Flat Earth Theories and Young Earth Creationism

[Anonymous]

My intention here isn’t to revisit the discussions of the past. Rather, I wish to address the legitimacy of the Church’s position right now — in 2024.

“Flat Earth theories” and “Young Earth Creationism” have been discussed in this group many times since as far back at 2009. Indeed, some who have discussed these issues remain alive and well and posting here.

The question I have isn’t about whether you have convictions about scientific and geological evidence (which I do, as it happens), it’s about whether you believe it is important for the Church to eventually take a side in these matters or simply sit on the fence — hoping to appeal to everyone by saying “we don’t know” or “it’s up to you to decide for yourself.” The exact quote is “The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng).

In my opinion, that position is increasingly indefensible. Church leaders have repeatedly shared what they assert to be inspired insights into aspects of our pre-Earth and post-Final Judgement estates. Since the true nature of the Earth lies squarely within those two bounds, it seems counterintuitive (verging on disingenuous) to me to deflect attention by saying “we don’t know.” Is that really the case (and they haven’t received inspiration), or is it more like “we don’t want to be caught out later by overwhelming evidence that hasn’t yet come to light”?

It is a significant issue because it fundamentally impacts the narrative we push about God’s relationship with mankind. Did he intervene to form us in the relatively recent past, or did he simply stand back and allow natural processes to construct us over billions of years? The end result may be the same, but the argument in favor of God micro-managing all our hopes, fears, prayers, and actions fails to stand up to scrutiny in a scenario where we descended from evolutionary processes — and remain influenced by them because they are imprinted within our DNA.

Should we care that the Church currently refuses to take an official position on this? I certainly care. Describing scenarios in great detail that (conveniently) cannot be proven while figuratively shrugging one’s shoulders in the face of matters for which there is a growing body of incontrovertible evidence is troubling to me.

How do you square this circle? Do you follow the Church’s lead and say, “I try not to think about it”?

[Anonymous]

Personally:

– How do I square the circle?

I know, follow & understand the difference between knowledge & faith.

– Do you follow the Church’s lead and say, “I try not to think about it”?

For me, the church is the collection of individual members. Each has their own power to think & understand (to accept or reject) for

themselves. Sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we get it wrong. This life is meant to be a classroom.

I don’t make it more complicated than that.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

For me, the church is the collection of individual members. Each has their own power to think & understand (to accept or reject) for

themselves. Sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we get it wrong. This life is meant to be a classroom.

OK. Interesting. That isn’t how I view it, which may explain why it bothers me when the Church gives the impression of sitting on the fence.

In my experience, our beliefs aren’t individualistic inasmuch as we don’t get to curate our own religion piecemeal from things that resonate with us. In my worldview, our doctrine is prescribed, and we either accept everything — pretty much at face value — or we wilfully put ourselves out of alignment with God’s anointed prophets. So, I listen to what they say. But when they say nothing, I’m left wondering why. Perhaps I should question less.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

[The question I have is] about whether you believe it is important for the Church to eventually take a side in these matters or simply sit on the fence?

– Carburettor

I think that whenever the church as an institution “takes a side” in any of these issues – it’s because someone in the halls of the institution ran a risk assessment and came to the conclusion that “taking a side” was important and that “being right” was worth it. Generally, it’s to protect the status quo and the current authority/power that the church (or church agents) have.

I don’t think the church as an organization has a winning strategy in either option. Whenever the church has “explicitly taken sides”, some people feel marginalized and leave. Other individuals come that much closer to leaving. But as the church organization “fence-sits”, their moral authority with the individuals can potentially dwindle because today’s church cannot necessarily live up to the “expansive truth claims” of yesteryear.

More importantly, individuals have drifted into “replacement communities” in terms of building digital communities, work communities (with 2 breadwinner families and related care structures for children and elderly – entire ecosystems are formed outside of church), special interest communities, etc. The “barrier to entry” for some of these communities is a lot less costly (financially and potentially time-wise too).

