Catholic bishop Robert Baron recently stated that religion and science do not conflict. Science teaches the 'what' while religion teaches the 'why. I thought that summed up the situation with clarity.
This topic has never come up in my whole life as a member that I can recall. 3 weeks ago I read about it in a Doctrine & Covenants manual. That same week, it came up in Reddit. Then, it came up in a book I'm reading. This morning, my wife asked me what we believe about dinosaurs. Now, you guys post this. That is 5 instances in 3 weeks. Not sure what the message is but I'm learning a lot.
I've always believed that dinosaurs are what science says. And I've always believed everything about the gospel. If anyone ever asks me how I could believe in both, I just shrug and say, "I'm not sure how it all works, but one day I'll be excited to ask Heavenly Father how he made it happen." 🤷♂️👍
Love the history lesson here regarding the various theories. And a fine wrap-up regarding both science and religion relying on coming to greater understanding line upon line.
I've always taken traditional science as correct, and I have a spiritual witness of the truth of the gospel and its restoration. I believe truth is truth (theology) wherever it's found and for now we don't have enough information to see the complete correlation of science and religion. I'm surprised when I learn a Latter-day Saint who ascribes to the young earth model (it's pretty rare to have it come up in conversation and rarer yet to find one who holds that view) and was interested to learn it was widely held in the earlier church view. I served my mission in SoCal from '73 to '75 and my mission president often said, "Genesis is not a handbook for creators". That comment has enabled me to better understand the principles and doctrine taught in all of our creation accounts (Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and Temple). Thanks for the great discussion. Now I want to look up your other videos featuring Ben Spackman.
I always figured that the Bible explains prehistoric times in a way that people in ancient times could understand. In my opinion, Genesis says God created the world in 7 days because people couldn’t comprehend the actual timespan.
My question is, if god is "a man of science", what does he have against gay sealings? Because it's not outside the realm of scientific possibility to create offspring from two male or two female genomes.
I love listening to Ben Spackman on this topic - thank you! He was also recently a host on Stephen Murphy's excellent "Mormonism with the Murph" youtube channel where he goes into even more detail on this same subject, in 2 separate episodes, the 1st one about 2 hrs long and the 2nd one about an hour long. The 2nd one covers the flood story of Genesis.
I have always believed that the creation took place over countless years because the measuring of time started with Adam which started the 7000 year countdown. Many animals could have existed and evolved over those years. I assumed most lds members would agree with me. knowing for sure isn’t vital to our progression at this time. If all things were made known to us, there would be no need for faith. Faith is vital to our progression at this time. Perfect knowledge and answers to all questions will come later.
Personally, I see a more perfect correlation between Genesis chap 1:1-10 and the Geologic Time Table when I put Gen 1:1 in place just at the end of the last ice age about 13,000 to 20,000 years ago. That beginning is even after the extinction of the neantratals! And since the extinction of the dinosaurs happened about 65 million years ago, that would be thousands of times before the beginning of the Bible. Just a thought. 😉
Are you saying you believe that animals evolved but man (Adam) did not? That is a level of mental gymnastics and splits that would tare me in two. I have more respect for a full fledged atheist than LDS members that try to server two masters.
@@leroybybee1013 what I believe about that is similar to the op. Creation took millions of years and that there was no time specified for how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden. We know they were immortal at that point because they could eat the tree of life. So Adam and Eve could've lived there for millions of years until they were cast out around 7,000 years ago. They might have mixed with other human species as well. But that's what I believe is possible.
I took the BYU class Dinosaurs (which counted toward my generals), and we covered this topic as one of our early lectures! I was surprised that dinosaurs were even controversial
In an Ensign article in the early 1980s, Bruce R. McConkie wrote that in his opinion, creation took about 2.5 billion years. McConkie also taught that the pillars of the gospel are Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. I do not know about Creation, but I do know that we are "a lost and fallen race" (the scriptures make this clear -- and personal experience supports this) and that the only way to overcome the Fall is through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Without the Fall, there is no need for the Atonement; and without the atonement, Jesus of Nazareth was just another Buddha, Pythagoras, Socrates, St. Augustine, or Gandhi. The Doctrine and Covenants says that it will someday be revealed how it all fits together. In the meantime, we should have faith, keep covenants, pray always, be humble, serve others, and stay patient.
I remember a Sunday school lesson during an Old Testament/Pearl of Great Price year, and in response to whatever question had been posed by the teacher (I completely forget the question) my mom brought up that in Moses 3:5, it says “…For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth…” There’s a small hint of that in Genesis 2:5, but it’s not as clear as it is in Moses. Anyway, after class another member came up and thanked her for bringing up that “little” clarification/explanation. Perhaps the spiritual creation was literally six days, and perhaps not. But either way, as it says in the New Testament, “a day to God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day,” so I don’t think we need to get hung up on “exact” (And again, in Genesis 2:17 where Adam and Eve are warned about not eating the fruit, “…for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” the Bible has it written that they didn’t literally physically die in that same 24hr time period (Adam is said to have been like almost 1000 years old when he died…) so I think it is safe to conclude that we are not required to take the creation timeline as presented in Genesis 100% literally, EVEN if you don’t accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture.
I love the Book of Abraham calling the creation not "days" but "periods". Abraham 4:18 talks about the Gods watching what they ordered "until they obeyed". That leads me to think billions and billions of our earth years going by as those creations obeyed, evolved, adapted as commanded. I also think of Adam and Even in the garden for possibly millions of years prior to the fall. Plenty of time for dinosaurs, cave apes etc. to have their hey day. Then the Earth fell when Adam and Eve fell. It feels right to me.
