At http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm you wrote:

"I did not have any doubts about the church. It was 17 months after the second anointing and I still had no doubts. I was just looking for a better explanation than the church usually gave to a specific question."

What's the "SPECIFIC QUESTION" you had in 2003? I ask this because I suppose that thousands of men presently serving as Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Bishops, and in other leadership positions for the church right now must have the same question, whatever it may be.

If I remember correctly from the John Dehlin interview, he wanted a better understanding of the science issues that educated people would see as a barrier to joining the church. Ie: age of the earth, death before adam & eve, etc.

The underlying reason for this whole thread is that when I saw "specific question" in what he wrote it immediately dawned on me that in this world of soundbites and short attention spans that such a "specific question" could be framed as part of a short "talking point" we all could use to quickly explain (with supporting references/links) why LDS inc. is BS. Perhaps Tom meant a whole list of questions but I got the wrong impression by what he wrote. Or it was on the BoM talking about the "age of the earth"? If so does BC or anyone else have a reference/link on this as my BoM references knowledgebase is fading away with old age. I'll be interested to see what Tom has to say about "specific question".

I think I remember him saying elsewhere it was reconciling the scientific age of the earth with references to a young earth in the Book of Mormon?

I wanted to understand the flaws in scientific dating methodology e.g. radio carbon dating. I felt certain doctrines specified in the Book of Mormon such as 'no death before the fall of Adam' (6k years ago per D&C 77) precluded some from accepting the gospel. Obviously I thought (knew) the Church was true and the Book of Mormon the word of God, therefore science must be wrong on the matter.

I had always accepted the Earth was made from other planets to explain dinosaurs and 'time was only reckoned to man' and there being different times on other planets etc. Also, I assumed the industrial revolution could have affected carbon composition in the atmosphere and in organic matter. I knew, however, such answers as I had accepted would not satisfy investigators with a better understanding of science than I (most people in that case).

So, my first task was to read up on carbon 14 dating. Apparently it's only reliable up to about 50k years and can be out by as much as 5%. Well that's good enough to date cave drawings etc. at 30k years old and similarly to date human skulls, which is in complete contrast to the 6k years.

This also made me question other 'truths' such as all humans being related to 2 people (Adam and Eve) who became mortal approximately 6k years ago; global flood; confusion of tongues at tower of Babel. The BoM could not, in my opinion, contain such glaring falsehoods and still be the word of God.

Maybe my understanding of the doctrine was incorrect even though I was considered, by some GAs, to be very knowledgeable on church doctrine. This is certainly the reason put up by a lot of TBMs the Church has no position on pre-Adamites, they do not hold to the 6k years since death was introduced. Professor Steven Jones of BYU even re-interpreted the word 'death' to rationalize his faith.

Well, the Church confirmed to me that their official doctrine is that there was no death of any kind on this planet prior to about 6k years ago (the fall of Adam) and the scientists are wrong. I know the apologists like to say otherwise but they do not speak for the Church. In fact, the way the apologists reason on many issues is to go against official Church doctrine. The limited geography theory and Lamanites being obvious examples.

So, getting back to one specific question "was there death on this planet prior to 6k years ago?" Is the official church doctrine on this matter true or is science true?

No brainer - there has been death on this planet for billions of years. Elder Harold G.Hillam even admitted that, he said "Tom, of course there has been death for millions of years, how else would we have oil and gas? In my training as an orthodontist I held skulls that were much older than 6k years". He did, however, confirm the Church doctrine was no death and then explained how he rationalized the issue. His successor as Area President, Gerald N. Lund just stated the church doctrine was true and the scientists were wrong - there was no death prior to 6k years ago.

Sorry to be so lengthy on this response but I still see apologists and TBMs denying the official Church doctrine as stated in the BoM, bible dictionary, prophets and curriculum manuals. I also explained this as my first issue in the letter I sent to Elder Holland http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Letter-to-Elder-Holland-Book-of-Mormon. You can also see his response and my reply archived on this site at http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Reply-from-Elder-Holland-Mormon-Apostle-to-my-letter .

These letters and other items are also on my page at MormonThink http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm

Hope this answers your question,
Tom

there is no one in the church who ignores, dismisses and contradicts official church positions like the apolgists do. They literally make up their own doctrines in an effort to make the pieces fit.

This is the hallmark of the so-called "smart" mormons who believe despite the evidences and despite obvious false claims.

Mormon non-Dodos have one thing in common: most of their beliefs are made up out of their own heads and are neither claimed by the church as doctrine, substantiated in mormon scripture, or evidenced by any independent means.

I submit this is an effective way to counter apologist claims.

So your specific question:

Was there death on this planet prior to 6k years ago?

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/fall-of-adam?lang=eng
"The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There were no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life."

