasonable opinions, whether those other reasonable opinions come from other apostles or from the trained scientists who have enormous amounts of corroborating data.
s.
I think your post misses the key factor: [i]Why[/i] do people theorize that the Earth’s tectonic shift is alluded to in Genesis? Obviously, this idea is a logical result of the belief in a worldwide flood of Noah.
If the Earth had already split into continents at the time of Noah’s flood (around 2500BC according to the OT CES Manual), then it would create serious problems towards the idea that the flood covered the entire Earth (an idea publicly supported by all Church leaders and Church publications for the last 178+ years). There is obviously no way for animals to get from the middle east to Australia or other continents, so we must theorize that the continents split after the flood, regardless of the violence this does to modern geological thinking. (We could also theorize a miraculous transportation of animals by heavenly carrier, but I’ve never heard it seriously suggested).
I would suggest the “geological” interpretation of Genesis 10:25 is borne of a desire to maintain belief in the LDS view of the worldwide flood of Noah.
Cinepro:
I partly agree with your observation, though I wouln’t limit it to an LDS view of the matter. I think the LDS perspective on a pangea (to tired to check the spelling) of sorts was mostly born out of the ecumenical thinking of this subject during the nineteenth century. I have noticed this to be the case with a great deal of the Church doctrines surrounding the book of Genesis, with the exception of our teaching’s surrounding Adam and Eve and the fall of man.
The above statement notwithstanding, I don’t think that the traditional interpretations are without merit or precedent. I can’t necesarilly speak to the science of the matter, nor am I attempting to state a position on what the actual facts are respecting Peleg and the continental divide. What I would point out is that the biblical account of the flood and Peleg seem to assert the notions which traditional Christianity has espoused for at least two hundred years. During the flood we are told that the fountains of the deep were broken up so that flood rose by both rainfall and natural fountains. It would seem reasonable for the simple scientific mind to argue that seismic activity is implicit in this occurence. Furthermore, it seems that several years ago while studying this topic, I came across some commentary which suggested that several antiquated Jewish/Kabbalistic writings clearly taught that the Peleg, literal earth division theories were the common thought in former times. Lastly, I am pretty certain that Joseph Smith taught the notion of Pangea, specifically relating it’s disconnect to Peleg.
I understand that the debate is based on the equation ((recorded scripture vs. traditional interpretation) vs. observasations in nature), but at least the current interpretations of Genesis are not a modern phenomenon.
If this issue is discussed further, we should keep in mind what the current LDS Old Testament CES Manual says on this matter. Keep in mind this is the text used to educate college-level students in a university or institute class:
(4-22) Genesis 10:25. Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?
“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:73–74.)
LDS Old Testament CES Manual
That’s it. That’s all it says regarding this verse. The manual was first published in 1980, with the most recent approval in 2002.
Maybe apologists and scientists will have their voices heard and the Church will revise the text to acknowledge the uncertainty and debate in the next edition. But I’m not holding my breath.
Cinepro
Thanks for posting the quote from the CES manual (from Joseph Fielding Smith).
No doubt about it, this real time wrenching apart of the continents has been taught in Church. The whole point of the blog is to encourage thinkers today not to disregard God’s witness that is creation. Both the witness of scripture AND the witness of creation need to be consulted in order for the best interpretations to be developed. The Joseph Fielding Smith quote makes it apparent to me that he did not do this, or did not do it seriously, giving reasonable weight to the witness of creation.
I for one prefer to invest my precious “faith” chips in those interpretations where there is consensus among the Brethren, and which consult all the available data. I believe most informed members of the Church of Jesus Christ want that too. That’s not to say God couldn’t have muscled it like Smith envisioned. I just don’t think it’s necessary as a member in good standing to uncritically embrace that interpretation given he spoke independently and did not seriously consult all the data.
You said:
The “geological” interpretation would be the one that allows for sufficient time for the continents to split, given a more or less uniformitarian process, and for animal and plant life to evolve along different lines, given geographic separation/isolation. You seem to be claiming this interpretation best dovetails with a world encompassing flood. I disagree. Frankly, given the lack of natural evidence, a “world encompassing” flood is another one of those traditional interpretations most informed members don’t invest their chips in. But if many or even most members of the Church uncritically accept that it happened on that scale, I would not be surprised. I think what I’m saying is most people don’t care. But when they learn about the science a little, they begin to formulate reasonable resolutions and choose to invest their chips prudently.