If you combine the idea in Abraham 4 about the gods waiting for elements to obey their orders with the descrition of a spiritual/physical creation occurring separately in Moses 3, that has 'gap interpretation' written all over it. About a decade ago I was also thinking that maybe the earth was evolving around Adam and Eve. However, the problem with this is that it allows for homo sapiens to exist on the Earth who are not 'children of god' so they're not accountable to the law of god. They are animals. So the question becomes, who's just an animal and who's a child of god? It also contradicts the Moses 3 account of the creation as well as what's written in 2 Nephi 2:22 regarding how the fall would have affected _the creation_ if Adam and Eve never partook of the forbidden fruit.
Great interview and overview of info. We live in Southern Indiana and went to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky a month ago. It was a great experience overall. I highly recommend it overall. It is mostly very interesting and uplifting. Great Christmas Concert. The Ark recreation itself is worth seeing in person. The zoo is fun. My son rode a camel and my little kids loved their awesome play ground equipment with Christmas Music blasting in the background. From they Museum actually seem to believe that many dinosaurs were in the Ark. Seeing this was like watching an interesting program on the History Channel when they suddenly say -ALIENS!!!- and it takes you completely by surprise. The Ark Encounter is like that when it’s all gospel and familiar and super cool because you are in a life size Ark and then there are 8 foot long dinosaur statues in cages. But I still recommend it. It was really cool.
Some of my rules for trying to make sense of the scripture v science/history/etc. tropes: 1) The Gospel is the data that makes the universe meaningful. It is not the data that makes the universe work. 2) The mechanics of Creation don't actually matter, if they did, they'd be in the book. 3) "Line upon line" means much, much more, and is more far-reaching, than we tend to give it credit for. 4) Scripture employs history, mythology, legend, poetry, story, legal argument, Bronze-age cosmology and more in the service of the Gospel, but that's as far as any of them go. 5) Revelation is the mind and will of God, expressed in human language, culture and experience; it is not God's dictation to his prophet-secretaries. 6) Whenever we figure something out - heliocentricity, relativity, longitude, powered flight, evolution, open-heart surgery, seismic mitigation - it makes God happy; he's not threatened by our progress.
Very nicely listed. I generally maintain the quality of the answer is directly proportional to the quality of the question. Most questions placed before the Lord are heavily influenced by existing understanding, knowledge, expectations, language, traditions and culture and the answer also passes through these filters; often multiple times.
Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans: Point of time (a specific day) time period of a whole or half a day: Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset General term for time ( as in 'days of our lives') A year "lived a lot of days" Time period of unspecified length. "days and days"
"the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time span" Yes. But NOT in Genesis 1. You don't get to simply pick whatever definition you want and plug it in; meaning is bound by context.
Big fan of the Ben Spackman episodes 😂 I’ve never once gotten a vibe that’s he’s “wrong” or “leading astray” (but I understand he’s human, and he is absolutely able to be wrong!). I feel like he gives an honest approach and presents research. That’s what I really like about him! I feel like by presenting the facts, then we have room to allow at the spirit to speak to us further about what we have learned. Not to mention, the facts are just very interesting and I like to listen to them!
This is a great subject especially today because popular opinion seems to think Christians are fundamentally anti science (and plenty certainly are) but there are also plenty of great scientists that were also Christians. There is also a great deal of fascinating mystery around mythological beasts and their similarities to dinosaurs and ancient prehistoric animals. I love to wonder if there was some kind of transferred memory of those real animals to our recent ancestors
I found a small clue that might help out. I never seem to remember where I found it, probably in The Pearl of Great Price. It seems the earth was moved to its current location after Adam was placed on it or only shortly before, that it was created possibly near Kolob. The difference in the output of that star could throw off the carbon dating results. The indication in the earth being "as a chased row" as the stars fall from the sky later could be the earth being moved back to its place near Kolob.
The more I read about genetics (Steven Meyer) and the complexity if the cell (Michael Behe) the more I an convinced that evolution is a religious creed contradicted by science.
My brother thought the dinosaurs came from pieces of other planets. I asked him what made the earth round. It got very hot and spun into a sphere. So with that much heat, what would have happened to the bones. I’ve read the article in the Ensign. I also support evolution, but divinely guided evolution.
Google for the Religious Educator (an LDS journal for S&I teachers), the article by Trent Stephens called "Was the Earth Formed from the Debris of Other Planets?" I can't post a link, because RUclips deletes them automatically.
I have always believed that God was the author of science, just as he is the author of everything else. He can intend something to be created by evolution, or by whatever means he wishes. I don't understand why people think they have to exist outside of each other.
An excellent presentation/conversation per usual. Ben is well informed, articulate, and fun to listen to. I wish that he had talked more about the influence of J Reuben Clark on picking a generation of church leadership that was highly conservative and the impact of that on church teachings from 1960-1990 and beyond. He seemed to mostly skip this period (apart from brief remarks at the beginning of the talk) which I found unfortunate. He claimed that he believed that we had mostly moved on from literal/fundimentalist readings of Genesis. While I believe that this may be true for younger and more educated members, I think that there is reason to believe that much of the older leadership (including Nelson and Holland at a minimum) hold the traditional, fundamentalist views. Holland wrote an article in July 1976 ensign which talks about America splitting from Europe during the great flood and thereafter being populated by the Jaradites (and other righteous peoples). The conservative young-earth rhetoric in coorelate seminary and institute manuals which he mentioned that entered the ciriculum around 1980 wasn't removed until about 2000. Pew studies suggest that members hold some of the most anti-evilutionary views of all US religions apart from JWs and Evangelicals. So while there is change, especially post 2000 (which I view as positive), I think that there's still some ways to go. Thanks again for an excellent conversation.
