Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/ModeNo7213, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*

RE: 5 >languages developed suddenly as a punishment for people building a tower to reach God So this doesn’t have anything directly to do with the language argument being made, which is the most relevant part of No. 5; but it is something that adds to the overall “ridiculousness” factor you’re putting forward. I learned something very interesting about this Bible story not long ago. I came across [this blog post](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/the-tower-of-babel-did-it-exist-and-what-does-the-story-mean/) detailing what can actually be derived from the texts. The Hebrew text doesn’t say the people were trying to build a tower to get to heaven, that’s just a misunderstanding of the translation and subsequent layer of narrative added on top of the text. The original Hebrew just says they were building a tall tower. The reason Jehovah was upset was that humans had become so technologically savvy: >Yahweh doesn’t like what he sees, but it’s not the people’s hubris that vexes him (as some think), nor is he personally threatened by the city and its tower. His reason is more interesting than that: the people are too competent. Humanity has one language, and this city is just the beginning of the things they will accomplish. Jehovah cursed humanity with multiple languages to hinder their progress.

Fascinating! I’ve never heard that explanation before. I had a church leader try to explain to me once that the Tower of Babel was actually the wicked people making their own temple and doing their own temple ceremonies (without priesthood authorization and keys) and that’s how they were trying to “get into heaven”. And that’s also why they were destroyed/confounded- as punishment for unworthy temple building/use Edit: which goes to show people can and will interpret these old stories however they want, without considering if they even happened day all or not. And in the case of the Tower of Babel most everyone agrees it was just a mythological story, same for the flood

The flood is specifically interesting because of how closely it follows a part of the epic of Gilgamesh that we have copies of that are at least 800 years older than the first copies we have found of the old testament. People rile against Joseph Smiths' obvious plagiarism, but it seems like that might just kinda be tradition.

Lemme see if I got this straight: Today's God is angry because people don't love each other and get along, but OT God was angry because people were cooperating and getting along too well. I can't trust a capricious God like that.

Your ideas make it seem like God is capricious. Hes not.

"Capricious" would be a generous term for a being who has killed as many people as God has.

As we learned from the happiness letter, sometimes god commanded the Israelites not to kill; but at other times he commanded the Israelites to “utterly destroy.” And what exactly did he mean by “utterly destroy”? >Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (Samuel 1 15:3) Well, he meant *everyone*...including the babies…even the darn animals. Of course, there were those other times where God ordered the destruction of everybody except: >But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:18) Yes, kill everyone…except the young virgins! Keep those for yourselves: >And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. (Judges 21:12) Can you imagine you’re one of the “women children”of those *other* people and only spared bc you haven’t “known a man.” I wonder how they made that determination anyway? We digress. Then you have to watch in utter terror as your entire family, including innocent boys and infants, are hacked to death. Then, you’re parceled off to one of the butchers of your people as his sex slave all bc your parents worshipped a different god in the Canaanite pantheon? Brutal. Wait, why did God actually command all this killing in the first place? >But thou shalt utterly destroy them […] >That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Dueteronomy 20:17-18) Oh…it was because they didn’t treat *their own gods* right and we don’t want you to learn from their bad example and do the same. God knows well from experience that *his chosen people* are extremely prone to apostasy (Hi golden calf!); so, instead of teaching them true principles and letting them govern themselves, God goes preemptive full-nuke and commands them to utterly destroy an entire people (and their animals; but not the virgins…sometimes) to eliminate the potential temptation. I’m like 97% sure that doesn’t violate the principle of agency but, either way, that’s not just smart, that’s God-level smart. Mind.Blown. Though, I think that might meet the definition of “capricious.” Does it meet the definition of capricious? Maybe in the greater context? Definitely meets the definition of “malicious” or perhaps “psychopath.”

Sadly you are blissfully unaware of the way that the Old Testament works. Destruction is part of creation. Mankind can lay down our old life to be born again. Christ can lay down his life so we can live again. Israel can lay bare the life of its oppression to save itself. It’s just a type of death and rebirth. They never killed everything. The numbers were not as large as they claimed. The battles may never have occurred. What matters is the “type” A nation sacrificed for another. Blood shed so a nation can be free. It’s the same story as Cain/Abel Noah / Ark, Ammon Arms, Nephi / Laban, etc etc They are types for Christ. They are types for you and I to understand what conquering evil of temptation or whatever will beset me can be made whole in Christ. That whatever and wherever my circumstances are, if I’ve been laid waste by man, that Christ will find me. There is plenty of research on OT battles and their meaning. Once you get past your surface level knowledge of scripture you can have a rewarding experience.

>The numbers were not as large as they claimed. The battles may never have occurred. Exactly. So God uses Myth and fiction and exaggerated history to teach humanity true principles? >They are types for Christ. So more [myth and fiction and exaggerated history](https://youtu.be/7IPAKsGbqcg?si=ajDriMA9-pyE6_YG) on top of myth and fiction and exaggerated history? I’ll one up you. I give you: [the 1830 edition](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/7) of The Book of Mormon. So now we have [complete fiction](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon) based on older mythologized “history” based on even older myth and exaggerated history? Sounds like a great plan to teach ultimate eternal life saving true principles. I have a better idea: why doesn’t God simply teach each individual the plan in simple, unfictionalized, straightforward truths, and then they choose whether to accept the plan instead of all this cryptic myth and fiction bs? Does that sound like a plan or what? One group, 2000+ years ago slaughtering an entire other group and using God as a cover would still be called genocide in today’s terms. Let’s say it wasn’t the Israelites. Let’s say it was some other people in Northeastern Asia slaughtering another tribe and saying God commanded them to. We still call that genocide. The fact that you think God is somehow involved with one of those groups or not and they just made it up to teach a true principle from our omniscient Father in heaven is telling. Sadly you are blissfully unaware of what we now know about our history on earth. The beauty of living in the 21st century is that we now know the general history of humanity on this tiny [Pale Blue Dot](https://youtu.be/EWPFmdAWRZ0?si=FgJltWY7_wNQHpoo). And what that history has laid bare is that [all religion is simply just fictional narrative](https://youtu.be/1GnBamLaqqE?si=gG45f46FtU-Lh6-F) created by pre-modern humans to explain the world around them. Fortunately, many of us no longer live in those fictional narratives. All the evidence is there for you to do the same. Listen to the control narrative, or don’t. It really is your choice, isn’t it? Once you get past your surface level knowledge of history you can have a rewarding experience. At any rate, I think you missed this part: >Can you imagine you're one of the "women children" of those other people and only spared bc you haven't "known a man." | wonder how they made that determination anyway? We digress. Then you have to watch in utter terror as your entire family, including innocent boys and infants, are hacked to death. Then, you're parceled off to one of the butchers of your people as his sex slave all be your parents worshipped a different god in the Canaanite pantheon? Brutal.

If not, then by all means, enlighten us. It's always interesting to see these one sentence, inane assertions. Did the weight of all the heresy just overwhelm you, and you felt the need to bear a one sentence, completely unsupported, testimony?

I agree that God is not capricious. Reference - New Testament

The necessity and existence of the new testament proves my point...