And yes the following scripture sure does contradict modern scientific thinking.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77.6?lang=eng

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.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age


OK so we have all these old rocks (that maybe were just hanging around nigh unto Kolob w/o any death). Were there any deaths going on where the remains of organisms would be left behind when living creatures died? As long as you don't believe in Petroleum or Natural Gas there might be hope ;) I'll keep this in mind next time I drive my car. Maybe I should send that Bible Dictionary reference to the Gas Company next time they send me a bill ;)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Origin

Petroleum and natural gas are formed by the anaerobic decomposition of remains of organisms including phytoplankton and zooplankton that settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions, millions of years ago. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, got buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure caused the organic matter to chemically alter, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in oil shales, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.

According to Science earth will be Death (destroy) after 4000 billion we have to calculate the age of the earth.
It is Scientific reason.

Interesting, that link no longer works. The new information at LDS.org about the Fall of Adam and Eve no longer says the part about the fall making blood form in their bodies, which sounds like utter nonesense. Here is the new link:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

Not to mention the fact that if the Noah's flood story were true
(Mormons are kinda locked into the fact of it and can't, like
other denominations, say it is just mythical) then every man on
earth is descended from Noah about 5000 years ago.

That would mean that every man's Y-chromosome should be
identical (except for variability that mutation would have
supplied in 5000 years--which is not a lot). However there is
much too much variability in Y-chromosomes to be accounted for
by mutations in the past 5000 years.

The only other explanation is that Mrs. Noah fooled around on
Mr. Noah.

Arguing for a young earth is like arguing for a flat earth. The list of contradictions that are impossible to explain is so long as to be laughable.

If the earth is flat, explain satellite orbits.

If the earth is young, explain several hundred thousand annual ice layers in some glaciers, or a clonal tree root system in Sweden that is over 9,000 years old, or driftwood found up on the old Lake Bonneville shoreline that is over 12,000 years old.

In fairness, proving the earth is round is ridiculously easy.

One must only start moving in a particular direction; depending on how fast one moves, eventually one will arrive at the starting point. So Flat-Earthers are capable of readily disproving themselves.

Young-Earthers, on the other hand, can use wild and crazy theories that can't really be 'disproven.' Like, the earth is made up of other earths, that radio-carbon dating is wildly inaccurate due to some previous event that dramatically altered carbon-14 availability, that god waved his hand and altered people's DNA, that we're really descended from aliens, etc.

These are kooky and I don't believe them. However, they cannot be falsified in the same way a flat earth can, by simple present-day locomotion.

The earth is flat, and is a giant quilt of identical earths that are all exact duplicates of each other. When you go "around the world", in reality, you move over to the next square on the earths quilt. All the identical copies of you also simultaneously moved over one square.

The modern multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics backs up this interpretation. (Not even close to true, but a flat earther, like a Mormon apologist won't let that stand in the way of a smokescreen argument. Two Cumorahs, anyone?)

And that pale blue dot photo of the earth taken from the Apollo capsule? Faked, just like the moon landing. It's a conspiracy by those round-earther liars, I tell you!

Sincere question.

Who invented Carbon Dating and how did they establish the mathematical formula for calculating age? I really have not studied on it and will, but my knee jerk question is "so who says the calculations formula is right?" Was a formula created that says something is billions when in reality it is 1000's?
I am sure this has been scrutinized plenty by the scientific community and the calculations and percentage of error is now widely accepted, but the same we say what did Joseph Smith really know we should likewise ask what did Carbon Dating invention dudes know?

Carbon dating is a scientific theory, not an invention. It is based on fundamental observations of the physical world around us.


As such, it is constantly being re-evaluated and its accuracy improved. It depends on many observations, and as our understanding of those observations change, our understanding of carbon dating changes. Science, unlike religion, does not claim to be perfect.

Doesn't carbon dating involve a process? There is more to it than theory...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

info here on carbon dating

Scientists took pieces of wood or other organic material of a known age, and measured the carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratio to determine the decay rate of C14. Things like Roman furniture, for example. If you do this thousands of times and get essentially the same decay rate in almost all of them, then that gets published as the decay rate, and you can use it to date objects where you don't know in advance how old it is.

The primary way carbon dating can give bad answers is the organic material is contaminated with younger organic material that has more C14 in it. Soaking wood in water with a lot of algae in it, for example. This will make the reading appear younger than the object really is. There is no reasonable way for contamination to make an object appear older than it really is.

C14 is created by cosmic rays from the sun, so there is constantly renewing supply of it in the atmosphere. Plants ingest the CO2 and incorporate the carbon into the plant. When the plant dies, no more carbon coming in, but the radioactive carbon already there continues to decay. You measure the ratio of C14 to C12, and that gives you the age. After about 50,000 years, there is so little C14 left, it is no longer possible to get a reliable measurement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2014 10:48AM by Brother Of Jerry.