One of the reasons I didn't continue learning more about the LDS church was the strong position, apparently by most its members, that you cannot believe neither in old earth creation nor in biological evolution (there are well-known communicators of the LDS church on RUclips, like David Alexander, that are quite clear on the 'impossibility' of evolution). I know there is no official position from the Church, but the majority of members seem to share such views. It was quite disappointing, to be honest, because I had had the idea that the LDS church was a branch of Christianity more friendly to science. Denying that God carried out his creation in the way He is continuously teaching us, through science, that He did, is something non negotiable to me. The universe is like an open book He wrote with His own hands, without intermediaries. We are just learning how to read it.
That's unfortunate. I had no idea who David Alexander was until I read this comment and googled; I'm a historian operating with good data, not an "influencer."
I think things are gradually changing so that more Latter-day Saints are accepting of the main stream science on both evolution and very ancient life on earth than there used to be. I am one example. I was raised in an environment which was very anti-evolution (my Dad was very anti-evolution), and then back in the 90's the question came up for me on how to reconcile science and religion, and I found that there were very intelligent and scientifically minded faithful Latter-day Saints who believed strongly in the findings of main stream science and so I followed their example in finding logical ways to reconcile the 2. I have found that my faith is stronger as a result because both science and religion are making a lot more sense to me now than before, and I find it very exciting as new discoveries & revelations are made in both areas. I find that God is even more awesome for having come up with a system such as evolution to ensure that myriad forms of life could adapt, thrive, and survive on an ever changing earth over millions and millions of years. There are still significant numbers of Latter-day Saints who are anti-evolution, but I think that percentage will decrease significantly in coming generations. Ben Spackman was also recently hosted on Stephen Murphy's excellent "Mormonism with the Murph" youtube channel where he goes into even more detail on this very topic, in 2 separate episodes, the 1st one about 2 hrs long and the 2nd one about an hour long. David Alexander is a great guy, and I admire what he is doing. However, like many members, he expresses his own opinions from time to time which are not official church doctrine. His anti-evolution views are one example of that.
As a Latter-day Saint I understand where you're coming from. I was taught Evolution at a church school and believe much of ancient scripture was not intended to be understood as historical in the way we think of it today. I hope you'll keep exploring and learning about us. There are definitely those of us in your camp on that one.
This position is not a requirement and I'd even challenge the idea that members believe it. David Alexander speaks for himself and not the church, just keep that in mind
I honestly don’t know how, but somehow in my insta feed I keep seeing this religious group that are “young earthers” that bring on different scientists (never check credentials so take that as you will) that talk about flawed dating or different things that push back on what other scientists previously thought about one thing or another. I’d love to know how legit any of the “new science/discoveries” actually are…
I always had my theory dinosaurs existed during the creation process of the earth somewhere in the 5th or 6th day remember Gods “time” for lack of a better term is not equal to ours.
I have heard most of these young earth positions taught in gospel doctrine or discussed amongst the members. I have always been saddened that people seem to feel they need to constrain how the Lord works. Science is all about the How! I really dislike how science is so often conflated with the philosophies of men.
Agreed. The "philosophies" line is generally employed as an automatic win, used to shut down uncomfortable (to some) conversations. "Translated correctly" is also frequently used that way.
The passage doesn't say, "I give unto men false beliefs and then later correct them with better information", it's "line UPON line" which means any doctrine revealed god is true and successive revelation only builds upon it and never refutes it, otherwise god's trustworthiness would be compromised. It's true from the beginning. That is not how science works. Science presumes our ignorance of what is absolutely true, and based on that foundational assumption, it endeavors to find what is the most rational explanation for any matter being researched or experimented on. It does not matter if a person's favorite conclusion is falsified with new information, the results speak for themselves. Religion BEGINS with proclamations of truth, science begins with ignorance and the null hypothesis. They are diametrically opposed methodologically and epistemologically.
@@bens5507 The unique issue in the LDS church regarding the creation is that the PoGP accounts of the creation act as independent verification of a young earth creationist view of Genesis, particularly the Book of Moses account. And I would also include 2 Nephi 2: 22 in that contribution. It does not matter (or should not matter from the believer's perspective) what modern secular scholarship has found about what the ancient Israelites believed about this story, especially in light of the fact that it's Moses who is claimed to have received the account through revelation. One of the primary purposes of modern scripture in the dispensation of the restoration of the gospel is to give that clarity to scripture that was lost during the great apostasy. It's man's interpretation of scripture that has brought about the wide array of denominations in Christianity and the LDS extra-biblical scripture, along with modern revelation, is supposed to put the confusion to rest. Appealing to secular scholarship is intruding on that purpose.
Lets give science and religion a chance eh? A man labeled a nut case by the scientific community was an archeologist... happened upon many civilizations that recorded the same object with different explanations for it. I find this mans theory intriguing at the least. the Eye of oden, from the Norse Apollo's chariot, Greeks it was also recorded by the ancient Americans. all depictions were similar, a circle with eight streams of light radiating from it with a circle as the backdrop...the archeologist claimed this to be Venus in front of something emitting eight spokes of light with Jupiter in the background. all ancient civilizations recorded it being visible to the naked eye, no telescopes required. now come the stretch.. the theory was that earth Venus and Jupiter are not from the Sol system but that Earth was a rogue planet surrounded by a shell of ice. Note the bible never says sun moon or stars until after the flood. rain was not known before the flood, the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground. a shell of ice would explain the lack of rainbows entering Sol system earth displaced Mars causing it to move away from the sun and hence become desolate. the Ice around earth, as it settled into a steady orbit melted... forty days and forty nights. the Aspect of having a shell of ice around the globe leads to a steady atmosphere several times the strength of our current atmosphere with a much higher concentration of Oxygen. The stronger atmosphere causes plants and animals to grow bigger and live longer.... this helps in the relating of ages pre flood vs post flood. Carbon dating requires the nitrogen content of the atmosphere to be at a consistent percentage through out the organism's lifetime, in order for the decay of the carbon to be calculated correctly. so Dinosaurs and pre-flood creatures would have a different nitrogen content in their bones than creatures that lived after the flood. so i guess this makes any carbonating of something pre flood, bonkers because we don't know what the atmospheric pressure was nor the nitrogen content thereof. well the author was Emanuel Velicovski... book was Worlds in collision. i probably misspelled that.