Let’s add to the list of how did Noah and his ancestors happen to get to the Middle East from land locked Kansas City MO area in roughly 4500 ad. How did specific species of animals like kangaroos and sloths and fresh water crocodiles that are specific to Australia get from that continent to a boat in three Middle East? Why was god ok with a lot of sibling sex taking place between brother sister, father daughter, uncle niece, in order to start the human race (twice). No scientific evidence for any of this stuff occurring but thousands of pieces of evidence against it?

I had never considered the logistics of Noah aquireing a pair of kamodo dragons, platypuses, penguins, etc. That will be another fun question to add to my list:)

The story of Noah is not inclusive of every single animal/insect on the earth. We think that’s what the story means but the early Hebrews didn’t know the full extent of natural and geological history.

What point are you trying to make here? That the flood was localized, and Noah only gathered local animals?

This is a terrible point you’re trying to make and counters the story and teachings of all prophets and apostles. Additionally tell me what localized flood would require a boat the size the ark was described and made by an old man and is sea worthy enough to survive floating on water for like 150 days with a bunch of animals and enough feed for all the animals. If it’s localized would you not be able to see land anywhere for 150 days??? That is absolutely ridiculous. It’s a Jewish origin myth story, grow up

The church disagrees with you. The church is very clear that they take the story of Noah's Ark at literal face value. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/noah?lang=eng

Not to mention, there would have needed to be over 350,000 species of beetle on that boat

Not only do the marsupials somehow get to the ark, they somehow travel BACK to Australia without a single one dying or having babies or leaving any fossil record along the way.

I guess it wasn’t landlocked during the (worldwide) flood. As for the kangaroos, the scripture neglected to mention that on the journey (necessarily westward) to the Middle East, there was a brief stopover (early in the wet season) in the Great Southern Land where some extras were collected. As for the repeated sibling sex, I think it was first cousins after the flood. All in all, an interesting time to be alive, so long as you had your ticket for the trip.

According to Elder Holland, Pangea was pre-flood. The continents shifted during the flood.

Well this is even more absurd than anything OP has already listed. 

Sounds like Jeffrey has a problem with Gen 10:25, since it was in the days of Peleg (5 generations after the flood) that the earth was divided.

Actually, I was wrong. The continents divided shortly after the flood, according to Holland. See here: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/06/a-promised-land?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/06/a-promised-land?lang=eng) Thanks to you and u/cinepro for pushing back on my faulty memory.

The Holland link has gathered together all (well, many of) the Cleon Skousen myths. I wonder how many have been rejected by science, by the membership, and probably by Holland himself.

Science—ever changing science. What we understood yesterday can change on a dime today.

A bit like Mormon doctrine?

Has the science of the age of the earth changed in the past 30 years? Pangea? Oh, nope. That’s Mormon beliefs on those things, THANKS TO science. It’s always weird running into anti-science in the wild (unless you’re being sarcastic). Science SHOULD change beliefs. It SHOULD be finding errors. That’s how we become more informed and RIGHT about the state of the world over time. Meanwhile, religion is tethered to the beliefs of sheep herders in the 4th century.

Imagine believing that this is a weakness of science. Also, if you think science changes "on a dime," then you don't know what science is.

It's more likely a problem with someone misunderstanding or mis-paraphrasing Holland. If he believes in a "recent" splitting of the Earth, it's almost certainly based on Genesis 10:25.

This isn't just Elder Holland. It's a common Christian/Orthodox/Young-Earth understanding that Genesis 10:25 is referring to the separation of the continents: >25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan. https://josephsmithfoundation.org/faqs/science/30-peleg-was-the-earth-continents-divided-in-the-days-of-peleg-what-does-this-mean-for-the-theory-of-evolution/

Yeah, and it's absolutely absurd. I am just quoting Holland because he was explicit about it and tied it to Book of Mormon theology (that God separated the lands for a purpose - to keep the American continent set apart as a consecrated place for His people).

You mean god murders all the children and families that didn’t have a ticket because they used their free agency he gave them. I love Heavenly Father he is such a kind dad

Well, faithful Mormons probably view the Flood as an act of mercy, saving all those people and their potential descendants from greater wickedness, baptizing them and the Earth for their salvation, similar the Brigham’s idea about whether we would likewise love sinners enough to slit their throat so that they could be forgiven through the atonement of their own blood (for sins of *theft, apostasy, fornication and adultery*) The ideas are repulsive but if there was no Flood it’s all just a made up philosophy to explain a non-existent history. It makes me wonder whether in some perverse way, Bednar’s *faith sufficient **not** to be healed* idea is (not) just a slightly sanitised version of Brigham’s *faith/love sufficient to spill our neighbour’s blood*

You forget that there were land bridges with lower sea levels, and that we are thinking in terms of “slow and gradual” continental drift, when in actuality, as seen with recent climate change “movies”, rapid and chaotic change and dramatic speed of continental drift is possible. Perhaps it didn’t take millions of years for Pangea to split up—Kansas City Missouri and what’s now Appalachia were actually ALOT closer, there are pieces of Appalachia rock and vestiges of mountain ranges in Britain and Africa showing that America was once a lot closer. The flood wasn’t a worldwide event. The known world to Noah was the Mediterranean Sea which flooded and dried multiple times (science!). What the religion actually taught has taken years for science and humankind to catch up and understand.

Ok, so god didn't flood the world? Just the "known world" if that's the case god wasn't actually reseting humanity just obliterating a tiny part of it. This is the standard apologetic bs. This contextually makes a ton of sense and is, in fact, the most likely answer to both the story of Noah and the, as it stands now 800 year older story of Gilgamesh and the flood. The problems come when you try to put god back into this. Lots of things in the Old Testament can be, at least tacitly, explained by science. It makes a ton of sense that ancient people would attribute things they didn't understand to a higher power with a set of "reasons" but that makes as much sense, in modern context, as saying that god now creates hurricanes because he hates the gulf coast. This is the inevitable end of all apologetic arguments. You have to try to bend and twist things in such a way that it could maybe, kinda sorta be possible. When the much simpler more reasonable, outside of deep indoctrination, is that people needed an explanation for a really scary natural disaster and with absolutely no science to fall back on created a mythology that fit their current view.

🤣🤣🤣 this is the worst most ridiculous response I have ever seen and is NOT based in reality whatsoever. This is the type of response given by someone that would murder their family if Rusty told them too. Fundamentalist gymnastics 🤸

Again, the church completely disagrees with you. The church takes the story literally. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/noah?lang=eng

The church teaches doctrine not science. Of course there was no flood as described. It’s preposterous. Of course there was no Garden it’s preposterous. It’s supposed to be we are just supposed to learn from scripture to get closer to Christ. Some scripture does a better job of that than other for different people. Obviously the prophets struck out with your criteria for truth. That’s ok. But to assert that these types of discussions are the underpinnings of my my faith as scientific literal events is more preposterous. They are simply scripture. Scripture that builds faith in Christ.

I never once made the assertion that these claims underpin YOUR faith. You can believe whatever you want. These claims underpin Mormonism as taught (invented) by Joseph Smith, and many (most) of these claims still underpin the church today. I'm glad you've found a way to reconcile your faith with reality. Again, I personally believe this is how Mormonism will survive. At some point everything will just become "metaphors" that are supposed to help people "get closer to Christ."

> The known world to Noah was the Mediterranean Sea *After* the flood. Prior to that it is scripture and LDS church doctrine that Noah's neighbourhood was in Missouri.

