Science and Religion: Reconciling the Conflicts

This appendage includes LDS references. To see the main website, click here: Science and Religion: Reconciling the Conflicts.

The following references were removed from the more LDS-oriented manuscript prior to submitting it to Tate Publishing (a Christian Publisher). They don’t alter the message of the book significantly, merely add support to the points being made.

Preface

 pp. 17-18:

 Some of the references used herein are old, but still seem pertinent, historically significant, and important in reconciling the conflicts. They have been used in good faith. A number of quotes are from apocryphal literature.[1] Remember what was revealed through Joseph Smith regarding the Apocrypha:

 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. . . .

 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth. (Doctrine and Covenants 91:1-5)

 Although the reference was specific to the books of the Apocrypha, it also seems applicable to other non-canonized texts which have been held sacred by some. Thus, they are treated as valuable sources of particular details

 Introduction

 p. 21:

 When conflicts appear between the wisdom of men and the revelations of God, it is man that is in error! It is either due to an inaccurate understanding of the revelations, of scientific truths, or both. Truth is truth, and a main premise of this book is that truth in science is harmonious with truth in religion. In 1839 Joseph Smith wrote: “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft,[2] fall at once from his neck.”[3]

 p. 22:

 In a discussion about truth, it is important to consider the one who opposes truth. Of course science does not recognize such a being as the devil, yet believers are aware that his purposes are part of the Plan. He has great powers of deception and his aim is clear: “And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations” (D&C 52:14). And neither science nor religion are immune to his buffetings.

 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security . . . and thus the devil cheateth their souls. . . .

 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains. (2 Nephi 28:20-22)

 p. 22:

 Within the Christian community are those who express a belief that the Bible is literally true and unerring in every word. At the opposite end of the spectrum are atheists who completely disregard or seek to discredit the Bible. Within the Church, though not as diverse, there is a broad range of opinions regarding the best means of reconciling the inconsistencies. Some take a figurative approach to the scriptures.

 For those who attribute scriptural descriptions (that are contrary to their scientific beliefs) to myth, questions perpetually arise. Was there really one in the pre-mortal existence who said: “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell” (Abraham 3:24)? Was there really an angel of God who “had fallen from heaven; wherefore he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God” (2 Nephi 2:17)? Was there a real prophet named Noah, and did a flood destroy “all in whose nostrils was the breath of life” other than those with him on the Ark (Genesis 7:21-23)? Was Jesus really born of a virgin named Mary? Was he really resurrected? Did his life and sacrifice really accomplish more than just setting a good example? Or, are some or all of the scriptural descriptions just “faith-promoting” fables? For those who attribute some to fable and some to truth, how do they determine which is which? It is especially perplexing to realize that most of the scriptures give no hint that they are anything but accounts of actual events. The problem seems to be that—to many—they are “hard to believe.”

 Chapter 1. Fact or Theory

 pp. 26-27:

 The conflicts between science and religion are not a clash of facts with truths, but discrepancies between facts, inferences, theories, and misunderstandings. Scientists often use “hypothesis” to mean something such as an untested theory, and “theory” to mean a hypothesis “which has been verified to some degree.” In this book the common vernacular of the non-scientist is used, considering hypothesis and theory to be roughly synonymous. Indeed, the progression from “conjecture” to “hypothesis” to “theory” to “law” is very imprecise. It is intertwined with assumption, inference, surmise, and dependence on general acceptance. Although theories are built using facts, it should be remembered that theories are heavily involved in organizing and trying to explain the facts.

 Elder John A. Widtsoe[4] stated: “The Church holds that the methods used by science to discover truth are legitimate.” But he also cautioned:

 In this wholehearted acceptance of science, the Church makes, as must every sane thinker, two reservations:

 [1] The facts which are the building blocks of science must be honestly and accurately observed. . . .

 [2] There must be a distinct segregation of facts and inferences in the utterances of scientific men. Readers of science should always keep this difference in mind. Even well-established inferences should not lose their inferential label.[5]

 It is unfortunate that scientific presentations are frequently out of touch with Elder Widtsoe’s admonition.

 pp. 41-42:

 One day, all the grains of truth will be sorted out from the chaff of error. It is comforting to know that the current polarization of perspective is only temporary. Clues are available to help reconcile the differences, but many of the conflicts will not be fully resolved until the Lord comes.