There is a scripture in the bible that says With the Lord one day [is] as a thousand years,.So if that's how time works in God's presence and as we know God is unchanging . It would stand to reason that the 6 days of creation weren't 24-hour days but more liken 6000 years .
BSpackman - will this posting be deleted like my last three? Your long winded argument does not work from a scriptural or scientific or logical perspective.
Great point! you cannot have millions of years of death and evolution and then have Adam be the first to introduce death. They are mutually exclusive and do not fit. As hard as they try to mesh this type of scientific theory with theology they don't work. Once we accept that we can begin to find the good science. there are dozens of books on the topic. such as "Return of the God hypothesis", "contested bones", "man his origin and Destiny" by Joseph fielding smith to name a few
@@jeremymichel3042 Yup you said it all. I would like to add to the list a 98 minute video called "Evolution's Achilles' heals". It provides an excellent scientific overview and details that knock down the flimsy pillars that evolutionists rely on to hoist the "scientific" golden calf. When more faith is placed in words of the created than in the creator, the final result is always a great fall and destruction. That applies individually, nationally and world wide.
There was a tree of life in the Garden. Think about that. If they were born as immortal beings and the fall brought about their deaths, what was the purpose of that tree? Maybe.. they were immortal in the garden (because of that tree), and then when they were banished, they lost access to it, and so they died eventually. If this is correct, you could still say "Adam's fall brought death" and be right. And you also could believe that the bodies of Adam and Eve are the products of evolutionary steps over a long period of time.
@@wheelercreek If you are correct then Adam is not the son of God but is the son of Ogg. And in spite of the name Adam gave her, Eve was not the mother of all living. Adam himself was misnamed by God who claimed to be Adam's father. And Christ's atonement does not apply to all living but only to those who descended from Adam. If BS.packman is as good a linguist and historian as you all seem to believe then he should know all this. Perhaps he can explain it to the Ancient of Days when in Adam-Ondi-Ahman he (Adam) is presented as the head of the human family and Christ presides over all.
I guess i've never understood why these are difficult concepts to reconcile. People who take the bible creation account litterally, are selective in what they take literally in the bible. There is no logical reason to not view the creation account as referring to creation periods which could have and likely did span millions or billions of years. God is the ultimate scientist, and why could evolution not be the process & methodolgy used for creation, development & refinement of life until it was deemed good in God's eyes and for his purposes, and when needed? A good an efficient scinetist developes process and and lets process do the work
I'm not enamored with science as Ben is. I understand, though, that it's one method for finding some truths. However, we set aside scripture at our peril. In my view, scripture cannot be reconciled with the uninspired and uninspiring precepts of men. Theory two was not convincingly responded to. It seems to me the most plausible. I suspect this earth is made of fragments of other and older earths where dwelt these fabulous creatures. I will not be surprised to discover in a future day that learned men have merely been groping in the dark along the wall. How blind and impenetrable are the understandings of men.
Science was invented as a means to learn about God's creation. Science arose from religion. God gave Man the curiosity, inspiration and means to inquire about the world around us. The scriptures are not science. They don't contain scientific principles (except the Book of Abraham;-). The scriptures contain clues, or starting points. God's creation is like a great big jigsaw puzzle. Science and revelation give us pieces of the puzzle and we try to find where they fit. Every piece gives us a clearer idea of what the whole picture looks like. Fortunately, we have eternity to discover and place all the pieces.
This knowledge doesn’t matter to man’s salvation. If it did God would have revealed that truth a long time ago. Leave the mysteries alone and focus on what has been revealed to us for our salvation.
This is the best discussion I've heard on this topic. This should be played and discussed on 5th Sunday's in all LDS wards.
Catholic bishop Robert Baron recently stated that religion and science do not conflict. Science teaches the 'what' while religion teaches the 'why. I thought that summed up the situation with clarity.
This topic has never come up in my whole life as a member that I can recall. 3 weeks ago I read about it in a Doctrine & Covenants manual. That same week, it came up in Reddit. Then, it came up in a book I'm reading. This morning, my wife asked me what we believe about dinosaurs. Now, you guys post this. That is 5 instances in 3 weeks. Not sure what the message is but I'm learning a lot.
Very interesting!
I've always believed that dinosaurs are what science says. And I've always believed everything about the gospel. If anyone ever asks me how I could believe in both, I just shrug and say, "I'm not sure how it all works, but one day I'll be excited to ask Heavenly Father how he made it happen." 🤷♂️👍
‘There can still be a God, can’t evolution be the answer to how and not as to why?’ - Stan Marsh
Love the history lesson here regarding the various theories. And a fine wrap-up regarding both science and religion relying on coming to greater understanding line upon line.