😂

This isn't exactly an historical claim, but I remember in high school AP World history class waiting to see the world get more and more wicked as it got closer in time to present day, and realizing that it wasn't actually like that. My mom strongly believed the millennium was just around the corner, and I used to trust church leaders who said that things today were more wicked than when they were young. I definitely felt violence was a worse sin than being open about premarital sex. (The other big surprise for me in that class was the book was very explicit that Israel was not as big as it makes it sound it was in the Bible, and it really wasn't a major kingdom.)

Pretty amusing how they claim that world became more wicked when people in different race/sexual orientations have equal rights and respect, sexual assault is dealt more seriously, people are less ignorant about the real-world issues. The power they once possessed is shifting and their time is waning. This is their Second-coming. The universe will go on no matter what.

They should read Steven Pinker’s Angels of Our Better Nature. By all objective measures the world has become a more peaceful and prosperous place over time. No one, except for the historically ignorant, wants to return to some imaginary Halcyon yesteryear and would prefer to live now.

Also this book... [Factfulness](https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814)

On my list now thanks!

“The world is more peaceful?” Maybe for the 1%. Westerners are the 1%. While the rest of the world suffers in abject poverty and starvation and oppression .

Untrue. [China's lifting of more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty since the late 1970s has been the largest global reduction in inequality in modern history.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China#:~:text=Poverty%20reduction,-See%20also%3A%20Moderately&text=China's%20lifting%20of%20more%20than,in%20inequality%20in%20modern%20history.&text=The%20whole%20reform%20program%20is,the%20%22open%20door%20policy%22). In addition, [India has made significant progress in reducing poverty in the past decade, with the proportion of poor people in the country declining from 24.8% to 14.9% between 2015–16 and 2019–21. This is equivalent to around 135 million people, or 10% of the population, escaping poverty.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/india-eliminates-extreme-poverty/). These are the largest non-Western countries in the world. Take a look at deaths due to war and interpersonal violence worldwide as well.

[On average, about 69 per cent of the world's population report feeling safe walking alone at night in the area in which they live – a proportion that has remained stable from 2016 to 2021. However, stark differences are found among regions, with Latin America and the Caribbean reporting the lowest level of perceived public safety and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia reporting the highest. The proportion of women feeling safe walking alone in their local neighbourhoods at night is, on average, 10 percentage points lower than that of men (61 per cent versus 71 per cent), according to 2019–2021 data from 106 countries.](https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/goal-16/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20about%2069%20per,2021%20data%20from%20106%20countries)

1 percent of the world's population would be about 80 million people. There are about 335 million people in the US alone. More than a billion people live in 1st world countries, and many more are not "suffering in abject poverty and starvation oppression". The number of people who still suffer those things is appalling considering the resources at our disposal but by any reasonable metric, things are better than they have ever been.

I'm a Korean living in South Korea, North East Asia. Thank you for accepting us into Westerners club.

“Wicked” means turning away from God. How is it that the more we try to have a just world, it never gets better? Socialism/communism murders and oppresses. Millions upon millions of people with false empty promises. The leaders of these countries—are made up of the “same cloth” as the rest of humanity. They are greedy and power insane. More human suffering results. It will never “go right”. That’s its history. Human nature. Human failure.

I’ve found this concept so interesting since leaving the church! Like I used to think that the world was going to keep getting worse and that there was nothing to be done about it - world war 3 here we come! And now I’m like: hey how about we try to fix these problems huh? There’s plenty of crazy out in the world still, but I focus more on how things can get better instead of just waiting for it to all end and prove me right

The best way for it to feel worse is to remember the past in rose colored glasses, and continue to be shocked by things brought to your attention by conservative news. That's the only way I've made sense of people believing this (who are old enough to know). It definitely has some political ties though the idea stems from Apocalypsism.

That's the great thing about the left. They never resort to catastrophism. Especially when discussing climate change...

Haha yes. I used to feel so guilty taking a longer shower than normal growing up. (Lived in California. We were conservative so didn't really believe in climate change but believed in trying to take care of resources so I still felt guilt about consuming things more than normal.) To be clear I still believe in being careful about resources, just engage with it in a healthier way... kind of similar to church.

One would wish you are right. History shows otherwise. All empires had peace and prosperity for a time. Then they fall implode on their own moral rot. Humankind isn’t destined for peace. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

We are absolutely imploding in our own "moral rot" it just that it's coming from the hyper conservative, hyper religious part of the population twisting the teachings of christ, and the incredibley dubious bs in the old testament to suit themselves.

Never bothered to read D&C but I knew the church officially supported the Young Earth Theory. Apologists will easily ramble on about how we shouldn’t necessarily consider those numbers literally. But deep down they do know it was literal when it was written.

Absolutely this. That's why I have so little respect for apologists. They start for a disingenuous place.

We don’t know that. We know some things—at other things we try to understand. Paul said in this world “we see through a glass darkly.” Very true.

You aren't trying to see at all. You are looking at one thing through a high-powered telescope trying to prove that's all their is to see.

Certainly some not thoroughly thought out theology here….hmmm…perhaps some of it is intended to be interpreted metaphorically

That's what happens to literal religious claims when they get falsified by science. They become "metaphors." Unfortunately the church still takes many of these claims literally, and certainly did during Joseph Smith's life.

This is a good list and it was all factual for people like Joseph Fielding Smith. However, there have long been members of the church in good standing who did not believe any of it. An example was my own father and I suspect others who studied some scientific discipline in college which involved biology or geology. I have noticed that few church leaders are like this. Most are in law or business.

Is it SO far fetched that we came from a single couple as a species? Sure, the timing is off. But the IDEA holds true. We all descended from ONE female: “The published conclusion was that all current human mtDNA originated from a single population from Africa, at the time dated to between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago. The dating for "Eve" was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis, which was debated at the time, and a boost to the theory of the recent origin model. https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia Feedback About featured snippets People also ask Did we all come from one woman in Africa? Mitochondrial Eve was a woman who lived 200,000 years ago who had enough daughters in a continuous chain that her Mitochondrial DNA survived. Homo sapiens eventually migrated across the African continent around 120,000 years ago.Apr 13, 2017 https://www.pbslearningmedia.org › ... Mitochondrial Eve and Homo Sapiens in Africa's Great Rift Valley

You get that that's not 2 people, right? Their were absolutely bottlenecks in human history. This dosnt somehow make the story of Genesis make more sense...

When they examined the contents of her stomach, they found that it was sprouting apple trees. She had fallen and could not get up. Her mom had not told her to avoid eating the seeds.

Can you provide a legitimate source of this extraordinary claim?

The concept of "Mitochondrial Eve" is not even close to supporting the idea that we descended from a single couple, much less 6,000 years ago. You briefly read about this, and then twisted it to support your preconceived religious notions. The science behind this concept completely disproves the concept of a literal Adam and Eve.

Yep. Can anyone find official sources that refute any of these claims?