 In that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—

 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven. (D&C 101:32-34) (emphasis added)

  p. 44:

 The host of written, audio, and video resources, and almost unlimited and ever-expanding material on the Internet, is staggering. Stephens and Meldrum pointed out that the scientific and technical journals are so voluminous that one “would need to read three pages a minute, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, just to keep up.”[6]

 p. 45:

 In 1963, Dr. Melvin A. Cook (who had been labeled a “creationist”)[7] published an article in the alumnus magazine of the university where he was a professor of metallurgy. In it, he summarized some of his research into continental movement, scientific age estimations, and his opinion that Earth may be much younger than commonly believed. He wasn’t able to provide full details in a three-page article—and his points were unconventional—but it seemed well-written and well-footnoted.[8] Subsequently, letters to the editor were exceptionally critical.

 pp. 53-54:

 Molly Farmer reported on the Mormon Scholars conference May 9, 2009, quoting David Collingridge:

 God has been both passively and actively pushed out of the study of the natural world—and the shift happened despite the fact that some of the world’s greatest scientists were also believers. . . .

 . . . A few movements are responsible for rendering science “Godless and God-hostile.” During the 18^th century Enlightenment, writers such as Voltaire “downplayed references to God” when they rewrote the treaties of past scientists and made them available to the masses.

 Consequently, many people aren’t aware of the way these scientists coupled scientific beliefs with spiritual. . . .

 One evidence of the movement is the way it turns “freedom of religion into freedom from religion.”

 Collingridge said that when he was a student at two different liberal-arts colleges, he was surprised at how all points of view were accepted so long as they weren’t religious in nature.[9] (emphasis added)

 p. 58:

 There is no intent in this book to reject either science or religion, or to be hostile to the truths found in either; indeed they are two of my intense interests. Much of science is incredibly accurate. Technology has reached astounding levels of precision and sophistication. If not, how could it be used to do such incredible feats—as sending satellites into orbit and permitting almost instantaneous communication all over the world? Much of modern science involves theories trying to explain physical things. Some preach that “science is not atheistic—it is non-theistic.” Either way, it generally tries to explain things without recognizing God’s hand. Why must it be so? Who made such an exclusive definition? And, why should it be upheld? That definition seems inconsistent with Moses 6:63: “And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath.”

 Chapter 2 Why the Conflicts?

pp. 71-72:

A passage in the New Testament seems to refer to uniformity—and not in a positive light:

 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

 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.

 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. (2 Peter 3:3-5) (emphasis added)

 The first time I heard this passage described as a reference to uniformity was by Reid E. Bankhead, President of the Cumorah Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1966-1969). He was only one of many who have considered this to be so. For example, in Elmer G. Homrighausen’s commentary on these verses he stated: “Have all things continued as they were? Has history gone on as usual? A great many things have taken place which do not conform to the iron-clad law of uniformity.”[10]

 pp. 75-76:

 Contrary to the doctrine of uniformitarianism, numerous verses of scripture seem to refer to sudden catastrophes. Below is a partial list with brief excerpts. If any of their descriptions are reasonably accurate accounts of what actually happened, they have profound scientific implications. Such events would have greatly altered the “normal” rates and manners in which certain “natural processes” sculpted the landscape.

 ·         “And the waters prevailed . . . and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered” (Gen 7:19).

 ·         “So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day” (Joshua 10:13).

 ·         “The mountains melted” (Judges 5:5).

 ·         “And he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the [sun]dial of Ahaz” (2 Kings 20:11).

 ·         “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars” (Job 9:6-7).

 ·         “I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were broken up; and I saw many cities that they were sunk” (1 Nephi 12:4).

 ·         “And the earth shall shake and tremble; and the rocks which are upon the face of this earth, which are both above the earth and beneath, which ye know at this time are solid, or the more part of it is one solid mass, shall be broken up. Yea, they shall be rent in twain and shall ever after be found in seams and in cracks, and in broken fragments upon the face of the whole earth, yea, both above the earth and beneath” (Helaman 14:21-22).

 ·         “And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year . . . the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain. But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed . . . And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed” (3 Nephi 8:5, 10, 12, 17).