As time proceeds, we’ll continue to see science and religion come together. From this particular perspective, I think Joseph Fielding Smith had the misfortune of living during a time of tremendous scientific discovery and advancement. Throughout history, the harmonizing science and religion has never happened in a snap. So I will not fault JFS in the least for holding fast to things that are more tradition than doctrine.
My hunch is we’ll see the CES manual change, and if not with the next edition, one within my lifetime.
Best
Rudy
I think getting stuck in narrow minded interpretations of the Bible, and assuming we understand what small phrases mean is a much more dangerous actions than Biblical inerrancy.
I also have come to the realization (first brought to my attention by Hugh Nibley’s writing) that it is our own reading and not neccesarily the text of the Bible that implies that only those on the ark lived through the flood. The first question we have to answer is how did the writers of the passage understand “world”, and this is before we discuss both the accuracy of translation and the preservation of the correct text.
Cowboy,
I think the bigger question is did Joseph Fielding Smith ever state “I have recieved a revelation from the Lord in which I was told that the division in the days of Peleg was a physical thing”.
Not every statement by the prophet is true. The prophet is not infalible. The key to my understanding on this issue is that a joint declaration on an issue by the First Presidency is a more powerful discussion.
I also would like to see the context of Joseph Fielding Smith’s Peleg statement.
On some other issues this gets really complicated. When John A. Widstoe and Joseph Fielding Smith were both in the 12, and thus equally sustained as prophets, seers and revelators, they made differing statements about the age of the earth. I think we need to avoid strict dogmatism, and not build our faith needlessly on the interpretation of one verse in Genesis. This is especially true because many of Joseph Fielding Smith’s statements come from answers to gospel questions where he was tackling questions that were often on the fringe.
I guess the main point is that just because a man is the prophet of God and recieves revelation to guide the church does not mean everything he says about the meaning of every verse in the Bible is absolutely correct.
Rudolph,
I can not speak for others, but with strong evidence placing the Tower of Babel 700 or so years earlier than traditional chrnologies, I am willing to move beyond the 6,000 year chronology.
I do this by three methods. I reject the notion that the seals in revelation have to be literally a thousand years as we measure them. So I figure that there may be a six time frame set, and things may be more complexed than we realize.
I of course am more willing to go with the political issue. However if it is the Bearing Straight issue, I am willing to accept Peleg as at 5,000 BC. My main method to do this is to point to the two genealogies of Jesus and the interchangeableness of Hebrew terms for son and descendant to suggest it may be that there are missing generations in the early accounts that add more time. Even with that it seems it may be quite hard to get Peleg back to 5,000 BC, so I have to admit that we have to find some big chunks of missed Israelite history, such as pushing the time of Moses back further, to pull this off. Of course it is hard to put Peleg on the order of 2,000 years before Babel, so unless the studies on when Beringia was last passable have major flaws, which I have no reason to suspect, I do not think that will be a workable line of inquiry.
The CES Manual is meant to be a guide, but is not doctrinally the be all and end all.
Having seen that the quote from Joseph Fielding Smith is in “Answers to Gospel Questions” I am even more inclined to view it as his own personal view. This was a case of giving an answer under pressure, not speaking the reveled word of the Lord.
I also think we need to asses the teaching of Boyd K. Packer that an understanding of the fall and the atonement is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have never seen anything that says that an acceptance that the flood destroyed all mankind everywhere not on the boat is neccesary. Is it not possibly that what is meant is all mankind within the broad area where Noah lived? The actually language of Genesis is “the earth” and the destruction of the earth. This does not neccesarily have to be all human life on the whole planet.
Actually in my dealings with CES manuals it seems like they came out with most of the current ones in the late 1970s and have not come out with new ones since then.
Brother Sorenson in his “Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon” is my main source for pushing the Tower of Bable back past 3000 BC.