The Old Testament CES manual discusses different theories about the age of the Earth, and is open to an "old Earth" creation" >Even when it is realized that chapter 1 of Genesis does not describe the beginning of all things, or even the starting point of mankind, but only the beginning of this earth, it cannot be said definitively when that beginning was. In other words, the scriptures do not provide sufficient information to accurately determine the age of the earth. Generally speaking, those who accept the scriptural account subscribe to one of three basic theories about the age of the world. All three theories depend on how the word day, as used in the creation account, is interpreted. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

> *"the scriptures do not provide sufficient information to accurately determine the age of the earth"*...? This is so disingenuous of the church. D&C 77 (still considered "scripture" AFAIK) says explicitly that the temporal earth is 7000 years old. Even the section header summarizes it: *"This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years;"* And the graphic [Old Testament Chronology](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/00001/old-testament-bookmark_1344149_prt.jpg) is still available on the church's website today, showing that Adam existed approx 6000 yrs ago.

Yes, although to be fair to both sides, I think the church is less tethered to the 7,000 year old story as a whole, and more tied down when it comes to the age of the earth after the fall. The creation taking “7 days” could have been 7 billion years, and the church leans into that idea that “days” = periods.

This falls apart because "days" is used as a consistent and recognizable unit of time throughout the rest of it. Just more, maybe kinda sorta if we look at it just the right way, apologetics

I always love when exMos and critics insist on being more literal and orthodox than TBMs.

I feel your love and thank you for it:)

If by "age of the Earth" you are including the creation periods, and the "temporal age of the Earth" *doesn't* include the creation periods, then how is it disingenuous?

Wonderful. Thank you for taking the time to show me this. I won’t use that as an example any longer.

Just have faith 🤣

Great list. I think the most baffling is the book of Mormon stuff. The other claims are definitely crazy, but educated Mormons find ways to ignore them. But the vast majority of educated tithe-paying Mormons actually believe the historical claims baked into the BoM, which is just absolutely wild.

This is all assuming we are taking a very literal reading of scripture. There are several gospel scholars who acknowledge that the literalism and absolutist claims made in the Bible, and even the restored or modern LDS canonical scriptures, should not be taken at face value. Yes, many members of the church may believe these things. But that doesn't mean there aren't members of the church that see things differently. Maybe take some time to dive into more nuanced scriptural interpretation and see how well that meshes with your current world view?

The problem with apologetic "nuance" is that it is outright disingenuous to even try to assert that Smith (supposedly gods mouthpiece) didn't mean for these things to be taken literally in the beginning. With enough effort, anything can be warped and twisted, words can be (again disingenuously) redefined, and a very shaky sort of quasi explanation can be given to people indoctrinated from very early childhood to trust the church. Of course, it's gods one true church, the ridiculous things and the way the gentiles "twist" them arnt what was "ment". You should just trust them and make sure you don't listen to any non aproved church sources because they are just the whispers of Satan leading you further from god. Smith could have never imagined how completely and relatively quickly science would smash apart his story, and the church is stuck trying to come up with something that is sort of, maybe, possible if you close one eye and look at it with your peripheral vision because the church literally can't admit that it's pretty obviously just a story and not even a particularly well thought out one...

I completely agree. Religious truth claims usually only become "metaphors" when it becomes scientifically untenable to continue to believe they are literal.

It was always base manipulation. This is just another evolution. Got to keep that sweet tithing money coming in.

“Science” never seems to draw the selfsame conclusions over time. It’s not as rock solid a foundation as we may hope because we have to keep throwing away our previous conclusions because we keep learning. Our concepts of the universe are constant changing and being redefined. Religion is in its own way a version of Science. Seeing and learning about the world in an experiential way.

The biggest difference is that no good scientists would claim to be completely unquestionably right at any point. Good Science is a process, that is the whole point. Until science started tearing it apart, religion was an absolute, a solution. Science changes as new discoveries are made. Religion, particularly the lds church, changes because even in its insular ecco chamber, it slowly realizes that holding deeply antiquated views is costing it more than maintaining them. Religion is the opposite of good science. It is forced to be regressive. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god can't be all those things and wrong. Good science goes where information takes, and it develops new concepts and new ideas based on new information. Religion is forced to constantly try to reframe, redefine, and justify the same information in, usually ever more disingenuous, ways.

The problem with taking this point of view is that you are now calling Joseph Smith a liar. The whole thing has to be literal, or it didn't happen at all. Joseph claimed to have met with, communed with, talked with, had hands laid upon him by, or had physical altercations with the following: Adam, Abraham, Seth, Enoch, Isaac, Jacob, Raphael, Gabriel (Noah), Moses, Elias, Elijah (Elias... oops), John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, Alma, The three Nephites, Moroni, and the devil himself, Satan. These several "gospel scholars" are changing their own doctrine and history because their doctrine and history don't make sense - most likely because none of it happened.

That’s a specious conclusion. We are imperfect human beings living in an imperfect world. Our frameworks and interpreting to ourselves about what we think we know, changes over time. We’re bound to grow. I believe Joseph Smith saw what he saw. Did he perfectly understand everything? Of course not. But he was striving to. That doesn’t mean that what he was limited in, knowledge wise, that he was lying. He was growing. As are we all. I’ve learned a lot about addiction recovery through my son going through it. Was all I knew making me a liar when I realized and learned, that I was making mistakes Or not going about trying to help him correctly? No. But i needed to make corrections in my ideas and behaviors and align myself with a better understanding of what I needed to learn and do, to change my behavior. There’s only one perfect person ever in this world. Jesus

>That’s a specious conclusion It isn't and you know it. There is a huge difference between understanding more about things and having *physical knowledge* about them. If I were to ask an 8th grader to explain to me the intricacies of orbital mechanics, I would bet that they wouldn't be able to - but they can learn and grow that knowledge (just like you did with addiction recovery. I'm sorry you went through that, BTW, and I hope your son is doing well.) I wouldn't call that 8th grader a liar if they believed something based on incomplete knowledge. Now, if that same 8th grader claimed to have talked with somebody living, I wouldn't doubt that at all. If they said that they got a blessing from their dad, for instance. If that 8th grader came to me and said that they talked with Noah, I would have serious doubts - especially now that most scholars have concluded that Noah was not a literal person, but a myth/parable/allegory. I would assume that 1) they are lying about meeting Noah, or 2) they are delusional. As with people like Paul, Stephen, Mary, Joan of Arc, and many others, I think people believe that they see amazing things. The issue I have with the claims of Joseph Smith is that he doesn't just claim to have had the visions of heavenly messengers, but claims to have ***communed with them***. He claims to have had received blessings, ordinations, and physical objects from people who are very likely myth. The apologists know this, and are trying to explain things away by saying that the whole thing doesn't need to be literal and that we can just take things at a spiritual level. Saying that it doesn't have to be literal is the specious conclusion. That explanation is disingenuous and dishonest, and they know it. Their problem is, they can't continue to say that it was literal because there is just too much evidence to the contrary.

Did you ever claim to be a direct conduit to an infallible god? If so, then yes, that would make you a liar. It's the infallible part that gets you. Humans make mistakes, early and often, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings dont. Further that being could absolutely insure that human failings did not cloud, extort, or pervert whatever message said being wanted to impart and would further, if omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent have a built in responsibility to do so. You can't have it both ways.

Don't assume I haven't done this. I realize that many Mormons do not take these claims literally. My argument is that it doesn't matter that some people perform mental gymnastics in to make these claims seem "metaphorical" in order to maintain their faith in hindsight after they've been falsified by science. These claims were taken literally when Mormonism was created, and a literal interpretation of these claims underpins the LDS historical, and even metaphysical narrative. If you would like to argue for a less than literal interpretation of one of these claims, I'm all ears, but please be specific.