 ·         “And the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course. . . . There also came up a land out of the depth of the sea” (Moses 7:13-14).

 p. 79:

 A more recent example of a multi-year cold spell was just after the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia on April 10, 1815. That eruption has been described as “the world’s worst volcano disaster in recorded history.”[11] It did not cause as much devastation, or have after-effects as long-lasting as the 536 AD disaster, however “the year 1816 was known in New England as ‘the year without a summer.’ On June 8 that year several inches of snow fell and ice formed on the ponds. Due to the crop failures, the next two years saw such a huge migration from Vermont, the state would not recover from the loss for a century.”[12] Interestingly, Joseph Smith Sr. and his family were among those who left Vermont for New York at that time due to crop failures three years in a row.[13]

 Chapter 4 Other Scientific Age Estimation Techniques

 p. 153:

 In addition, D&C 77:6 indicates that the temporal existence of the earth is seven thousand years. If that is true, and if Adam really fell from a paradisiacal state at about 4000 BC, any estimations of dates prior to that time are simply guesswork based on invalid assumptions.

 Chapter 5 Comets, Asteroids, and Meteorites

 pp. 175-176:

 If the future is also a key to the past, Isaiah’s prophecy mentioned earlier (Isa. 24:20), and the following, found in D&C 49:23, may provide important clues: “Wherefore, be not deceived, but continue in steadfastness, looking forth for the heavens to be shaken, and the earth to tremble and to reel to and fro as a drunken man.” If the earth is going to “reel to and fro” in the future, might not something similar have happened in the past? Could the “reeling” be a description of a polar tilt and reorientation? If so, this idea may have merit.

 Chapter 6. Continental Shift or Drift?

 p. 181:

 It is well attested that the continents have moved from their original positions. J. Tuzo Wilson reported: “Between 1910 and 1912, Frederick B. Taylor, H. D. Baker, and Alfred L. Wegener all advanced views about continental drift quite similar to those that are widely held today.”[14] Not only science, but the scriptures provide clues which seem consistent with the theory that the continents have moved. Speaking of the Second Coming, the Lord revealed:

 Wherefore, prepare ye for the coming of the Bridegroom. . . .

 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like it was in the days before it was divided. (D&C 133:19, 24)

 Chapter 7. The Flood

 p. 221:

 Many people relegate the account of the Flood in Genesis to myth or allegory. However, in context, the scriptures give no hint that it was anything less than a catastrophe of wondrous proportions. Christians may turn to the New Testament for additional testimony of the reality of the Flood.[15] In addition, Latter-day Saints may turn to modern scriptures for confirmation of Noah’s Flood as an actual event.[16]

 In 1998 The Ensign published an article by Donald Parry. In it, he indicated that the Latter-day Saints generally do take a literal approach to the Flood:

 In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

 Many prophets from two different continents and different eras have identified Noah as a historical, not a mythical, character.[17]

 p. 236

 Many have wondered if Genesis 10:25 refers to continental movement: “And to Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided.” According to Bible chronology using the King James Version, Peleg (a 3^rd great grandson of Noah) was born 100 years after the Flood and lived 239 years. Although the scriptures are unclear as to what is meant by this “division,” the eighth chapter of Jubilees suggests that the division was not referring to continental movement. It is described as a division of the land among the people as they multiplied after the Flood: “And he called him Peleg because in the days when he was born the sons of Noah began dividing up the earth. . . . in an evil (manner) among themselves.”[18] However, Jasher adds a phrase: “for in his days the sons of men were divided, and in the latter days [of his life?], the earth was divided” (Jasher 7:19). Did the phrase “the earth was divided” simply reiterate what was already said, or did it mean something different? I look forward to the day when we’ll know for sure.

 p. 228:

 How Did Plants and Animals Get to the Americas?

             If the Flood and continental shift really happened as parts of the same catastrophe, the floodwaters would have scoured the land, including what is now called the Western Hemisphere. If the Ark landed on Ararat in the Middle East, how did plants and animals get to the Americas? The Book of Ether expressly states that the Jaredites brought such things with them. The story of the Jaredites’ preparation is reminiscent of Noah’s (only about 340 years later).

 Jared and his brother, and their families, and also the friends of Jared and his brother and their families. . . . With their great flocks which they had gathered together, male and female, of every kind.

 And . . . fowls of the air; and they did also prepare a vessel, in which they did carry with them the fish of the waters.

 And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and . . . all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind. . . .

