dinosaur's

[adie_vale]

There is a big big tickeling in my mind, i am currently going through the convertion process! I have always been interested by religions answers to dinosor's! I was wondering what the lds belief was on them. I look forward to the answers and thank you for your time.[/b]

[Ray A]

Here is one LDS response to this question:

Mormon Answers (LDS FAQ): Questions about Science and Mormon Views (Mormonism)

Jeff Lindsay, though, incorrectly describes evolution as a "chance" process.

[Maya]

Hi Adie ... I am a teacher and teach... small kids... my kisd just LOVE the dinosauruses. I take dinosaurer as a very important part of the earths history.... I always start by asking kids what had to be before... like what had to be before the first animals that lived on the earth came to be...(for me it is not important how they came to be, but if they "climbed out of the sea" that too was very carefully planned by God)...anyway.. so what was first? Aaa some plants... why? So they could eat... after a while I pullout a dinosaurus from my bag.. a Rex... boys love that, their eyes begin to shine, so eager theya re... so What had to be before D.Rex could emerge?? We had plants.. dose it eat the plants....NOOOO... What then, what did we need... then one of the smarties suddenly jups up, not beeing able to hold the secret.... other animals so it could eat them.... Then we wonder for a good while how smart of our Hevenly Father it is to set the Rex and other pedetors (Not sure of spelling) after first making sure they had some food so they did not parish right away... so first plants then animals, that eat plants then animals that eat animals....

Well I also believe that huge animals like Dinosaurus had a very important role in making the earth, the soil ready for us. :)

I love dinosaurusses... sepecially stegosaurus and trceratops....

[adie_vale]

Hi Adie ... I am a teacher and teach... small kids... my kisd just LOVE the dinosauruses. I take dinosaurer as a very important part of the earths history.... I always start by asking kids what had to be before... like what had to be before the first animals that lived on the earth came to be...(for me it is not important how they came to be, but if they "climbed out of the sea" that too was very carefully planned by God)...anyway.. so what was first? Aaa some plants... why? So they could eat... after a while I pullout a dinosaurus from my bag.. a Rex... boys love that, their eyes begin to shine, so eager theya re... so What had to be before D.Rex could emerge?? We had plants.. dose it eat the plants....NOOOO... What then, what did we need... then one of the smarties suddenly jups up, not beeing able to hold the secret.... other animals so it could eat them.... Then we wonder for a good while how smart of our Hevenly Father it is to set the Rex and other pedetors (Not sure of spelling) after first making sure they had some food so they did not parish right away... so first plants then animals, that eat plants then animals that eat animals....

Well I also believe that huge animals like Dinosaurus had a very important role in making the earth, the soil ready for us. :)

I love dinosaurusses... sepecially stegosaurus and trceratops....

Thats great thank you for that.

[BenRaines]

Personal opinion only: Planet was created from existing matter. Not big bang. How big of pieces were the elements from which the earth was created? I don't know but that is how I explain it.

Ben Raines

[Maya]

I thinbk a big bang is possible... arranged by God in very carefull sircumstances... He is a super scientist... I dont think I manage a smal bang on my pancakepan without making a mess....

Anyway I dont see any special reasum why a big ban could not hve been and then the ...like I tell my kids... there was a big huge BANG...(everyone jumps asthe bang is so sudden, even those that knew to excpect it) then the peaces began to (oo boy my english is sleeping it is soon 1am) ... peaces began to form bigger peaces in the universe and the bigger peaces pulled thowards one an other and made even bigger peaces... soon ve could call them planets... then we wonder again how engenious our Hevenly Father is as He managed to count the right track to each planet so they do not crash! I explain how big consentrations of gass become stars=suns and we take a look at the sky and wondeer how many suns/stars there really are in the universe and if there is any that have life... We talk about other hevenlypeaces like comets aso.. then we make them.. paper and paint.. the sun is so big that we make just a fraction, and yet it is bigger than the planets we make... we try to keep the about right difference in sizes....

I love to tell the kids about that... I just have to be carefull about the God business... may get boot because of that... there is so much to wonder in this universe!

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

There is a big big tickeling in my mind, i am currently going through the convertion process! I have always been interested by religions answers to dinosor's! I was wondering what the lds belief was on them. I look forward to the answers and thank you for your time.[/b]

I've spent a few minutes looking for an article I read on LDS.org a while back concerning evolution and like questions. I couldn't find the article, but the meaning of it, written by a prophet of God, was that "The question of evolution has no bearing on our eternal salvation" and so would probably never receive an answer from church leaders.

Dinosaurs existed, but how, when, or why they existed are questions that won't help you get to heaven, so the church has no reason to answer them. You can consider this one of the "mysteries of God" which mysteries are only ever revealed through personal revelation.