I've always taken traditional science as correct, and I have a spiritual witness of the truth of the gospel and its restoration. I believe truth is truth (theology) wherever it's found and for now we don't have enough information to see the complete correlation of science and religion. I'm surprised when I learn a Latter-day Saint who ascribes to the young earth model (it's pretty rare to have it come up in conversation and rarer yet to find one who holds that view) and was interested to learn it was widely held in the earlier church view. I served my mission in SoCal from '73 to '75 and my mission president often said, "Genesis is not a handbook for creators". That comment has enabled me to better understand the principles and doctrine taught in all of our creation accounts (Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and Temple).
Thanks for the great discussion. Now I want to look up your other videos featuring Ben Spackman.
I've been having a lot of questions about this recently and all of a sudden this video pops up! What great timing!
I always figured that the Bible explains prehistoric times in a way that people in ancient times could understand. In my opinion, Genesis says God created the world in 7 days because people couldn’t comprehend the actual timespan.
Agreed. I never saw 1 day as literally 24 hours.
Or the Hebrew word for day can also mean time period.
Yes! Someone finally touched on this topic! God is the ultimate Creator and scientist. Thank you.
My question is, if god is "a man of science", what does he have against gay sealings? Because it's not outside the realm of scientific possibility to create offspring from two male or two female genomes.
This is always what my dad told me since we both love the church and science.
I love listening to Ben Spackman on this topic - thank you! He was also recently a host on Stephen Murphy's excellent "Mormonism with the Murph" youtube channel where he goes into even more detail on this same subject, in 2 separate episodes, the 1st one about 2 hrs long and the 2nd one about an hour long. The 2nd one covers the flood story of Genesis.
Yay more Spackman!
I have always believed that the creation took place over countless years because the measuring of time started with Adam which started the 7000 year countdown. Many animals could have existed and evolved over those years. I assumed most lds members would agree with me. knowing for sure isn’t vital to our progression at this time. If all things were made known to us, there would be no need for faith. Faith is vital to our progression at this time. Perfect knowledge and answers to all questions will come later.
That's what I also have believed. Men's construct of time can be different from gods
Most definitely. And certainly, our measurements of time are different from even my great grandmother's.
Personally, I see a more perfect correlation between Genesis chap 1:1-10 and the Geologic Time Table when I put Gen 1:1 in place just at the end of the last ice age about 13,000 to 20,000 years ago. That beginning is even after the extinction of the neantratals! And since the extinction of the dinosaurs happened about 65 million years ago, that would be thousands of times before the beginning of the Bible. Just a thought. 😉
Are you saying you believe that animals evolved but man (Adam) did not? That is a level of mental gymnastics and splits that would tare me in two. I have more respect for a full fledged atheist than LDS members that try to server two masters.
@@leroybybee1013 what I believe about that is similar to the op. Creation took millions of years and that there was no time specified for how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden. We know they were immortal at that point because they could eat the tree of life. So Adam and Eve could've lived there for millions of years until they were cast out around 7,000 years ago. They might have mixed with other human species as well. But that's what I believe is possible.
I took the BYU class Dinosaurs (which counted toward my generals), and we covered this topic as one of our early lectures! I was surprised that dinosaurs were even controversial
In an Ensign article in the early 1980s, Bruce R. McConkie wrote that in his opinion, creation took about 2.5 billion years. McConkie also taught that the pillars of the gospel are Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. I do not know about Creation, but I do know that we are "a lost and fallen race" (the scriptures make this clear -- and personal experience supports this) and that the only way to overcome the Fall is through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Without the Fall, there is no need for the Atonement; and without the atonement, Jesus of Nazareth was just another Buddha, Pythagoras, Socrates, St. Augustine, or Gandhi. The Doctrine and Covenants says that it will someday be revealed how it all fits together. In the meantime, we should have faith, keep covenants, pray always, be humble, serve others, and stay patient.
I remember a Sunday school lesson during an Old Testament/Pearl of Great Price year, and in response to whatever question had been posed by the teacher (I completely forget the question) my mom brought up that in Moses 3:5, it says “…For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth…” There’s a small hint of that in Genesis 2:5, but it’s not as clear as it is in Moses. Anyway, after class another member came up and thanked her for bringing up that “little” clarification/explanation.
Perhaps the spiritual creation was literally six days, and perhaps not. But either way, as it says in the New Testament, “a day to God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day,” so I don’t think we need to get hung up on “exact” (And again, in Genesis 2:17 where Adam and Eve are warned about not eating the fruit, “…for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” the Bible has it written that they didn’t literally physically die in that same 24hr time period (Adam is said to have been like almost 1000 years old when he died…) so I think it is safe to conclude that we are not required to take the creation timeline as presented in Genesis 100% literally, EVEN if you don’t accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture.
I love the Book of Abraham calling the creation not "days" but "periods". Abraham 4:18 talks about the Gods watching what they ordered "until they obeyed". That leads me to think billions and billions of our earth years going by as those creations obeyed, evolved, adapted as commanded. I also think of Adam and Even in the garden for possibly millions of years prior to the fall. Plenty of time for dinosaurs, cave apes etc. to have their hey day. Then the Earth fell when Adam and Eve fell. It feels right to me.
That's what I've always thought 👍
If you combine the idea in Abraham 4 about the gods waiting for elements to obey their orders with the descrition of a spiritual/physical creation occurring separately in Moses 3, that has 'gap interpretation' written all over it.
About a decade ago I was also thinking that maybe the earth was evolving around Adam and Eve. However, the problem with this is that it allows for homo sapiens to exist on the Earth who are not 'children of god' so they're not accountable to the law of god. They are animals. So the question becomes, who's just an animal and who's a child of god? It also contradicts the Moses 3 account of the creation as well as what's written in 2 Nephi 2:22 regarding how the fall would have affected _the creation_ if Adam and Eve never partook of the forbidden fruit.