 And . . . did build barges, in which they did cross many waters. (Ether 2:1-7)

             Nibley mentions other early cultural references to migrations involving bees. They indicate that it wasn’t just the Jaredites that had to take bees with them in order to get plant pollination going again: “P. Somville has very recently shown that the cult of the Bee-mother was flourishing all around the Mediterranean in prehistoric times, . . . the legends speak of bee-led migrations at the dawn of history, seeking . . . refuge from storm and starvation—survival.”[19]

 Chapter 9. History or Myth

 pp. 307-308:

 I took an Archaeology of Mesoamerica class at Arizona State University—wanting to learn if what non-Mormon archaeologists taught had any resemblance to events mentioned in the Book of Mormon. There were numerous striking similarities. The dating of certain key events was reasonably close—that is—back to about 2000 BC. Older dates were separated by fantastic jumps of many thousands of years, throwing out any synchronization with scriptural chronology.

 p. 309:

 Nibley also commented on the Bering Strait theory, and a degrading manner in which it is often used:

 The constant attempt to blast the Book of Mormon by assuming that it allows only one possible origin for the blood of the Indians (a perfectly false assumption), and then pointing out that the real origin is a migration via the Alaskan land-bridge or Bering Straits—a still unproven hypothesis. This is presented as the confrontation of crude 19^th century superstition with the latest fruits of modern science. And that, too, is misleading. For in 1835 Josiah Priest wrote in his American Antiquities: “The manner by which the original inhabitants and animals reached here, is easily explained, by adopting the supposition, which, doubtless, is the most correct, that the northwestern and western limits of America were, at some former period, united to Asia on the west, and to Europe on the east.

 Therewith, for Priest, the question was settled . . . the theory of settlement by the Alaska land bridge was the final solution. And as such it has been accepted by North American anthropologists to this day, even though their colleagues in Europe and South America may shake their heads in wonder at such naïve and single-minded devotion to a one-shot explanation of everything. We may find it strange that back in 1835, with no evidence to go by but the configuration of the map, anyone could have settled for such finality—the problem was real and wonderful, the conclusion premature and untested.”[20]

 Chapter 10. Evolution and Creation

 pp. 327-328:

 Dr. Will Provine, Professor of the History of Biology at Cornell University, was another outspoken atheist interviewed by Stein. He spoke of his first evolution class and how after studying the text, he immediately gave up on deity. He said “No God, no life after death, . . . no ultimate meaning in life, and no human free will, are all deeply connected to an evolutionary perspective. You’re here today and gone tomorrow. And that’s all there is to it.”[21] What a discomforting thought!

 Nephi was very direct in teaching about the dangers to those who get caught up in their own understanding:

 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. . . .

 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. . . .

 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. (2 Nephi 9:28-29, 42)

 

The prophet Moroni spoke of a means to detect the sources of inspiration behind the information:

 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil. (Moroni 7:13, 17)

He [Nibley] went on to describe how evolutionary theory has spread so far as to affect economic thought:

 Malthus had shown that there will never be enough lunch for everybody, and therefore people would have to fight for it; and Ricardo had shown by his Iron Law of Wages that those left behind and gobbled up in the struggle for lunch had no just cause for complaint. Darwin showed that this was an inexorable law of nature by which the race was actually improved. . . .

 In this . . . game of grabs, to share the lunch-prize would be futile, counter-productive, nay immoral. Since there is not enough to go around, whoever gets his fill must be taking it from others. . . . “In . . . England,” as Brigham Young reported the scene in 1856, workers knew that “their employers would make them do their work for nothing, and then compel them to live on roots and grass if their physical organization could endure it.” [22]

 pp. 329-330

 Anti-evolution

 Joseph Fielding Smith was intensely opposed to many of the evolutionary concepts. He believed:

 It has been truthfully said that organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in this dispensation in his attempt to destroy the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is a contemptible plot against faith in God and to destroy the effective belief in the divine atonement of our Redeemer through which men may be saved from their sins and find place in the Kingdom of God. There is not and cannot be, any compromise between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the theories of evolution. Were evolution true, there could be no remission of sin. In fact there could be no sin.[23]

 If we are to believe the words of Lehi, Alma, and Adam and Eve, the Fall of Adam is an integral part of the plan and has important ramifications:

 They [Adam and Eve] have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth. . . .

 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 And they would have had no children. . . .

 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

 And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. (2 Nephi 2:20-26)

 Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit . . . and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people. . . .