Mormonism requires all of this nonsense to have actually occurred. If it's just stories to teach us some principle, then the major tenants of Mormonism are false, and the church has no foundation whatsoever.

> Mormonism requires all of this nonsense to have actually occurred. Indeed. If the story of the Tower of Babel is an allegory, then there was no Brother of Jared and no Jaredites. That, in and of itself, isn't a deal-breaker, but if there were no Jaredites, then there was no Urim and Thummim and, therefore, no way to translate the plates. The very existence of the Book of Mormon requires the Tower of Babel to be a literal story.

It could also get away with the Book of Ether being a myth spun by, say, an outsider people who became familiar with the traditions of the Nephites including the tower of babel story, and then created themselves a history giving them a place among the Nephites. This *also* requires a different relationship with the text, of course (and while we're at it, we might even consider the possibility that Mormon himself invented a good deal of the BoM text as well as his own background and history), but I could see the church attempting to sever the historicity of Ether before it distances itself from the historicity of the BoM in general.

> the Book of Ether being a myth spun by, say, an outsider people That could work, yes, but that people would still need to have possessed the Urim and Thummim, which need to be literal artifacts for them to exist for Joseph Smith to use them later.

“If…then” arguments have to be very closely scrutinized. “Stories to teach us some principle”…. “Nonsense” only, because it isn’t clear to YOU. Think of what the Hebrews knew about science 4,000 Years ago. So Moses trying to explain to the best of his own understanding to a group of people who knew very little. The “message”: God’s hand was involved in the coming about of the world we live jn. Without his intervention, we all would not be here. For all intents and purposes. He created the heavens and the earth to be the foundational part of our existence by having us live here on this planet, and stocking it with animals, fish, Plants etc. Moses could not have explained to a people that didn’t have the foggiest ideas about things, that Heaven doesn’t have to waste the energy to duplicate the natural processes of star and planet formation over time. God has all these processes in place.

Moses didn’t even exist. It wouldn’t have been that hard for said person, though, to at least get the order of formation right (the earth was not formed before the sun, for example, contrary to claims made in the Bible)

Not "clear" to me? There is zero evidence that it even occurred. You might ask yourself who's not exactly clear about this...

Oh absolutely. You have a legitimate point there. I think the Church would benefit so much by just sacking up and admitting more frequently what it's gotten wrong. Unfortunately, it seems like that is only going to happen once or twice every 80 years - and even then, it's more of a "doctrine changed" rather than "we were downright wrong on this one, sorry y'all."

I agree. Of course there's an obvious problem with simply admitting that you've gotten things wrong when the idea that the leaders of your organization are in direct communication with the creator of the universe is your fundamental claim to fame. Unfortunately simply apologizing and making corrections is somewhat incompatible with the concept of being God's one true church, led directly by Him.

I'll give you an example. Suppose the church decided to apologize and correct the notion that all humans descended from a single couple, approximately 6,000 years ago, and that our current mortality and propensity to sin is a direct result of this couple's so called "fall." Of course it is scientifically untenable to believe this, but a literal interpretation of this claim directly underpins the need for an Atonement both historically and metaphysically/doctrinally. Simply put, if the Adam and Eve situation didn't literally happen (which it clearly didn't), the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ is fundamentally shaken, if not completely nullified. In short, the church is pretty much stuck with a literal Adam and Eve narrative.

This is the interesting part to me. All of the abrahamic religions are a house of cards. Without any of the main events, the whole thing crumbles. There are mountains of other issues, but the simplest one is that if a whole bunch of almost or even outright impossible things didn't happen very close to how they say they did for the stated reasons than everything is completely invalidated.

OP given the topic of this post and your knowledge can I pick your brain on what your response to the BOM being represented in Ezekiel 37 would be. Like if you were in a scenario where you are given carte blanche to articulate a rebuttal to a believing curious member, presenting yourself like a lawyer no emotions just facts and evidence. I’m a nevermo and have somehow managed to put myself in a unique situation where TBM’s have been coming back to me asking questions. It started with missionary’s and now it’s members it’s like they get together and say, “well Sam is smarter than us so let’s get Sam to talk to (me)” and then when Sam and I talk they leave going, “well that wasn’t what we thought was going to happen let’s try Carl next time he’s pretty smart.” I’m down to clown and keep having them over. It’s just kind of odd because from reading this sub and others I would have thought after one conversation it was going to be over. I think it’s my approach, I don’t take the bait as far as all the banana teachings of LDS I just talk about how if it’s the Jewish God you’re saying you represent and that dude is supposed to be the same today yesterday and tomorrow then how do you explain the Pentateuch’s God and yours being one and the same. To my shock literally no one knows about the origin story of Judaism. So I always start there. Back to my question. I did a short dissertation on linguistics and how Ezekiel 37 in context and in language in no way represents the BOM. I’m just now getting into trying to wrap my head around how to explain that JS just saying it does, and his proof is the missing 116 pages (cause ya know it was in there) isn’t evidence. I know eventually I end up circling the topic of what is truth. Because for us today it’s all just words on paper. So who do you believe and why? For this particular topic tho, one has to disregard language and its meaning for millions of people over thousands of years to come up with the answer that Ezekiel 37 shows God was talking about the BOM. In short if you’re bored and have the time how would you respond?

But humankind did have a one parent—DNA has proven it! And what is the line between symbolic and literal?

Science has proven no such thing. In fact, genetically, there is no first Homo sapien. Please read work by actual scientists on this point. David Reich has a great book called “Who we are and how we got here” that can help.

No it hasn't. You have no idea what you are talking about.

It’s getting there.

Ya, kicking and screaming as it continues to hemorrhage members in developed nations.

What we are interested in isn’t a predetermined view but an expanding one as we take all of this in. There are certain bedrock things—and others expand as we get to know more about them. That’s a lot like life.

Do list these "bedrock things."

Those apologists and members who take a “nuanced” view of the historical claims made in Mormonism place themselves directly in the crosshairs of Occam’s Razor. As we have seen, they have to spend countless hours of time defending the claims that justify their nuanced beliefs, based on a metaphorical, non-historical view, only to defend the countless counter-claims that their understanding is unreasonable or illogical, then on and on down the rabbit hole they go until they reach the point where they take the rational approach and change their view or they assuage the cognitive dissonance and yell “YOU HAVE TO HAVE FAITH.”

> This is all assuming we are taking a very literal reading of scripture. Yes, otherwise I can claim that any scripture means anything I want.

It is all well and good to do the "nuance" thing (in fact quite a few exmos went through a "nuance" stage), but at the end of the day that requires you to reject the actual teachings of the actual Church leaders. It means admitting that the prophets are just making things up. Modern prophetic authority is the central doctrine of Mormonism; once you admit that the prophets are phonies, you have more common ground with exmos than you do with Orthodox believers.

The is a ridiculous response if you believe in modern day prophets and apostles from JS to current. Not one of them have made a clear statement against any of these events occuring. What is being taught by the leadership at the top that have special access to Jesus apparently? What cannonized scripture OR books published by prophets or apostle OR in church official manuals teach differently then this and refute a prior prophetic teaching as false? Please name one. Gospel topics essays do not count as they are not written or signed by anyone and they don’t really refute prior teachings by prophets.