I think that what is threatening the church’s doctrinal relevancy is the “One-Size Fit’s All” aka “Exclusive Covenant Path” theme. With so much customizable now (you can set up personal settings for your music, your bed setting, your food portions, count your steps, etc.) that wasn’t really so easily customizable 30 years ago – the attempts at exclusiveness (at the expense of customization) ring hollow – so people are choosing to create a “Non-Covenant Path” / “Covenant Path Adjacent” path centered on the moral authority of individuals as empowered to make those choices.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

In my experience, our beliefs aren’t individualistic inasmuch as we don’t get to curate our own religion piecemeal from things that resonate with us. In my worldview, our doctrine is prescribed, and we either accept everything — pretty much at face value — or we wilfully put ourselves out of alignment with God’s anointed prophets. So, I listen to what they say. But when they say nothing, I’m left wondering why. Perhaps I should question less.

The cynic in me says that current church leaders don’t take a side so they can avoid issues that have occurred in the past where they took a side and later had to walk it back (for whatever reason).

The optimist in me says that the fewer sides leaders take, the less there is for ward busybodies to police and the more room there is for divergent viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Carburettor wrote:

In my experience, our beliefs aren’t individualistic inasmuch as we don’t get to curate our own religion piecemeal from things that resonate with us. In my worldview, our doctrine is prescribed, and we either accept everything — pretty much at face value — or we wilfully put ourselves out of alignment with God’s anointed prophets. So, I listen to what they say. But when they say nothing, I’m left wondering why. Perhaps I should question less.

The cynic in me says that current church leaders don’t take a side so they can avoid issues that have occurred in the past where they took a side and later had to walk it back (for whatever reason).

The optimist in me says that the fewer sides leaders take, the less there is for ward busybodies to police and the more room there is for divergent viewpoints.

This is my basic point of view as well.

I do know members on both sides, although I’d have to say more people I know are on the more scientific side. My own point of view is that we don’t know that the Big Bang or evolution are not the way God did it, and of course there’s always that deist viewpoint of mine.

But the question really seems to be should the church take a stance. As Nibbler says, I think not, and for the same reasons.

I believe, mostly based on Rough Stone Rolling and other historical readings, that Joseph Smith and some other early leaders absolutely believed we each do and should have our own individual beliefs and understandings. To some extent I believe that was part of the purpose of the adjustments in church curriculum. There was a long time under correlation where we were spoon fed everything we should believe, and while that era is not totally gone (there are still specific criteria/subject matter in the manuals for example) it is also clear that there is room for teaching and discussing at home. It’s obviously not at the point where we can really do as manuals suggest and openly discuss any belief on any topic in SS, but the “home centered church supported” idea does state that as a principle.

Topics such as this make much more room for individualized understanding without the stigma sometimes attached to “other” beliefs. I don’t think the church is about to backtrack on this one any more than any others. Change is oh so slow.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the Church should stay out of scientific stances, especially when they don’t define theological positions in any way. The official teachings can fit just fine with or without evolution, and the church doesn’t reject it. Just because I believe in evolution doesn’t mean I want to have the church officially agree with me, especially when the official statement doesn’t disagree with me.

Worshipping according to the dictates of my own conscience doesn’t apply only to me, so I am fine with members not believing as I do. I wish this was the standard for a lot more issues, not fewer.

The Golden Rule is my foundation, generally, and in this case, specifically.

Just curious: How does this issue fit into you staying LDS? Do you want official statements that agree with your views but don’t want official statements that don’t? How flexible are you on this sort of “no stance” example?

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Just curious: How does this issue fit into you staying LDS? Do you want official statements that agree with your views but don’t want official statements that don’t? How flexible are you on this sort of “no stance” example?

I guess I fumbled the ball by leaving you uncertain as to how this issue is relevant.

The problem for me is that all faiths have a track record of adopting Mosaic Law-style positions of prescriptive belief when proof or disproof is impossible in mortality. Such statements and tenets tend to be delivered as facts. God did X to achieve Y as a result. We describe in lengthy detail the attributes of God and the organization of his household before and after existence, which cannot of course be challenged because no one has evidence to the contrary — whereas contested topics for which we do actually have irrefutable evidence (and which also impact our relationship with God) are left for us to make up our own minds, arguably to avoid subsequent embarrassment if our relation with God turns out to be something different from what was previously professed.