 And we see that death comes upon mankind . . . which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which . . . is after the resurrection of the dead. (Alma 12:22, 24)

 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption. (Moses 5:10-11)

 p. 332

 Even so, many LDS scientists have jumped onto the bandwagon preaching evolution. David Bailey wrote:

 I must confess that I find the continuing debates about what some LDS general authorities have said about evolution and the age of the earth, or what the “official” LDS position is on these issues to be rather tiresome at this point in time. Such debates just don’t matter any more, except perhaps to historians, because the scientific facts supporting the basic notions of these theories are now just too well established. Past writings by General Authorities or other religious leaders criticizing these theories only prove that they are human. I think it’s time we accepted this and moved on.[24] (emphasis added)

 It seems an odd tool of persuasion to make such a presumption: “the basic notions of these theories are now just too well established.” Isn’t this merely another way of saying evolution has achieved a consensus status in the world, so the LDS people ought to join in? What happened to the old Mutual slogan when I was a teenager: “Dare to be different”? Was it intended to be confined to morality issues? Couldn’t the “well established” nature of much of what he speaks, be due to the fact that too often we are led to believe that scientific theories are more secure than the facts warrant? And, if General Authorities criticize them, shouldn’t we take note and view “these theories” with a skeptical eye?

 Bailey appears to be a fine scientist, but shouldn’t he clearly distinguish what is fact, what is theory, and what is inference? To me, it seems a tragic inconsistency for one who is a faithful Latter-day Saint[25] to try to persuade others that scientific theories should prevail over the scriptures.

 Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum are scientists who also seem to take an approach to reconciling religion and evolution opposite to mine. They indicate that so much data has been accumulated in the last twenty-five years that the evidence is overwhelming.[26] These scientists seem to sincerely believe that because there are so many facts upon which the theory is built, that the theory itself takes on the character of a fact.

 pp. 338-339

 Contributing to the challenge of reconciling evolution and Creation is the difficulty of trying to understand the scriptural verses relating to the subject. For instance, the first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Was it, as some believe, the beginning of everything? If not, the beginning of what? If there was no universe before this beginning, what was there? What role did God play? Was He the God of nothing?

 The likely assumption, for Latter-day Saints, is that Genesis 1:1 is referring to the beginning of this Earth as we know it. Or is it? When it was created, we are told, it was in a different state than it is now. What was the paradisiacal state like—from a scientific perspective? Wasn’t it substantially different than the terrestrial or telestial state we are now living in? “What can archaeology tell me about the council in heaven? Nothing, of course—that all happened in another world. The same holds for the creation, taking place as it did at a time and place and in a manner that we cannot even imagine. Then comes the garden of Eden—a paradise and another world beyond our ken [knowledge].”[27]

 According to Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

 Life did not originate on this earth; it was transplanted from other and older spheres. . . .

 . . . When first it rolled forth from the Creator’s hand, [Earth] was in a paradisiacal or terrestrial state. This condition . . . will be restored when the earth is “renewed” (made new again) and receives its paradisiacal glory.”[28]

 Note: sometimes the word “terrestrial” is used to mean earthly or worldly, but in Elder McConkie’s usage here, and as it applies to the plan of salvation, “terrestrial” means a state more orderly than that naturally seen on Earth.[29]

 When the earth was formed, Latter-day Saint doctrine indicates, it was formed from “unorganized” matter. That matter consisted of various chemical elements. On the third day, an abundance of life was brought forth. Much of the carbon available at the surface of the earth was incorporated into those abundant life forms. At the Fall of Adam, according to the Bible, death was introduced. Was it also introduced into the plant and animal kingdoms? What were previous conditions like, and what are the implications? Could a distinct physical change have been initiated when Adam and Eve fell? Again, there are more questions than answers.

 pp. 340-341:

 Zenez[30] recalls to his hearers’ minds the state of things at the creation of the earth; he sees “flames of fire that did not consume and fountains bursting forth from their slumbers when there was as yet no foundations for men to live on.” When a foundation at last appears between the upper and lower worlds, a voice tells Zenez, “These are the foundations prepared for men to inhabit for seven thousand years to come.”[31]

 Prophecies of the future may again prove to be clues to events of the past, even that of Creation: “And every corruptible thing . . . shall be consumed; And also that of element shall melt with fervent heat; and all things shall become new” (D&C 101:24-25). “For behold, he shall stand upon the mount of Olivet. . . . And he shall utter his voice . . . which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found . . . and the islands shall become one land.” (D&C 133:20-23).