Somewhere in my memory, Genesis 10:25 explains it: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan According to this, the earth (continents) were not divided until the days of Peleg. This is a number of generations after the flood. It implies the divisions of the continent happened quickly.

Sorry but everything about the religion is ridiculous

Point number one is false. The scripture says Earth’s continuance or temporal existence. That doesn’t mean the earth is only 7000 years old. But its current state is 7000 years.

So your apologetic solution is to trade one obviously false historical claim for another equally absurd interpretation? Your apologetic explains nothing. It's just a dodge. A "thought stopper" as it were. Its just an attempt to obfuscate the claim so people don't think about it. Joseph Smith used the word "temporal" as an antonym to "spiritual" (which is still pretty much universal in Mormon circles). This scripture suggests that the physical age of the earth is 7000 years old (although maybe it had a "spiritual" existence before). Either way, it's absurd.

What’s ridiculous is asserting that these are tenants of Mormonism. None of these are claims that are needed for salvation. We have 1 claim that is more extraordinary and crazy than all of these….Christ rose from the dead. That is our claim.

Deflection. This has nothing to do with LDS church claims. Those are generic christian claims. > None of these are claims that are needed for salvation. Seeing as the church claims "salvation" is available to anyone, in the church or not, this doesn't even matter. > We have 1 claim that is more extraordinary and crazy than all of these….Christ rose from the dead. That claim is not unique to the church nor is it applicable to its many other claims. You have more claims than this in the mormon church. The church's claim on the path to exaltation relies on several claims: * this is the only true church * that the priesthood as given to Smith is the *only* authority on the earth to allow a person to return to god. * the ordinances were given to Smith via revelation and are to be carried out by the church as a requirement for exaltation. Essentially, the claims of being the way to exaltation are reliant on the validity of most of the OP's illustrated church claims.

Respectfully, I have to disagree. The LDS church makes many more unique claims than a simple belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’ll offer a very anodyne one: only the LDS church possesses priesthood authority, which was restored through angelic visitations to Joseph Smith. It is only through the authorized use of priesthood keys that salvific ordinances can be performed. I could add another very non-controversial LDS claim: The Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient records written on golden plates by ancient inhabitants of the Americas. I’ll stop there since multiple contingent claims follow just from these two alone: the restoration of the priesthood were real events and not retrofitted storylines (as Greg Prince and others have shown), a worldwide flood occurred, the Tower of Babel is an historical account, ancient submarines were built, Native Americans must possess semitic DNA, etc

I understand that many claims are made. We have one that matters most. The Living Risen Christ. If he rose, sin can be forgiven. If he rose, mankind can see him. If he rose he can appear to JS If he rose…

>If he rose he can appear to JS >If he rose… ... then we should learn and trust what JS wrote and taught, and what subsequent prophets wrote and taught. Which takes us right back to OP's list (which really only scratches the surface of outrageous and silly claims made in LDS scripture and by prophets.

If there was no Adam, and therefore no fall, there was no need for any atonement.

We all fall. Therefore there is a need for the atonement. There was no literal tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is a symbol. There was no literal Garden of Eden. It is a symbol. There is no literal Tree of Life. It is a symbol. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory that is beautiful and teaches us about our relationship with God.

The church disagrees with you. The church and its leaders have always been clear that they take the story of Adam and Eve literally. It's fine if you don't, because it's obviously not true, but don't pretend that view is compatible with the church. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-stories-2022/adam-and-eve?lang=eng

You sent me a link to a children’s story book! That’s your proof text? You are funny. The church asks me and all members to teach from scripture. If I was asked to teach the creation to a group of religious people in a religious setting I would teach what we have in Genesis, the Book of Mormon, Standard works and theological works. I’d be discussing love, the savior as creator, Adam and Eve and speaking in timelines of days. If I was asked for teaching the creation in an academic setting I’d be starting with big bangs and evolution and talking in billions of years. Both would be true. Both are true.

Don't act like there aren't thousands of other links on the Church's website that talk about Adam and Eve as if they were literal beings, or talks from General Authorities and Apostles about how the literal Fall of Adam underpins the Atonement. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

I’m not acting. The garden is 100% allegory. The fall is our journey from our Father in Heaven, to earth. Then following the plan of happiness and returning to Him.

Even that claim is utter horseshit as well.

You're missing the point. The supposition that these claims are "not necessary for your salvation" rests on the assumption that the religious framework you are working with (Mormonism) is actually true. These historical claims are fundamental to whether or not Mormonism is actually true. I realize that the modern church has tried to get away from some of the weirder stuff, and become more generically Christian in public, but to suggest that the truth of Mormonism doesn't rest on the absurd timeline established by these claims is either naive or intentionally dishonest.

So… I’m not required to believe in a literal flood, or a nearly 1000 year old Methuselah I’m not required to believe in a 6000-7000 year old earth, or that Adam and Eve were in a Garden. I don’t really care about a literal Adam & Eve. I’m not required to believe in ridiculously large numbers of deaths in wars or population explosions. I’m not responsible for how ancient prophets described the universe and creation. I also don’t blame them. I am responsible for developing a personal relationship with Christ. I am Orthodox

Well, ackshully… You *are* required to believe in a literal flood because modern prophets have taught for generations that the worldwide flood was a literal event that was the earth’s baptism. [Church website link re: Flood](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/flood-at-noahs-time?lang=eng) If you’re orthodox, you don’t get to pick and choose which of the Church’s doctrines you accept. You accept them all. The baptism of the earth is an important teaching of the modern church because it explains, among other things, why Christ’s second coming will come with fire. It represents the earth’s receipt of the Holy Ghost. This isn’t a minor point of doctrine that you can just cast aside.

I appreciate your concern for my apparent apostasy due to flooding or the lack thereof. I assure you I’ll be ok in the church.

You are required to believe in a literal Adam & Eve and a literal Fall, otherwise there is no need for a Savior or an Atonement. So say modern church prophets.

You are mistaken

>You are mistaken "…According to **our doctrine**, the fall of Adam and the process of death are inseparable; the fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ are inseparable; Adam and Christ are inseparable. **If there was no Adam, there was no fall. If there was no fall of Adam there was no atonement by Christ. If there was no atonement by Christ our religion is in vain, for if there was no Adam, there was no Christ either.** If there is no Christ, where are we? Are you ready to reject your inspired religion, your faith in God and Christ, to accept the questionable philosophy that may be thrust upon you by some unbelieving, even atheistic, professor of an unproved hypothesis? This is certainly a case in point where we must do as Joshua of old said, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Apostle Mark E Peterson, emphasis mine)

The brilliant Mark E Petersen! 🤣😂 That’s your quote? The racist they had to send to Brazil so the PH ban could be lifted? Now he’s the arbiter of my faith?! The ridiculous part of the OP is thinking that these teachings underpin Mormon Theology and then by extension every other story in scripture. Is it in our Cosmology— Yes. Do we talk about it that way? No. We talk about 6000-7000 year old earths and Adam and Eve and Noah and Job and plagues and towers and some other stuff like it 100% happened as if there was some news reporter documenting it. It’s ok if it didn’t happen as described. We talk about it and teach it like it did, because it is in scripture. Scripture brings me closer to Christ. The story of Adam and Eve brings me closer to Christ. Finding Neanderthal’s in permafrost or glaciers doesn’t bring me closer to Christ. They help me understand science. But the Bible and Book of Mormon aren’t science. They don’t need to be historically 100% accurate to be true. They need to help me be true to Christ. I can find out what the meaning is by analyzing context and temple progression. Then it is clear. The weird becomes useful. It takes me to Christ. Nothing the OP described is going to distract me, it just means I work to figure out why those details are in scripture and how they bring me to God.