[Ray A]

Dinosaurs existed, but how, when, or why they existed are questions that won't help you get to heaven, so the church has no reason to answer them. You can consider this one of the "mysteries of God" which mysteries are only ever revealed through personal revelation.

Science doesn't attempt to answer theological questions, nor should it, but palaeontologists have a fairly accurate record from fossil evidence, dating the dinosaurs to 230 million years ago. They became extinct about 65 million years ago, but there is still speculation as to how.

Contrary to some creationist arguments, there is no evidence that Noah took dinosaur eggs on board the Ark.

[pam]

Personal opinion only: Planet was created from existing matter. Not big bang. How big of pieces were the elements from which the earth was created? I don't know but that is how I explain it.

Ben Raines

That has always been my opinion as well. That Heavenly Father used existing matter. Could these "pieces" have been from other worlds where these things existed? I don't know. But I've always believed this.

Disclaimer: Just my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the LDS Church.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Science doesn't attempt to answer theological questions, nor should it, but palaeontologists have a fairly accurate record from fossil evidence, dating the dinosaurs to 230 million years ago. They became extinct about 65 million years ago, but there is still speculation as to how.

Contrary to some creationist arguments, there is no evidence that Noah took dinosaur eggs on board the Ark.

Paleontologist was practically my first word as a child. But my personal views on science and evolution are not the point of this thread :)

I believe that science seeks after truth, and as science learns and grows it will increasingly support true religion. I also believe that religion works the same way, that as our spiritual knowledge increases, it will support the scientific truths we have uncovered. As theories in both areas are refined and grow closer to truth, they will grow closer to each other. That's my belief. Oh, and I think that the questions science tries to answer ARE theological questions. They're just questions that don't make a difference in whether or not we go to heaven, but some of us want answers to them anyway.

That has always been my opinion as well. That Heavenly Father used existing matter. Could these "pieces" have been from other worlds where these things existed? I don't know. But I've always believed this.

Disclaimer: Just my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the LDS Church.

It IS official church doctrine that the world was created from pre-existing matter. Abraham 3:24 -> Abraham 3

[Snow]

There is a big big tickeling in my mind, i am currently going through the convertion process! I have always been interested by religions answers to dinosor's! I was wondering what the lds belief was on them. I look forward to the answers and thank you for your time.[/b]

It not a matter of LDS belief, it's a matter of science. Dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrate animals of terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago to the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when most of them became extinct in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. (wiki)

The great thing about being Mormon is that you only have to believe stuff that's true. Since it is true (what I just posted) that all you need believe.

[Ray A]

Paleontologist was practically my first word as a child. But my personal views on science and evolution are not the point of this thread :)

You got me there. I think mine was something like "goo-goo", or possibly "goo-gaa".

I believe that science seeks after truth, and as science learns and grows it will increasingly support true religion. I also believe that religion works the same way, that as our spiritual knowledge increases, it will support the scientific truths we have uncovered. As theories in both areas are refined and grow closer to truth, they will grow closer to each other. That's my belief. Oh, and I think that the questions science tries to answer ARE theological questions. They're just questions that don't make a difference in whether or not we go to heaven, but some of us want answers to them anyway.

Read the history of the man whose quote I use in my sig. line : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Sometimes, religion has to come into line with science. The Church in the Middle Ages considered itself "the true religion" (still does, with some emendations, like an admission of guilt in regard to Giordano Bruno. Unfortunate.).

I think Brigham Young put it pretty well:

It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity." (Emphasis added)

Brigham Young also believed the Genesis creation story to be a myth. Of course, that was his opinion. He wasn't God.

[Moksha]

I understand there is a dinosaur in one of the murals at the Manti Temple. Hope it is a Stegasaurus, since they always seemed fun loving to me.

[Elphaba]

There was actually a thriving period on the planet, called the Permian Period, until it went through its own mass extinction event. Lasting from 299 to 251 years ago, the following link gives a significant list of the animals existing during the Permian period. Most importantly, this was approximately 20 million years BEFORE the dinosaurs walked the earth. (I'm using WIKI for a reference on this as I am just touching on the subject. )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Permian_animals

An example of a common animal that existed during the Permian Period is the Cynodont, which has nearly all the characteristics of mammals. Their teeth were fully differentiated, the braincase bulged at the back of the head, and many of them walked in an upright manner. Cynodonts still laid eggs, as all Mesozoic proto-mammals probably did. Their dentary was the largest bone in their lower jaw, as other smaller bones moved into the ears. They were probably warm-blooded and covered in hair.

Another well-known animals is the Dimetrodon. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Dimetrodon is NOT a dinosaur, though it looks like one. Again, none of the animals alive during the Permian Period were dinosaurs. Dimetrodon's possession of both reptilian and mammalian characteristics has often earned it the title of mammal-like reptile. It had a sprawling gait like modern reptiles and the evidence points to it being an ectothermic (cold-blooded animal).