 Brigham Young suggested living things were brought here from elsewhere: “Shall I say that the seeds of vegetables were planted here by the Characters that framed and built this world—that the seeds of every plant composing the vegetable kingdom were brought from another world? This would be news to many of you.”[32]

 p. 343:

 The Apostle Peter may have given an important clue: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). It isn’t clear just what Peter meant, but it may suggest that the day of the Lord’s reckoning has something to do with a thousand Earth years. The Book of Abraham provides another important clue. Speaking of the “days” of creation: “Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning” (Abraham 5:13). This scripture seems to clearly indicate that the units of time as now known on Earth were not given until after Adam had been placed in the Garden of Eden. That the earth was still “after the Lord’s time, which is after the time of Kolob.” And this “time” seems to be 1,000 years:

 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. (Abraham 3:4)

 pp. 344-345:

 One aspect of evolution is definitely unacceptable to the LDS according to Reid Bankhead: “Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints.”[33]

 Chapter 11

 p. 354:

 If a supernova occurred at the time of Jesus’ birth, was exceedingly bright, and relatively close to Earth, it may have been at least partially responsible for the description of events in 3 Nephi 1 (particularly verses 15, 19, and 21):

 Behold, at the going down of the sun there was no darkness; and the people began to be astonished because there was no darkness when the night came. . . .

 . . . And it came to pass that the sun did rise in the morning again, according to its proper order. . . .

 And it came to pass also that a new star did appear.

 If the “new star” was an exploding star that kept things light in the Western Hemisphere, but faded quickly or was otherwise obscured from view, the explanation of why it was less distinct in the Middle East may have been found.

 p. 356:

 Seiss was a Lutheran clergyman, and his views on this subject correspond nicely with those of the Latter-day Saints: “all the great doctrines of the Christian faith were known, believed, cherished, and recorded from the earliest generations of our race, proving that God has spoken to man, and verily given him a revelation of truths and hopes precisely as written in our Scriptures.”[34] His message rings true for those familiar with the concept taught in the scriptures that every prophet before the time of Christ prophesied of Him. Pearson and Bankhead expressed it this way: “One of the most significant contributions of the Book of Mormon is the verification of the little-known and almost forgotten Bible doctrine that Christ was known by every prophet from the beginning.”[35] One example is from the book of Jacob: “For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us” (Jacob 4:4). (emphasis added)

 pp. 358-359:

 Other evidence suggests that a portion of the observed redshifts found in starlight have other causes. One in particular is matter between the stars refracting the light. Some scientists now believe that more matter exists unseen between the stars than that which is within them. If there was such a thing as the “big bang,” what was the universe like before that singular event?

 Joseph Smith did not subscribe to the notion of creation out of nothing.

 Now, I ask . . . why the learned men . . . say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? . . . They account it blasphemy . . . to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. . . .

 . . . Now the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos.[36]

 In Joseph Fielding Smith’s footnote to the preceding quote he commented:

 The view of the Prophet on this subject of creation is abundantly sustained by men of learning subsequent to his time. The Rev. Baden Powell, of Oxford University, for instance, . . . says: “The meaning of this word (create) has been commonly associated with the idea of ‘making out of nothing.’ But when we come to inquire more precisely into the subject, we can of course satisfy ourselves as to the meaning only from an examination of the original phrase.” The learned professor then proceeds to say that three distinct Hebrew verbs are in different places employed with reference to the same divine act, and may be translated respectively, “create,” “make,” “form or fashion.”[37]

 The big bang theory does not seem consistent with the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young certainly wouldn’t have subscribed to it. He said, “there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity.”[38]

 p. 361:

 “My works are without end” (Moses 1:4). “And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space” (D&C 88:37).

 Consider the Implications

 p. 361:

 Many remember the prophecies that “the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall be turned into blood.” Not as much attention is paid to the rest of the passage: “and the stars shall fall from heaven, and there shall be greater signs in heaven above and in the earth beneath” (D&C 29:14).

 After reading descriptions of the universal destruction scientists say would happen if a large comet impacted on Earth, the following passages take on new meaning:

 For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man. . . .

 For after your testimony cometh the testimony of earthquakes, that shall cause groanings in the midst of her, and men shall fall upon the ground and shall not be able to stand. . . .

 And immediately there shall appear a great sign in heaven, and all people shall see it together. . . .

 And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled;

 And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him. (D&C 88:87, 89, 93, 95-96)

 Chapter 12  What Does it all Mean?

 p. 364:

 An anti-God version of science has gained undue prominence. Some people insist that science should be the study of natural processes without regard for God and his influence. They say that, by definition, science is so. Why should science ignore clues provided by God through his prophets? Doesn’t D&C 59:21 apply to science? “And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things and obey not his commandments.”

 p. 365:

 Still, we should recognize that some answers won’t be known until He comes and reveals things that “no man knew” (D&C 101:33).

 p. 366:

 Hearing and reading the words of some of the very vocal atheists is reminiscent of the anti-Christ Korihor. Although their words are different, the message has a familiar ring. Having lived prior to Jesus’ birth, but being familiar with the prophecies, Korihor preached that there should be no Christ and declared:

 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.