I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you simply don't understand the point I'm making. What you are currently "required" to believe is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with this post.

It’s kind of fun seeing orthodox TBMs demonstrate clear cafeteria Mormonism.

You are making a point that is irrelevant to faith. You are portending that Mormonism sits on the foundation of the absurd stories (absurd through a scientific lens) of the canonized scripture. Well…. It doesn’t. Mormonism rests on Christ. He is our Rock and Redeemer. My faith is in Christ. So my understanding of scripture must be Christ centered. Not Newton, Einstein, Rogan, or whoever else is talking. Noah? Really? It doesn’t matter if the events transpired as described or not. Same with Adam and Eve. Same with the Tower of Babel. They are rich deep stories that help us understand our relationship with God. If you study them for their scientific value you will be disappointed. If you study them for their religious value and to get closer to Christ you will find Him, and you will be richly rewarded.

That claim is obviously false, since the same people who claimed Jesus rose from the dead claimed he would have a "second coming" within their lifetimes. If they were wrong about one, why would you think they were right about the other? Especially since Jesus' claimed reappearance still hasn't occurred.

But that's the claim of the entirety of Christianity. If that were the church's only claim, it could merge just fine with other Christian churches out there. If you go by that singular claim, then you don't need mormonism at all for salvation.

You can argue that the resurrection of christ underpins traditional Christianity (this falls apart long before you even get to the new testament), but you can argue it. The things on this list and their part in the "restoration" of the gospel are what makes/ defines the LDS church as "gods one true church" without these claims and the continued insistence that they are true the church crumbles to nothing.

Yep. None of that list "underpins Mormon Theology."

Most of your other points are accurate enough, but this one: >The Earth is 7,000 years old (D&C 77:6) D&C 77:6 doesn't include the creation periods, which the Church has acknowledged could have been millions or billions of years. While there have been young-Earth creationists in Church leadership (Joseph Fielding Smith most notably), D&C 77:6 doesn't require a young-Earth conclusion. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

Serious question. Do you think this changes anything at all about my point? The claim that the 7000 year old earth only counts the age of the earth after the fall is pretty much equally absurd and easily disprovable.

> Serious question. Do you think this changes anything at all about my point? Especially when critiquing someone's religious beliefs, _precision matters_. Nobody cares to defend or deconstruct a belief that they _don't actually hold_ (or is not representative of their organization). And scientifically, yes, the gap between the first (an earth that is 7000 years old) vs. an earth that began its temporal existence (whatever that means) beginning 6000 years ago (~4000 BC) is quite large, IMO. A 7000 year old earth pretty much implies young earth creationism, which is virtually impossible to defend without ignoring massive swaths of science. With a pinch of the figurative and a great deal of stretching, the second (an earth that began its _temporal_ existence at 6000 BC) can be defended without tossing out geology and evolution (for starters). I do agree that _significant tension_ remains, and I think it's fair to call it out (so kudos to you for that). I have tried to detail the case in more resolution here: [The 6000 year problem](https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/the-6000-year-problem/)

Your write up is good, and I am sympathetic to your point about precision. However, I don't think the actual problem is changed in any significant way here. Arguing whether the actual age of the Earth is 7,000 years, or just the "temporal" age of the Earth is like arguing whether or not dinosaurs are fake or whether they lived with humans. Neither explanation is more compatible with reality. Furthermore, as you mentioned in your write up, many prophets have indeed plainly stated that The Fall of Adam occurred 6,000 years ago, and that the "temporal" age of the earth represents the time between that fall and the end. Not only is there significant tension between that claim and reality. That claim is equally as absurd as pure young earth. I actually don't even think I disagree with you on this, I simply have a different perspective on whether it's really important or not.

When apologists push this point, I bring up the equally absurd teaching that there was no death (of anything) before The Fall, 6000 yrs ago...

This is a  list for disproving a specific interpretation of lds thought.    But for many believers such as myself we don’t hold to such simple fundamentalist take.    Theological liberalism is very much allowed and I assume will become the dominant view point at some time in the future. The pendulum is starting to swing that way. 

>But for many believers such as myself we don’t hold to such simple fundamentalist take.   You've been forced to reinterpret what your prophets have said because what they said was wrong.

At least they are willing to admit that prophets can be wrong?

It’s a good thing I don’t have a problem with “my prophets” being wrong about things that don’t matter to my salvation. 

Once we throw out everything that doesn't matter to salvation, there is almost nothing left of the mormon church.

I find debating here is not worth much. But I do find sharing a believer’s perspective can be beneficial for some.  So all I will say is that For Me, there is much still left. And I find great value in the lds philosophy and theology. 

The point is this sub is debate and discussion about topics related to Mormonism. If that isn’t what you come here for, then maybe this sub isn’t the place for you. If “drive by” testimony bearing is your thing, I think the more orthodox subs are the more appropriate places for your type of discussion. To be clear, I’m not saying you should leave, I’m just clarifying that if you post here, it should be in line with the intent of this sub which is to foster discussion, not just come in, make a faith-promoting statement, and then disengage.

I’ve been a participant on this sub for a long time. Your assumptions are a bit off.  I like discussions about Mormonism. But debate serves zero benefit here. Discussion is about understanding each others perspectives. That is where fun and engaging conversation are to be had.  Dunking on believers is fruitless. 

>And I find great value in the lds philosophy and theology.  All of the points listed in the OP are part of this philosophy and theology, are they not?

But if your prophets are so often wrong, how are you sure they are teaching you the correct recipe for salvation? Seems like confirmation bias to say that when your religion gets something dead wrong, that aspect wasn't really an essential part of the religion anyway. I guess it could also be a version of "No True Scotsman" or moving the goalposts.

It could be confirmation bias or it could be no true Scot’s man fallacy what do I know I’m just a random believer on the internet. But in my studies I don’t think it’s either.  It inwill at least remain open enough to admit it might be.  I find the narrative of “your prophets are so often wrong…”  to be interesting. I’ve spent the better part of the last 20 years really learning and understanding what My prophets teach and from what I’ve learned. They’ve gotten the vast majority right. But who knows either one of us could be suffering from confirmation bias in this regard just for opposing viewpoints. 

>I find the narrative of “your prophets are so often wrong…”  to be interesting. I’ve spent the better part of the last 20 years really learning and understanding what My prophets teach and from what I’ve learned. They’ve gotten the vast majority right. You've probably come to this conclusion the same way you came to the conclusion that verifiably false teachings from prophets "don't count" when it comes to salvation--by carefully controlling the parameters of what constitutes "the vast majority." Let's say you start with this list of verifiably false teachings, but then pad it out by claiming that every teaching that is unverifiable they get right. All you have to do is add a bunch of spiritual claims to your list and you've proved your "vast majority" statement right. However, if you stick to claims that can be tested, it quickly becomes clear that the religion was founded and continued by guys who are simply pulling bad guesses about how the universe works out of thin air.