If, for example, you believe that Adam and Eve were created in their finished form by God just a few generations ago in the grand scheme of things, that is likely to make you feel differently about the form and function of your body than how you might feel if you were taught (and you believed) that your human body is the outcome of evolutionary processes that God simply stood by and watched happen in a slow-mo version of the Plan of Salvation. When we as a Church speak of the sacred nature of our reproductive organs, for example, we imbue them with a certain amount of mystique that is entirely unwarranted if they are simply fleshy adaptations formed over millions of years across all living species.

Perhaps I’m still mangling the point. We claim to have an intimate knowledge of our physical connection to God, being made in his image, yet the compelling origin story offered by scientific evidence is left to be an issue of personal opinion.

I believe our biological history is relevant and does matter. There are individuals in my own ward who still believe the Earth is flat based on their misinterpretation of scripture and denial of science as mere propaganda from an evil cabal. Such views are incompatible with our pursuit of knowledge. The authority of the Church is diminished when it tries to be all things to all people. The result will be chaos and contradiction.

We see something similar happening on the LGBTQIA+ front. The Church wants people to be content while sitting on the fence with statements like “everyone is welcome” and “we don’t know why people turn out a certain way.” Such positions are unsustainable longterm, and there’s a whole bunch of ugliness has been sown and continues to be cultivated that Church leadership is going to have to reap someday.

On a side note, I’m also trying to offer something for people to engage with while this board slowly stagnates. No need to thank me.

[Anonymous]

I think the main question is “what should be taken literal” vs “what is more symbolic”.

In our scientifically precise, measured, and regulated world – literal processes such as how to build an airplane wing are treated with that level of caution and concern because they are life and death choices.

Symbolic themes are enhanced with passion and certainty to “sell” them to others – hyperbole and all.

The whole charm/selling point of having religious leaders and prophets is specifically so that “‘they can tell us what to talk literally vs what is more symbolically because they have an eternal perspective”. And a lot of people drift away because the individuals no longer trust that prophets know the distinction between literal truth and hyperbole.

2 Mainstream Examples:

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

I think the main question is “what should be taken literal” vs “what is more symbolic”.

That’s a fair point, Amy. My wife was in her late forties when she said after a temple session, “I’ve never understood how Adam and Eve could meet up with Peter, James, and John. They lived in totally different times.” She had always believed that the endowment session was supposed to be a history lesson because no one had ever made it clear that it wasn’t.

IMO, there is nothing at all that is literal in the temple experience. Rightly or wrongly, I believe it is 100% symbolic. Consequently, my faith system looks entirely different from that of many other members.

Does it make a difference? Absolutely it does. I expect the majority of Church members believe that Joseph Smith’s first vision was a visitation because we promote it in that way. At best, it was a type of dream. Little wonder JS recorded multiple versions. But there’s a significant percentage of Church membership whose testimonies are based on it having been a literal visitation.

We are taught that God is not the author of confusion, but we — in his name — are causing a whole bunch of it.

[Anonymous]

I always figured that it was pre-mortal Peter, James, and John showing up to fulfill a pre-earth life assignment.

I think the biggest challenge is that the “one size fits all” aka “there is only 1 path” creates an assumption that diverse internal faith systems are “broken” by definition instead of celebrated for the structures they are. Our culture is not comfortable talking about the “differences” between paths at all. The party line is that the “male path” is the same as “the female path” and that the “physically abled path” is the same as the “physically disabled path” and so forth.

One of my favorite book series a science fiction novel set in the Bobiverse and the first one is “We are Bob”. The series itself is about a self-replicating drone spaceship that has a human intelligence willingly embedded in it, the ship functions like a body does. Bob gives serious consideration about Bob’s creation power (Bob can literally create anything – including more Bobs given enough time) and really aspects of “Godhood”.