 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime. (Alma 30:13-18)

 After hearing Korihor’s words, Alma asked him a profound question:

 What evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true. (Alma 30:40-41)

 It will be interesting to see if modern aggressive atheists will ultimately be led to exclaim words similar to those of Korihor after he was confounded by Alma:

 I always knew that there was a God.

 But behold, the devil hath deceived me. . . . And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true. (Alma 30:52-53)

 pp. 366-367:

 Revealed Versus Human Knowledge

 Which sources of information are the most reliable for real truth? If God is real, and if He has revealed things to prophets throughout the ages, aren’t the accounts they’ve shared on a much surer footing than the theories of men? This seems especially pertinent to those theories that deliberately exclude reference to God. “It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him” (Alma 12:9). Both Joseph Smith and Sir Isaac Newton taught that “truth had been given by God in the beginning, but had been fragmented and corrupted in the course of time; its traces survived in enigmatic form in these different sorts of literature, but had to be recovered.’”[39]

 It must be remembered that science is the study of “natural” or mortal things, and rarely considers the immortal and cannot detect the spiritual. To mortals, some things are beyond reach, but to God all things are within His grasp. According to Moses 6:35-36, Enoch was permitted to see “the spirits that God had created, and he beheld also things which were not visible to the natural eye.” That statement is either true or it isn’t. President Ezra Taft Benson said: “‘True religion,”. . .  “accepts and embraces all truth; science is slowly expanding her arms and reaching into the invisible domain, in search of truth.”[40] There is a whole realm of reality which science knows nothing about.

             When a geologist makes a statement that the “subsurface studies of earth strata . . . [are] the only true record of earth history”[41] should we take that to mean that the learned interpretations of that record supersede the accounts given in the scriptures? When he then states that the interpretation that there was no physical death on the earth before the fall “cannot be taken literally because of the unmistakable evidence of fossil life entombed within the strata.” Or, when he writes of the Flood: “This significant event cannot be taken literally,”[42] should we give his words more credence than the words of the scriptures? I think not.

 p. 368

 Since revelations from God come through mortal men, they are subject to errors. “And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these” (Mormon 8:12). God’s revelations have the backing of truth. Pearson and Bankhead described it this way:

 Man is at an inestimable disadvantage when pitting his knowledge against God’s knowledge. In the very best of circumstances man must reason from the part (his world) to the whole (God’s world). . . . Man must constantly extrapolate, interpolate, and guess. God knows all things. He sees things in their entirety, in their true perspective. Hence the most reliable knowledge we have is that which God reveals or has revealed through his prophets.[43]

 It is well to remember the following teachings of the prophets Isaiah and Jacob:

 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore brethren, despise not the revelations of God. (Jacob 4:8)

             The role of the Holy Spirit should be considered in any search for understanding. “For the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be” (Jacob 4:13).

 pp. 369-370:

 Some individuals have had a hint of how a prophet can receive an incredible amount of information in a very short time. They’ve experienced a trauma with a remarkable side effect. In my case, immediately before an auto accident the events of my life up to that point almost instantly flashed into my consciousness. It was as though time was suspended while the review took place. Perhaps such an experience gives a glimpse of how the human mind can be quickened sufficiently to see the “vision of all” which was seen by some of the chosen prophets, including:

 Adam                          Moses 5:10, D&C 107:56

 Enoch                          Moses 7:21, 1 Enoch 81:2[44]

 Moses                          Moses 1:27-28

 John                             1 Nephi 14:18-27

 Nephi                          1 Nephi 14:24

 The brother of Jared    Ether 12:21

 Isaiah                           Isaiah 29:11

 What is in the sealed portion of the gold plates? It appears that it is an account of the vision given to the brother of Jared, in which he saw all things.[45] When we are privileged to read it, it will be spectacular, for according to Moroni: “Behold thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.” (Ether 12:24)

 p. 370

 Joseph Smith said: “Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.”[46] Not only are revelation and inspiration considered an important source of knowledge of the truth for the Latter-day Saints, but others have also recognized it:

 p. 374:

 David H. Bailey has been recognized as a brilliant mathematician and scientist. He has written and published an enormous amount of material.[47] Yet, his conclusions relative to reconciling science and religion seem almost opposite to mine. One that was particularly contrary: after criticizing “creation scientists,” he wrote:

 It is important to note that not one of the numerous LDS scientists at BYU currently espouses the creationist viewpoint, according to a recent survey of the faculty. Thus those Mormons who insist on a literal reading of Genesis not only place themselves outside the mainstream of worldly scientific thought, but they also place themselves outside the mainstream of LDS scientific thought as well. . . .