Great interview and overview of info. We live in Southern Indiana and went to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky a month ago. It was a great experience overall. I highly recommend it overall. It is mostly very interesting and uplifting. Great Christmas Concert. The Ark recreation itself is worth seeing in person. The zoo is fun. My son rode a camel and my little kids loved their awesome play ground equipment with Christmas Music blasting in the background.
From they Museum actually seem to believe that many dinosaurs were in the Ark. Seeing this was like watching an interesting program on the History Channel when they suddenly say -ALIENS!!!- and it takes you completely by surprise. The Ark Encounter is like that when it’s all gospel and familiar and super cool because you are in a life size Ark and then there are 8 foot long dinosaur statues in cages. But I still recommend it. It was really cool.
That is a well made museum. I’m hoping to go there this year
@@jeremymichel3042 it’s worth a trip for sure. My kids would love to go back. It’s not cheap but worth a one time trip for sure.
Some of my rules for trying to make sense of the scripture v science/history/etc. tropes:
1) The Gospel is the data that makes the universe meaningful. It is not the data that makes the universe work.
2) The mechanics of Creation don't actually matter, if they did, they'd be in the book.
3) "Line upon line" means much, much more, and is more far-reaching, than we tend to give it credit for.
4) Scripture employs history, mythology, legend, poetry, story, legal argument, Bronze-age cosmology and more in the service of the Gospel, but that's as far as any of them go.
5) Revelation is the mind and will of God, expressed in human language, culture and experience; it is not God's dictation to his prophet-secretaries.
6) Whenever we figure something out - heliocentricity, relativity, longitude, powered flight, evolution, open-heart surgery, seismic mitigation - it makes God happy; he's not threatened by our progress.
I think you nailed it on the head. Great way of looking at it.
Very nicely listed. I generally maintain the quality of the answer is directly proportional to the quality of the question. Most questions placed before the Lord are heavily influenced by existing understanding, knowledge, expectations, language, traditions and culture and the answer also passes through these filters; often multiple times.
I love these points!
Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans:
Point of time (a specific day)
time period of a whole or half a day:
Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
General term for time ( as in 'days of our lives')
A year "lived a lot of days"
Time period of unspecified length. "days and days"
😮
"the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time span" Yes. But NOT in Genesis 1. You don't get to simply pick whatever definition you want and plug it in; meaning is bound by context.
Context...okay like we have any concept of the creation or time. And how do we know it's supposed to be 24hour period.
Dinosaurs are just extinct animals and the way they say dinosaurs are now is the same way medieval people said dragons were
Hey Cousin, Old spelling of Sparkman was Spackman
I like the Genesis History theory the best.
Big fan of the Ben Spackman episodes 😂 I’ve never once gotten a vibe that’s he’s “wrong” or “leading astray” (but I understand he’s human, and he is absolutely able to be wrong!). I feel like he gives an honest approach and presents research. That’s what I really like about him! I feel like by presenting the facts, then we have room to allow at the spirit to speak to us further about what we have learned. Not to mention, the facts are just very interesting and I like to listen to them!
Well balanced and very informative. Thank you.
Is that Doc and Marty Mcfly? 😅on the shelf?
Your eyes do not deceive you!! Good catch!
Interesting!
Hey David! How can I get one of those shirts? 🤔
This is a great subject especially today because popular opinion seems to think Christians are fundamentally anti science (and plenty certainly are) but there are also plenty of great scientists that were also Christians. There is also a great deal of fascinating mystery around mythological beasts and their similarities to dinosaurs and ancient prehistoric animals. I love to wonder if there was some kind of transferred memory of those real animals to our recent ancestors
Big bang theory and evolution were both posited by Christians.
I found a small clue that might help out. I never seem to remember where I found it, probably in The Pearl of Great Price. It seems the earth was moved to its current location after Adam was placed on it or only shortly before, that it was created possibly near Kolob. The difference in the output of that star could throw off the carbon dating results.
The indication in the earth being "as a chased row" as the stars fall from the sky later could be the earth being moved back to its place near Kolob.
Good revelation is based on good information. If we can free up the truth and the information, the extra revelation will come.
I love the documentary “Is Genesis History”. Explains the dinosaur concept very well with scientific evidence to back it up.
The more I read about genetics (Steven Meyer) and the complexity if the cell (Michael Behe) the more I an convinced that evolution is a religious creed contradicted by science.
My brother thought the dinosaurs came from pieces of other planets. I asked him what made the earth round. It got very hot and spun into a sphere. So with that much heat, what would have happened to the bones.
I’ve read the article in the Ensign. I also support evolution, but divinely guided evolution.
Google for the Religious Educator (an LDS journal for S&I teachers), the article by Trent Stephens called "Was the Earth Formed from the Debris of Other Planets?" I can't post a link, because RUclips deletes them automatically.
I have always believed that God was the author of science, just as he is the author of everything else. He can intend something to be created by evolution, or by whatever means he wishes. I don't understand why people think they have to exist outside of each other.
Who knew that Peter Griffin knew so much about dinosaurs! :)
An excellent presentation/conversation per usual. Ben is well informed, articulate, and fun to listen to. I wish that he had talked more about the influence of J Reuben Clark on picking a generation of church leadership that was highly conservative and the impact of that on church teachings from 1960-1990 and beyond. He seemed to mostly skip this period (apart from brief remarks at the beginning of the talk) which I found unfortunate. He claimed that he believed that we had mostly moved on from literal/fundimentalist readings of Genesis. While I believe that this may be true for younger and more educated members, I think that there is reason to believe that much of the older leadership (including Nelson and Holland at a minimum) hold the traditional, fundamentalist views.