The narrative that we get from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is that God is male, has at least 1 wife – and God’s purpose is to create more humans.

Bob the spaceship starts with the charge to “protect the humans” and “space exploration” then the entire Bobiverse grapples with “and then what” – but creating more Bobs is not the highest priority on the list.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

I always figured that it was pre-mortal Peter, James, and John showing up to fulfill a pre-earth life assignment.

Quod erat demonstrandum (as written when I used to evidence proof in Calculus).

The endowment explains that each patron can consider himself or herself as Adam and Eve respectively — who represent the entire human family. Thus, when Peter, James, and John appear, it is as themselves in their timeline — where Adam and Eve represent the members of the human family whom they figuratively visited while on Earth.

We may dismiss such trifling details a nothingness, but the devil is in the detail — such that we may find we actually have entirely different faith systems. That’s confusion in my book.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

IMO, there is nothing at all that is literal in the temple experience. Rightly or wrongly, I believe it is 100% symbolic. Consequently, my faith system looks entirely different from that of many other members.

Yes, I agree, and I also think you’re correct in many members not seeing it the same way. That’s OK, though. I’m fine with people having different understandings (or different levels of understanding) of the same thing. When I was a child I spake as a child…, etc. I do know people who have spent a good amount of time getting the signs and tokens in the temple exactly right because they believe, perhaps based on Brigham Young’s statement, that these will actually be given to the sentinel angels in order to pass the gates into heaven (I don’t know or understand why they don’t necessarily believe they must be given to “The Lord.”) I believe there are perhaps some symbolic messages or meanings in the signs and tokens (thankfully minus the penalties) that have little to do with actually entering heaven.

Carburettor wrote:

Does it make a difference? Absolutely it does. I expect the majority of Church members believe that Joseph Smith’s first vision was a visitation because we promote it in that way. At best, it was a type of dream. Little wonder JS recorded multiple versions. But there’s a significant percentage of Church membership whose testimonies are based on it having been a literal visitation.

Good point. I have had this discussion multiple times on multiple levels. I have visited the place more times than I can count or remember. I have often heard it repeated that this is spot where God visited Joseph Smith. And I have heard it from the GC pulpit. But Joseph never claimed that God or Jesus or angels were actually physically there, and never called it anything other than a vision. I get that some people can’t think on that level of abstract, similar to having to have a definition of a day in the creation story – like a day in that sense is really 1,000 years. People will take that 1,000 years literally to the minute because they can’t think in the abstract that a day (which is likely a mistranslated word to begin with) could actually refer to an unspecified period of time and that days may not be equal in length. I am reminded of a movie a few years back, Zero Dark Thirty. I saw a TV review of it when it was in theaters, and the reviewer had to define what zero dark thirty meant (more commonly actually said oh dark thirty in the US military) and concluded that zero dark thirty was 12:30 am. It could be, but when I was a soldier oh dark thirty meant any ungodly early hour – which could have just as well been 6:30 am since that is quite early to many teen males. So, I usually chalk this belief up to people not being able to think in that kind of abstract – they can’t wrap their heads around the idea of a vision.

I think those who take the Bible literally are somewhat similar. It is of course doctrine in some churches that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old and Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs, etc. I think some members who were born and raised in a certain era (or perhaps came into the church at that time) are also prone to have a more literal interpretation. I do personally know members who hold such beliefs (and many more who don’t). My point is I think that somehow those people need to have that kind of defined concrete belief. Are either of us going to be held out of heaven because of our understanding? I don’t doubt anything more. As OT said, let them worship…. (Nowhere does that say this only applies to non-members.)*

Carburettor wrote:

We are taught that God is not the author of confusion, but we — in his name — are causing a whole bunch of it.

I think if the “we” you are referring to is the church (or churches in general) I agree. I strongly believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ is profoundly simple, but the church has a way of complicating it.

