Comments on: Dear Brigham: “Compulsory Swallowing of the Six Day Absurdity”

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:40:01 +0000

I agree with you, Julia; thanks for this comment. While I am puzzled by how some church leaders of an earlier — but NOT the earliest — generation of Mormonism could have adopted the fundamentalist Christian anti-science stance that they did, I don’t fault current church members for assuming it. They believe they’re following church doctrine, having been erroneously taught some of these ideas. Sometimes the anti-science voices are so strong and loud and persistent, that it’s hard for many to hear the quieter, usually calmer and less angry voices, pointing out the authoritative statements that the church has no official dogma on these matters, but trusts that continuing revelation and continuing study will eventually reconcile any contradictions.

By: Julia

Julia — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:03:24 +0000

I remember learning this is seminary. When I was a teenager we had a science teacher who was our the bishop. We had a fireside that included the BY talk, as well as several others by general authorities, that supported the need for science.

I had the understanding that when science finds new things about the earth and the animals that have previously lived here, that it is another piece of the puzzle of how the Lord creates a world. I have always talked to my kids about how wonderful it is that we live in a time when we can learn about how the science of the world and universe work. We talk about how Heavenly Father might use the priesthood to direct how the building blocks get put together to make planets, people and all of the wonderful things on the earth.

I am always a little puzzled when people who are members of the church see science as something to fight against. I have always wondered if I missed something. Seeing this has reminded me that the early members of the church were taught that science and the gospel are compatible, even integral, to the understanding of each other.

By: Karl D.

Karl D. — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:13:25 +0000

Ben S.,

I could be easily wrong, but I think the “stork stories” comment that Ben Park mentions comes from the following by Barlow on page 100 (Hardcover):

It was another response entirely for Brigham Young to write off part of the Bible as fables, the sort of stories that adults told children deemed unready for the “facts of life.”

I assumed when I read that sentence that Barlow was referring to a quote from Brigham Young on page 92. It is the same quote as the second quote in your link. The quote that says in part, “little Billy came from a hollow toadstool.” Maybe I am wrong; I might have missed a stork story reference in the book.

By: Ben Park

Ben Park — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:08:14 +0000

Ben S: I found the “stork stories” comment quoted in Phil Barlow’s Mormons and the Bible.” if I had the book handy, I’d give you the reference.

By: The Other Clark

The Other Clark — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:34:30 +0000

BY’s “no matter if it is correct or not” is eye opening for me. Also, the 6 million year figure is a much longer creation period than what I think most mormons believe.

I think I’ll pass these quotes on to the other ward members after Gospel Doctrine class, prefaced with, “I’m not supposed to talk about this, but did you know…”

By: Ben S

Ben S — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:25:01 +0000

Ben Park, I'm looking for quotes like that to engage with. I'm aware of the two in this and the following comment.

By: Ben Park

Ben Park — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:49:45 +0000

This is great, Ardis, especially in light of recent discussions on Mormonism and science.

BY’s thought really needs to be engaged more, including his interpretation of the bible. He once called the narrative of Genesis “stork stories”!

By: kevinf

kevinf — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:02:08 +0000

God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist.

Such a core doctrinal principle, very well stated by Brigham Young. For every exasperation I have with him over some sarcastic statement, there are at least two gems like this to counterbalance with. BY was never dull, that’s for sure.

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:58:34 +0000

Thanks, Ardis!

And thank you for this gem. President Young certainly wasn’t a very polished stone, but those are sometimes the most beautiful — not to mention useful.

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:23:56 +0000

It was during this period that William Thomson AKA Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) started working out limits of the age of the earth from thermodynamic considerations. How long would it take the surface of a molten sphere to cool to the temperature observed for our Earth? Thomson's calculation put an upper bound of 400 million years, later refined to 40 million. Huxley didn't like that at all, and it contradicted the current philosophy of geologic "Uniformitarianism," but that was what thermodynamics required UNLESS there were some source of heat generation within the Earth. In 1903, a few years before Thomson's death, radioactivity was discovered and allowed a much older Earth consistent with thermodynamics. It is interesting what contradictions can twist about while a science works itself out, and the number of times dogma and iconoclasm can switch places. "On Geological Dynamics"