Holland wrote an article in July 1976 ensign which talks about America splitting from Europe during the great flood and thereafter being populated by the Jaradites (and other righteous peoples). The conservative young-earth rhetoric in coorelate seminary and institute manuals which he mentioned that entered the ciriculum around 1980 wasn't removed until about 2000. Pew studies suggest that members hold some of the most anti-evilutionary views of all US religions apart from JWs and Evangelicals. So while there is change, especially post 2000 (which I view as positive), I think that there's still some ways to go. Thanks again for an excellent conversation.
The Nacho Libre reference needs more appreciation. 😂
One of the reasons I didn't continue learning more about the LDS church was the strong position, apparently by most its members, that you cannot believe neither in old earth creation nor in biological evolution (there are well-known communicators of the LDS church on RUclips, like David Alexander, that are quite clear on the 'impossibility' of evolution). I know there is no official position from the Church, but the majority of members seem to share such views. It was quite disappointing, to be honest, because I had had the idea that the LDS church was a branch of Christianity more friendly to science. Denying that God carried out his creation in the way He is continuously teaching us, through science, that He did, is something non negotiable to me. The universe is like an open book He wrote with His own hands, without intermediaries. We are just learning how to read it.
That's unfortunate. I had no idea who David Alexander was until I read this comment and googled; I'm a historian operating with good data, not an "influencer."
I think things are gradually changing so that more Latter-day Saints are accepting of the main stream science on both evolution and very ancient life on earth than there used to be. I am one example. I was raised in an environment which was very anti-evolution (my Dad was very anti-evolution), and then back in the 90's the question came up for me on how to reconcile science and religion, and I found that there were very intelligent and scientifically minded faithful Latter-day Saints who believed strongly in the findings of main stream science and so I followed their example in finding logical ways to reconcile the 2. I have found that my faith is stronger as a result because both science and religion are making a lot more sense to me now than before, and I find it very exciting as new discoveries & revelations are made in both areas. I find that God is even more awesome for having come up with a system such as evolution to ensure that myriad forms of life could adapt, thrive, and survive on an ever changing earth over millions and millions of years. There are still significant numbers of Latter-day Saints who are anti-evolution, but I think that percentage will decrease significantly in coming generations. Ben Spackman was also recently hosted on Stephen Murphy's excellent "Mormonism with the Murph" youtube channel where he goes into even more detail on this very topic, in 2 separate episodes, the 1st one about 2 hrs long and the 2nd one about an hour long.
David Alexander is a great guy, and I admire what he is doing. However, like many members, he expresses his own opinions from time to time which are not official church doctrine. His anti-evolution views are one example of that.
As a Latter-day Saint I understand where you're coming from. I was taught Evolution at a church school and believe much of ancient scripture was not intended to be understood as historical in the way we think of it today. I hope you'll keep exploring and learning about us. There are definitely those of us in your camp on that one.
This position is not a requirement and I'd even challenge the idea that members believe it. David Alexander speaks for himself and not the church, just keep that in mind
You can worship monkeys or you can worship God
Now the Irish Rovers can sing about the dinosaurs that missed sailing on Noah's ark!
Yes, the Unicorn song! - I love the Irish Rovers :)
Great conversation
I honestly don’t know how, but somehow in my insta feed I keep seeing this religious group that are “young earthers” that bring on different scientists (never check credentials so take that as you will) that talk about flawed dating or different things that push back on what other scientists previously thought about one thing or another. I’d love to know how legit any of the “new science/discoveries” actually are…
I always had my theory dinosaurs existed during the creation process of the earth somewhere in the 5th or 6th day remember Gods “time” for lack of a better term is not equal to ours.
All land dwelling animals were created on the 6th day. So it’s pretty clear when dinosaurs were created.
I have heard most of these young earth positions taught in gospel doctrine or discussed amongst the members. I have always been saddened that people seem to feel they need to constrain how the Lord works. Science is all about the How! I really dislike how science is so often conflated with the philosophies of men.
Agreed. The "philosophies" line is generally employed as an automatic win, used to shut down uncomfortable (to some) conversations. "Translated correctly" is also frequently used that way.
What was the answer to the question "How do dinosaurs fit into the creation theory?"
The passage doesn't say, "I give unto men false beliefs and then later correct them with better information", it's "line UPON line" which means any doctrine revealed god is true and successive revelation only builds upon it and never refutes it, otherwise god's trustworthiness would be compromised. It's true from the beginning. That is not how science works.
Science presumes our ignorance of what is absolutely true, and based on that foundational assumption, it endeavors to find what is the most rational explanation for any matter being researched or experimented on. It does not matter if a person's favorite conclusion is falsified with new information, the results speak for themselves.
Religion BEGINS with proclamations of truth, science begins with ignorance and the null hypothesis. They are diametrically opposed methodologically and epistemologically.
See "Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis"
@@bens5507 The unique issue in the LDS church regarding the creation is that the PoGP accounts of the creation act as independent verification of a young earth creationist view of Genesis, particularly the Book of Moses account. And I would also include 2 Nephi 2: 22 in that contribution. It does not matter (or should not matter from the believer's perspective) what modern secular scholarship has found about what the ancient Israelites believed about this story, especially in light of the fact that it's Moses who is claimed to have received the account through revelation.
One of the primary purposes of modern scripture in the dispensation of the restoration of the gospel is to give that clarity to scripture that was lost during the great apostasy. It's man's interpretation of scripture that has brought about the wide array of denominations in Christianity and the LDS extra-biblical scripture, along with modern revelation, is supposed to put the confusion to rest. Appealing to secular scholarship is intruding on that purpose.
Lets give science and religion a chance eh?
