I don’t understand those who need definite, black or white answers to every question, whether approached from a scientific or theological perspective. For theologians the gospel’s instruction to live by faith would seem to rule out such a requirement; for scientists Hiesenberg’s Uncertainty Principle requires a similar discipline. For any quantum particle – even light itself – we can know either it’s speed & direction or it’s precise location – we can *never* know both. For the time being, at least, we must satisfy ourselves with “probabilities.” It appears there is a similar containment to our current spiritual understanding, one the Joseph Smith and church leaders since have wisely recognized and adhered to.

All this hand wringing brought about by apologists and critiques alike may all be in vain. We have assumed all along that the ‘arrow’ of time points in only one direction – from ‘past’ to future’ when, it turns out, there appears to be no law of physics that imposes such a requirement.

“The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.”

Quantum mechanics suggest, and Super String or ‘M’ theory have proven there are unseen multiple dimensions and even entire universes all about us, under our noses quite literally. Since Einstein we have known that Space & Time are inseparably interwoven for us and that there simply is no preferred observational standpoint above any other in the space-time of our universe. What any one of us see and understand depends entirely on where we stand, giving an entirely new meaning to the scriptural admonition to “stand ye in holy places.”

Stephen Hawking and collaborators are even now suggesting that the only way out of our conundrum toward a ‘theory of everything’ is to realize there are multiple histories to the creation of the universe as well. Of all the possible histories of any current phenomena, the one most appropriate may depend on “what you are attempting to measure.”

Joseph Smith and church leaders are most wise to insist we not force a premature reconciliation between the worldly and the spiritual. In due course they will reconcile of their own accord quite nicely, thank you. In the meantime it is enough to soak it all in and wonder at the beauty of it all!

Thanks again, and apologies for the length of this post.

And to be completely honest, I would be disappointed if Gary didn’t comment on this post (and every other dealing with Mormonism and science). It’s one of the true constants in the bloggernacle, and I value that.

Beyond that, Gary and you and everybody else can believe what you want, with my cheerful blessing. I just won’t let it go unchallenged that because this or that individual religious authority, in this or that random publication that may have been sponsored by the Church and happens to include some incidental statement relative to the matter, such statement constitutes a revelation that is binding upon me or anyone else. It isn’t.

“NDBF” may also apply only to -our- “scope.” IE, NDBF might need to be qualified as not pertaining to anything prior to the relative beginning point of Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 may represent a “do over” point, and from that point forward, there was no death prior to the fall. Since God apparently doesn’t want to tell us any of the story before _our_ story, (somewhere in the triple it says something like “only this planet and the inhabitants thereof do I tell you about”) all historical-type gospel statements may need to be circumscribed as applying only after the Genesis 1:1 point.

(Another evidence of _scope_ or range of operability are OT statements that seem to preclude the existence of a multiplicty of gods in terms of heavenly grandparents/uncles/etc. Additionally, use of words such as eternal and everlasting, also seem to be circumscribed or delimited in terms of our existence or our story/history. Things, states of being, or conditions that have “always” existed, may not have existed in “a time” before “our time”, because “always” may be limited in scope to _our_ time. I’ve always liked the phrase, “time is a local phenomena”, though I forget the source, or the LDS person who quoted it.)

I also assume that the Genesis 1:1 point is at or near the point denoted by Abraham 3:24 (“We will go down…”).

Ardis/Ray: To me, the question of whether fossils were laid down pre or post conglomeration is open. Either way, it’s possible that the fossils were laid down prior to the point of Genesis 1:1, because we don’t know who’s or what’s “beginning” is being referenced.

Anyway, that’s how I sometimes reconcile (in my mind at least) LDS doctrine against some of the Bible-based accusations that come from creedal Christians and other objections that come from atheists.

When we understand the current scientific theory of earth’s formation, we see that it seems to be perfectly consistent with the statement attributed to Joseph Smith (which apparently has at least a couple of contemporary brethren affirming it). The statement says nothing about peeling and rearranging layers to assemble the earth (in the fashion that the earth is made on a “factory floor” in Hitchhiker’s guide to the Universe). It is consistent with the science picture of massive collisions that vaporize and melt the elements of the earth. This all took place circa 4.3 billion BC, and the first clear fossils don’t show up until about 1 billion BC.

Note that this dating is way beyond Carbon 14, but involves long-half-life elements like Uranium. And uranium decay is not affected by atmosphere.

Final comment: Since God told Moses that countless worlds had already “passed away”, while others were being created, clearly “death” of living things existed in the universe before the Fall of Adam and Eve on earth. Even the “patch job” theory of fossil origin assumes that death predated Adam and Eve on OTHER planets. So what is the significance of claiming that there was no death of any living thing on earth before the Fall? What does the death of plants, for example, which took place when they were eaten, mean as far as the significance of the Fall for God’s children? God tells Adam and Eve that THEY will die in the day they eat of the forbidden fruit, not that all the other plants and animals will die. This concept seems to be a picture that is superimposed on the scriptures rather than actually in them. For that matter, it may have been a condition limited to the Garden itself, not to the entire earth, which was clearly larger than the Garden. It just seems to me that we are tempted to make the gospel too hard to believe, just as a proof of oour own faithfulness. It becomes a form of “looking beyond the mark”.

Sorry for the long post.

You can make one response to this if you wish, but make it a good one. You’re like a radio station that plays an endless loop of a single song by a tone-deaf artist with a one-string guitar. It’s fun for a little while, for laughs, but the fun turns to boredom pretty fast. I’m about to change the station.

In terms of alignment with what the Church does teach, however, the first interpretation has a problem, because all fossils are dead; and the Church’s Bible Dictionary, Guide to the Scriptures, True to the Faith, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, and Gospel Principles 2009 (to name a few) all teach no death before the fall of Adam.

Which is why I lean toward the second interpretation, not because it’s a handy explanation for fossils.