 . . . Why then do Mormons cling to Biblical literalism even today?[48]

             There is no doubt that BYU scientists do accept some of the beliefs of the “creationists.” It is understandable if they don’t accept creation “ex nihilo” (out of nothing), or the six “days” of creation having lasted no longer than 24-hours each. However, have they given a fair hearing to the evidence “creationists” have found pointing to weaknesses in popular scientific date estimation techniques? In light of the information summarized in this book, it seems that LDS scientists should be outside more of “the mainstream of scientific thought.” If the scientific thought at BYU is opposed to a literal reading of Genesis as he suggests, in my way of thinking, there is a need for substantial improvement! In answer to his question “why do Mormons cling to Biblical literalism”: because no matter how many bits of factual data are collected, if they are pieced together without taking into account God’s hand in earthly events, it is faulty. And, because we believe the scriptures are a more reliable source of truth than the theories of men, literally!

 p. 377:

 Questions without Good Answers

 1.                  What was the earth like prior to the fall of Adam—the physical state of things?

 2.                  What is time? Highly sophisticated instruments measure time with great precision, but what is it? It seems to move forward at a continuous rate, indeed, time is as natural to mortals as breathing. It is taken for granted and assumed to be a uniform process. Yet, certain scriptures suggest there is more to it. “All things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord” (D&C 130:7).

 “And all things are present with me, for I know them all” (Moses 1:6). Speaking of the end time: “The Lord hath redeemed his people; And Satan is bound and time is no longer” (D&C 84:100). How can these things be? It seems these references are far beyond mortals’ ability to comprehend. In this case, it will likely not be understood until it is experienced. Yet, even in scientific circles, unusual ideas about time are being contemplated. The title to a recent article is revealing: “Could Time End? Yes, and No: For time to end seems both impossible and inevitable.”[49]

 3.                  What are the “eternal” elements spoken of in D&C 93:33? “The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy.” The statement that “the elements are eternal” apparently has reference to things other than the “elements” listed on the Periodic Table in a chemistry book. The “elements” known to science include many that are unstable. When a radioactive isotope decays, the product is usually a different “element.” Another scripture gives a clue: “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8). The eternal nature of element and spirit are beyond mortals’ grasp, but when the details are revealed, they will make perfect sense.

 4.                  What is gravity? Its effects are known, and scientists can calculate its strength, but what causes it? Is it reversible?

 5.                  Why is the magnetic north pole different than Earth’s axis of spin? Or, as Delair posed the question:

 Why doesn’t the inclination of its axis coincide with that of Earth as a whole (cf. the different locations of the geographical and magnetic poles)? It strains credulity to suppose that any Earth-like planet, undisturbed by external influences for millions of years, could have naturally acquired, unaided, a tilted axis, an offset magnetic field, variable rotation, or a Chandler Wobble.[50]

 p. 378:

 Isaiah prophesied concerning the last days: “Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound” (Isaiah 30:26). According to D&C 77:1, “the earth in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state” will become a “sea of glass.” That points to a catastrophic change far more spectacular than earlier events so far known in Earth history.

 pp. 380-381:

 Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote: “It would be unwise, of course, for the Church to tie itself to the provisional truths of science at any point in science’s unfolding history. Ultimately, scientific truth will align with divinely revealed truth; meanwhile we can applaud genuine scientific advances, noting them without depending overly much upon them.”[51]

 This book concludes with the words of a favorite hymn:

 Shall the youth of Zion falter

 In defending truth and right?

 While the enemy assaileth,

 Shall we shrink or shun the fight? No!

 

 While we know the powers of darkness

 Seek to thwart the work of God,

 Shall the children of the promise

 Cease to grasp the “iron rod”? No!

         We will work out our salvation;

 We will cleave unto the truth;

 We will watch and pray and labor

 With the fervent zeal of youth. Yes!

 True to the faith that our parents have cherished,

 True to the truth for which martyrs have perished,

 To God’s command,

 Soul Heart, and hand,

 Faithful and true we will ever stand.

 —Evan Stephens 1854-1930[52]