A man labeled a nut case by the scientific community was an archeologist... happened upon many civilizations that recorded the same object with different explanations for it.
I find this mans theory intriguing at the least.
the Eye of oden, from the Norse
Apollo's chariot, Greeks
it was also recorded by the ancient Americans.
all depictions were similar, a circle with eight streams of light radiating from it with a circle as the backdrop...the archeologist claimed this to be Venus in front of something emitting eight spokes of light with Jupiter in the background.
all ancient civilizations recorded it being visible to the naked eye, no telescopes required.
now come the stretch..
the theory was that earth Venus and Jupiter are not from the Sol system but that Earth was a rogue planet surrounded by a shell of ice.
Note the bible never says sun moon or stars until after the flood.
rain was not known before the flood, the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground.
a shell of ice would explain the lack of rainbows
entering Sol system earth displaced Mars causing it to move away from the sun and hence become desolate.
the Ice around earth, as it settled into a steady orbit melted... forty days and forty nights.
the Aspect of having a shell of ice around the globe leads to a steady atmosphere several times the strength of our current atmosphere with a much higher concentration of Oxygen. The stronger atmosphere causes plants and animals to grow bigger and live longer.... this helps in the relating of ages pre flood vs post flood.
Carbon dating requires the nitrogen content of the atmosphere to be at a consistent percentage through out the organism's lifetime, in order for the decay of the carbon to be calculated correctly.
so Dinosaurs and pre-flood creatures would have a different nitrogen content in their bones than creatures that lived after the flood.
so i guess this makes any carbonating of something pre flood, bonkers because we don't know what the atmospheric pressure was nor the nitrogen content thereof.
well the author was Emanuel Velicovski... book was Worlds in collision.
i probably misspelled that.
There is a scripture in the bible that says With the Lord one day [is] as a thousand years,.So if that's how time works in God's presence and as we know God is unchanging .
It would stand to reason that the 6 days of creation weren't 24-hour days but more liken 6000 years .
Yes, that's a long-existing argument but it doesn't work from a scriptural or scientific perspective.
@@bens5507 Evolution does not work from a scriptural or scientific perspective.
BSpackman - will this posting be deleted like my last three? Your long winded argument does not work from a scriptural or scientific or logical perspective.
I don’t control the comments here. RUclips automatically deletes anything with links.
What do you think of Adam and Eve? First parents? Introduced death? Lived 930 years after the fall?
Great point! you cannot have millions of years of death and evolution and then have Adam be the first to introduce death. They are mutually exclusive and do not fit. As hard as they try to mesh this type of scientific theory with theology they don't work. Once we accept that we can begin to find the good science. there are dozens of books on the topic. such as "Return of the God hypothesis", "contested bones", "man his origin and Destiny" by Joseph fielding smith to name a few
@@jeremymichel3042 Yup you said it all. I would like to add to the list a 98 minute video called "Evolution's Achilles' heals". It provides an excellent scientific overview and details that knock down the flimsy pillars that evolutionists rely on to hoist the "scientific" golden calf. When more faith is placed in words of the created than in the creator, the final result is always a great fall and destruction. That applies individually, nationally and world wide.
They think they were monkeys
There was a tree of life in the Garden. Think about that. If they were born as immortal beings and the fall brought about their deaths, what was the purpose of that tree? Maybe.. they were immortal in the garden (because of that tree), and then when they were banished, they lost access to it, and so they died eventually.
If this is correct, you could still say "Adam's fall brought death" and be right. And you also could believe that the bodies of Adam and Eve are the products of evolutionary steps over a long period of time.
@@wheelercreek If you are correct then Adam is not the son of God but is the son of Ogg. And in spite of the name Adam gave her, Eve was not the mother of all living. Adam himself was misnamed by God who claimed to be Adam's father. And Christ's atonement does not apply to all living but only to those who descended from Adam. If BS.packman is as good a linguist and historian as you all seem to believe then he should know all this. Perhaps he can explain it to the Ancient of Days when in Adam-Ondi-Ahman he (Adam) is presented as the head of the human family and Christ presides over all.
I've always wondered about Neanderthals.
I guess i've never understood why these are difficult concepts to reconcile. People who take the bible creation account litterally, are selective in what they take literally in the bible. There is no logical reason to not view the creation account as referring to creation periods which could have and likely did span millions or billions of years. God is the ultimate scientist, and why could evolution not be the process & methodolgy used for creation, development & refinement of life until it was deemed good in God's eyes and for his purposes, and when needed? A good an efficient scinetist developes process and and lets process do the work
I'm not enamored with science as Ben is. I understand, though, that it's one method for finding some truths. However, we set aside scripture at our peril. In my view, scripture cannot be reconciled with the uninspired and uninspiring precepts of men. Theory two was not convincingly responded to. It seems to me the most plausible. I suspect this earth is made of fragments of other and older earths where dwelt these fabulous creatures. I will not be surprised to discover in a future day that learned men have merely been groping in the dark along the wall. How blind and impenetrable are the understandings of men.
"Polygamy"
Science was invented as a means to learn about God's creation. Science arose from religion. God gave Man the curiosity, inspiration and means to inquire about the world around us.
The scriptures are not science. They don't contain scientific principles (except the Book of Abraham;-).
The scriptures contain clues, or starting points. God's creation is like a great big jigsaw puzzle. Science and revelation give us pieces of the puzzle and we try to find where they fit. Every piece gives us a clearer idea of what the whole picture looks like.
Fortunately, we have eternity to discover and place all the pieces.
This knowledge doesn’t matter to man’s salvation. If it did God would have revealed that truth a long time ago. Leave the mysteries alone and focus on what has been revealed to us for our salvation.
He reveled it long ago