*Side note: I think the church’s rather dogged determination to use only the KJV limits people’s understanding. I do believe the King James people did a pretty good job and mostly got it right. There is nothing wrong with the KLV as a whole, and there are some passages that I find very moving in the language used. At the same time, the language used can cause confusion and misunderstanding. I nearly always compare other translations (and I have a particular fondness for the NRSV, as apparently does theologian N.T. Wright https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/06/21/latter-day-saints-meet-nt-wright/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/06/21/latter-day-saints-meet-nt-wright/). Some GAs (not just DFU) do quote from other translations. I think the church would do well to encourage examination of other translations in order to increase our own understandings.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor, my questions still stand:

1) What kind of official policy statements do you want? Official statements about everything – or only ones that match your view when you are certain of those issues – or only ones that are not opposed to your views – or only ones that are purely theological in nature – or something else?

The core issue for a world-wide organization is the desire to have a truly world-wide membership that is highly diverse in many ways, including philosophically – and the temptation with that desire is to correlate conformity and ideological unity OR reject all uniformity and focus solely on a nebulous ideal of spiritual unity. The beauty of the first approach is that it is MUCH easier to create – and it works for the most ardent, “orthodox” members who crave certainty and fear ambiguity. The ugly side of that approach is that it is unpalatable for the “heterodox” members who see things in colorful hues and love complexity and exploration. The more difficult version is striving for a balance that somehow can work for both groups: those who need to be told (settlers) AND those who need to discover (explorers). The Church has been focused on each group at various times in its history, with some times of mutual acceptance – with the 1960’s-2000-ish solidly on the correlated certainty side and moving out of that gradually for the last 20+ years. I personally prefer an attempt at balance and “on-going revelation” (the Restoration as a process and not an event, even if that means lots of members see lots of things differently than I do and lots of others see things more like me).

In the New Testament, there was Paul (legalistic certainty) AND John (“God is love.”) – I think because different people needed each of those messages.

2) How does this impact you staying LDS, to whatever degree and in whatever way is best for you? How can we help you in that specific way? What needs to happen, externally and/internally, for you to be able to stay LDS?

Ultimately, that is the central purpose of this site: NOT to answer every doctrinal or social question in the one true way but to help each participant find whatever works for them, even if that is different than what works for each of the rest of us. We don’t look for the one true answer about any topic; rather, we try to help people find whatever answer / perspective / paradigm will work for them.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Carburettor, my questions still stand

Perhaps I’m coming at this from an entirely different angle from others. Are you an active member, Old-Timer? And, if so, do you attend all your meetings week-in-week-out? A simple yes or no will suffice.

For my part, I am a fully active member (currently serving in stake leadership), and I have been active for my entire life. However, I have no church pedigree or heritage to keep me invested for social or cultural reasons; my deceased parents were converts just six years before I was born.

What brought me to this place was my discomfort over discovering (relatively recently) that there is a significant number of skeletons in the Church’s gender-and-identity closet. Now that I’m here, however, I guess I’m taking the opportunity to dredge up some things I increasingly perceive as nonsensical to get a second opinion. Maybe someone here will allay my concerns, or maybe they’ll just figuratively shrug and tell me I shouldn’t be so literal.

To answer your questions:

1) What kind of official policy statements do I want? How about ones that reflect constancy? You mention “ongoing revelation.” To me, true ongoing revelation adds more detail; it doesn’t involve scrubbing the past and changing the narrative in a way that contradicts what was previously said. And if it does, for whatever reason, it should at least be honest about it. Having senior Church leadership who bear the mantle of prophets, seers, and revelators yet who espouse different beliefs is something of a red flag.

2) How does this impact me? I have previously stated that I will not tolerate DHO as President of the Church (if he outlives President Nelson). Should DHO become President, I will withdraw from activity without renouncing my membership. Perhaps that will put me on an even footing with some other subscribers here. I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and, if I squint to make everything fuzzy, I’m comfortable with how the Church operates. However, having now contemplated the reality of my stepping away for a season, I find myself examining some of the many issues that, for me, reveal inconsistency or general mumbo-jumbo.

Perhaps I have outstayed my welcome here.

[Author]

Posts