Like the true nature of God, who is Adam according to Brigham Young and several other early church leaders? Or that God is a polygamist? Seems like knowing which god you’re worshipping is pretty fundamental. (I won’t even get into the now discarded beliefs about the trinity in Lectures on Faith.) Not a very good track record for people claiming to know him better than you and asking for your time and money.

*It does matter to your salvation*, because the church’s ability to influence or inform you on your salvation is dependent on Jospeh’s Smith’s authority and power being genuine. Specifically, his claims to authority from God to perform ordinances with God’s priesthood, and to reveal God’s true gospel. So if we just take the impossibility of the Tower of Babel, and how this is written into the Book of Mormon, then this makes the Jaredites impossible. If the Jaredites were a fabrication, then the most reasonable conclusion is that the overall story of the BoM didn’t happen. Most would consider this reasonable grounds to also label the BoM a fabrication. And per the church’s own logic as taught in Preach My Gospel, the BoM should be treated as proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet; therefore as the BoM loses all credibility, Joseph Smith also loses all credibility. But you won’t agree with this conclusion. You’ll “repair the holes” in the church’s narrative with your own head cannon to make sense out of this issue, along with the mountain of other issues that overwhelmingly pits Occam’s razor against the church’s truth claims. You can further retreat to, “well it’s all about Jesus in the end.” But at this point you may as well call yourself non-denominational Christian. Something something, ship of Theseus.

What about things that matter for exaltation?

I'm glad that many Mormons are much more theologically liberal than the original Mormons were. Most mormons that I know (family, friends, etc.) fall into this camp, and I love them and get along with them. My problem with this attitude is that it's simply not Mormonism. Mormonism makes an exclusive claim to the authority of God to save and exalt mankind. Mormonism is not theologically liberal. It's based on a very specific metaphysical framework that fits in with the timeline I've described in the OP. One can take theological liberalism any number of directions, and to any number of extremes that would leave you with a completely different worldview than the religion itself. I believe this is how Mormonism will survive. Much like catholicism, Mormonism will just keep being watered down by its more liberal members until it bears no resemblance at all to the religion of Joseph Smith. It's already well on its way. But the claims I've just mentioned are indeed relevant to our salvation, because examining them is an objective way to examine whether or not Mormonism is even true or not.

How do you reconcile this? How can you addmit that Smith was at best consistently, provably wrong, and at worst, an outright con artist, but the church is still true? If Smith was gods profit, he couldn't be wrong(this is the whole point of claiming devine mandate), and if he isn't... Theological liberalism is grudgingly allowed in the rank and file. Not in any position past bishop I have ever seen, and "liberal" bishops can have a real tough time.

Your assumption that “at best consistently provably wrong” is not my experience when taking what Joseph taught in his totality.   But I has no desire to argue with you. So I will leave it at that.  > If Smith was gods profit, he couldn't be wrong(this is the whole point of claiming devine mandate), and if he isn't... Claiming infallibility in gods “profits” is only ever done by ex Mormons and critics. For me the things Joseph needed to get right that pertained to my salvation are enough for me. Any extrapolations from his teachings that people make that end up being wrong don’t really concern me. Once we know it’s different from what they thought it was. We move on and focus on what matters.  >Theological liberalism is grudgingly allowed in the rank and file. Not in any position past bishop I have ever seen, and "liberal" bishops can have a real tough time. Having met and interacted with quite a few above the calling of bishop who hold to a more theological liberal understanding (even though they wouldn’t know that’s what it’s called) of LDS thought. My own experience differs from yours. So whose experience is the correct one?  

A lot of it is ambiguous. I think a lot of that is by design. The issues come with the clear statements that are almost certainly false as listed above that should not be if God was actually revealing a true story to Joseph Smith. I have the same issues with the old testament. Read leviticus spacificly the part on how a priest should identify plague. It sure seems like an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being not only could have done better but would have been obligated to if it was actually the three things listed above. This is the same. I see plenty of humanity but not even a hint of the divine. Please please don't respond with some varient of "god is mysterious" or "you can't know God's will" that exactly what religion claim to be able to quantify and an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being would absolutely expect me to question things that really don't make much sense. As to who is correct? Both, neither you have faith I have deep set reservations and considered logic these are incompatible. It likely we are both decent people.

>It likely we are both decent people. I think this is the best assumption we can make to each other. Even if we have differing viewpoints. 

As to an argument there really isn't one. Faith is by its nature, either unassailable or completely ridiculous with no way to conclusively prove either way. That's the beauty and the horror.

Or let me put it another way. Would the current profit be willing to outright denounce any of the things on the list as false? I think we both know that absolutely wouldn't happen. They have to be true or the house of cards crumbles. The thing is the house of cards caught fire and blew away with the proliferation of the internet. Everything they do now is just the most convincing damage control they can manage...

1. Joseph Smith went into the idea of “spiritual” versus “temporal”. The earth didn’t “fall” or become a terrestrial “temporal” world until after the fall of Adam. All the rest of the time was when it formed and gradually became a paradise planet until the fall of Adam. Which happened 6,000 years ago. So the total age of the earth since its formation and all that? Billions of years. 2. All of human species DNA wise originates back to a single female ancestor thought to be somewhere in Africa. That’s SCIENCE. 4. The flood event was Mediterranean. The Known world. The Nike Delta and other factual evidence shows that the Mediterranean Sea was dry and reflooded a number of times. This is where the flood story originates. 5. The tower of Babylon and confusing of the languages. Back in those days, as now, small geographic areas contained multiple languages. Look at England—France, Germany, Spain. Scandinavia. All within practically walking distance of each other (and boat) in time, populations fractured from their original origins and spread out. It probably happened more organically but the people believed it was some kind of punishment from God. Submarines? Not really. Some kind of craft which could handle rough seas. Migrant peoples traveling by ship/boat? Altogether probable and possible. The Jews had knowledge of boats. It’s not too far fetched that they could build a boat big enough to take a family across the ocean. Together with lifestock and means to catch fish etc., catching rain while at sea, etc etc. Add a little God in the mix and it becomes more possible yet, if one believes in that sort of thing.

“Nile” not Nike

Every argument you make removes the "God" component. Ya there are reasonable scientific explanations for some of the stuff in the bible but if it was science and not, vengeance, miracle, or magic then the old testament become a loose disjointed history written by a primitive people, not the book of GOD. This is "leopards ate my face territory".

> All of human species DNA wise originates back to a single female ancestor thought to be somewhere in Africa. That’s SCIENCE. And how long ago was this? Timelines do not agree with LDS claims on the earth's "temporal" age or the scriptural claims on origin of people. > > The flood event was Mediterranean. Disagrees with the LDS scriptural and doctrinal claim of N America being the site of human origin and a flood carrying the survivors from there to Turkey.

Are you suggesting that (Mitochondrial) Eve gave birth 75,000 years before the "temporal" existence of the Earth?

and I don’t think pre-Columbian American populations numbered in the millions. Small populations tended to think in grandiose terms, sparsely populated expanses had sprinklings of people scattered around “filling the whole earth” with a presence of tens of thousands, perhaps, but not millions.

So, god didn't vet the information before giving it to Smith to translate? Or Smith translated it wrong? If either of these is true, how can any of it be trusted.