As I have already said, I think we need to remember the context of Joseph Fielding Smith’s statement on this topic. I just randomly opened Joseph Fielding Smith’s doctrines of Salvation to page 53 of Vol. 1 where he talks about how the advances in science we have expreienced have been the result of the pouring out of the spirit of the Lord on all flesh. So I think we should at least allow the knowledge and understanding we gain from geology to help us read and understand the scriptures to tell us what the actual events of history were, and to comtemplate what it will take to end the division of people from the days of Peleg.
Cowboy,
I think the bigger question is did Joseph Fielding Smith ever state “I have recieved a revelation from the Lord in which I was told that the division in the days of Peleg was a physical thing”.
To take it a step further, other than the revelation on Priesthood in 1978, can you think of an occassion where the Prophet has said that period in the last thirty years. Prior to to that can you think of any case where that was said down to Joseph F. Smith.
The only two things I can think of would be possibly The Family a Proclamation to the World, and The Living Christ. Frankly those great statements but could easily be dismissed as indirect revelation. Are the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators really unaccountable for nearly all statements over the last 120 years. When Brigham prophesied in the name of God, we still dismiss his comments as personal conjecture.
Hi John
Thanks for contributing.
Theo’s Beringia Model seemed to be based on a chain of his own personal scriptural interpretations. I do not hold to it nor can I defend it. As I think you also conclude, the time frames are off. To look to Beringia misses the bigger picture though.
I just see no need to fudge here and there with the timing of the Tower of Babel or the last ice age in an attempt to make a separation of the continents occur within a time frame that would not cause Bishop Usher to wince too much — at least not too much in contrast to the dates proposed for the sea-floor spreading mechanism I favor.
I keep coming back to the May 4, 2007, the First Presidency clarification on what is meant by LDS when they use the word doctrine.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine
See especially:
BTW: Bob Millet wrote something similar in an essay entitled “What is Doctrine” several years earlier. It’s quite good as are the FAIR resources on this. You’re right that this “doctrine” revolving around Peleg is not particularly important. In the May 4, 2007 statement, the Brethren say something about these things that are of little import.
It’s not only “public commentators”, but also members who make the mistake of elevating things on our periphery (and make us look weird in so doing)..
Joseph Fielding Smith’s understandings, as repeated in the old CES manual, may be “well considered” but they are not doctrine.
You said:
Thanks for sharing. Like I said, Smith lived during a time of great scientific flux. He appears to have recognized scientific advancement for the blessing it was, but apparently, traditional ideas still pulled on him hard.
And thanks to you too Cowboy for hanging around and adding value to this blog.
Best
Rudy
John Pack Lambert Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“I think getting stuck in narrow minded interpretations of the Bible, and assuming we understand what small phrases mean is a much more dangerous actions than Biblical inerrancy.
I also have come to the realization (first brought to my attention by Hugh Nibley’s writing) that it is our own reading and not neccesarily the text of the Bible that implies that only those on the ark lived through the flood. The first question we have to answer is how did the writers of the passage understand “world”, and this is before we discuss both the accuracy of translation and the preservation of the correct text.”
I believe the text of the Bible clearly states the flood was global. Notice the phrases I capitalized:
Genesis 6:
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy ALL FLESH, wherein is the breath of life, FROM UNDER HEAVEN; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Genesis 7:
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and ALL THE HIGH HILLS, that were UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED.
21 And ALL flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and EVERY man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
gomez Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 am
“This is off topic but I was wondering if you or anyone else has any theories as to what the Bible is trying to teach by having the early patriarchs live so long.”
What I’ve read is that the patriarchs were assigned to star kingdoms, so the years correlate with astronomical cycles in days.
John Pack Lambert Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Rudolph,
I can not speak for others, but with strong evidence placing the Tower of Babel 700 or so years earlier than traditional chrnologies, I am willing to move beyond the 6,000 year chronology.
I do this by three methods. I reject the notion that the seals in revelation have to be literally a thousand years as we measure them. So I figure that there may be a six time frame set, and things may be more complexed than we realize.
The seals are literally 1000 years:
D&C 77:
6 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.
7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.