However, dimetrodon possessed two kinds of specialized teeth, incisors and canines. This kind of tooth differentiation is commonly found in mammals of today. Dimetrodon is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but is in fact unrelated to the ancestors of the dinosaurs.

The most obvious difference is in its gait. Dinosaurs held their legs underneath them to support their large weights, and dimetrodon's legs sprawled out to the sides. Oddly enough, dimetrodon is more closely related to mammals and humans than to dinosaurs and birds. (emphasis mine)

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlVersion/permian2.html

The most important terrestrial herbivores in the Early Permian were the insects. They represented a mixture of holdovers from the earlier Pennsylvanian, such as the dragonfly-like palaeodictyopterans and various forms related to modern grasshoppers and cockroaches, as well as newly evolved forms such as beetles and scorpionflies that are the earliest known members of insect groups that undergo true metamorphosis. (Insects that metamorphose develop from egg to larva to pupa to adult, and generally make their living in a very different way in the larval and adult phases.)

Obviously I've culled interesting facts from only a pittance of animals that existed in the Permian Period. The main point I wanted to make is that these animals ARE NOT dinosaurs, and in fact they lived millions of years BEFORE the dinosaurs.

I admit I knew nothing about this period until about two years ago. It flabbergasted me, and I’ve been fascinated about it ever since.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

Just when I thought I knew everything. Ego flattened. (ears still open to further assassination of my ignorance)

Thanks Elphaba.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I admit I knew nothing about this period until about two years ago. It flabbergasted me, and I’ve been fascinated about it ever since.

Elphaba

Of other major interest to you then might be the Cambrian Explosion, a period around 530 million years ago that saw a HUGE increase in the different kinds of lifeforms on earth. It's pretty much the turning point in the evolution of species from a few kinds of simple organisms to millions of kinds of complex ones. It's also a major point of debate in the "war" between evolution and creation (which "war", IMO, is pointless anyway).

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have also been other "explosions" of evolution in the fossil record just as there have been numerous extinction events, the cambrian being the largest and most well known explosion, and the dinosaurs being the most well known extinction.

Ya'll are making me think about changing my major to paleontology like I wanted when I was 5...

[Ray A]

Ya'll are making me think about changing my major to paleontology like I wanted when I was 5...

Just make sure you separate the Sermon on the Mount from palaeontology;) And you'll be fine.

No believer needs to argue the impossible against scientific evidence, and if you use science to bolster your religious beliefs (like six-day creationism, as an example) - then your religious beliefs are based on fantasy. A fantasy which is unbelievable to about 90% of the world.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Just make sure you separate the Sermon on the Mount from palaeontology;) And you'll be fine.

No believer needs to argue the impossible against scientific evidence, and if you use science to bolster your religious beliefs - then your religious beliefs are based on fantasy. A fantasy which is unbelievable to about 90% of the world.

That is utter BS. Every modern prophet I am familiar with has said that scientific advances will always support the church. Science is the pursuit of truth, and when science finds a truth, that truth will ALWAYS support the Gospel because there is only one source of truth, and that is God.

I quote Brigham Young:

Every discovery in science and art, that is really true and useful to mankind, has been given by direct revelation from God. … We should take advantage of all these great discoveries … and give to our children the benefit of every branch of useful knowledge, to prepare them to step forward and efficiently do their part in the great work

(Deseret News, 22 Oct. 1862, 129). (emphasis added)

This was reiterated by Dallin H. Oaks in a 2001 general conference. It has also been said in numerous other ways by other prophets. There is no need to seperate scientific study and learning from religious study and spirituality. They support each other, grow with each other, and enable each other in the learning of new truths. Scientific interpretations of observations aren't always correct, but neither are religious interpretations of scripture and revelation. That's why we have the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost can guide us and teach us just as well in science as it can in religion.

:edit:

BTW - this is a touchy subject for me. I get personally insulted when people tell me I can't mix science and religion, because you can, I have, and the Gospel and prophets and scriptures support it.

[Ray A]

That is utter BS. Every modern prophet I am familiar with has said that scientific advances will always support the church. Science is the pursuit of truth, and when science finds a truth, that truth will ALWAYS support the Gospel because there is only one source of truth, and that is God.

Then why did the Church change its Black policy? Why did it abandon polygamy? Revelation for circumstances? Do you know what Elder Mark E. Petersen taught about blacks? Or Alvin Dyer? You seem to speak from sheer ignorance. What do you think made the Church revise these policies? I won't quote Petersen's ideas, because they are too offensive, yet, at the time, they came from "the Lord's anointed". The Church has now buried them into a Black Hole, so naive people like you can't read them. They had no scientific basis whatsoever.

“Every discovery in science and art, that is really true and useful to mankind, has been given by direct revelation from God. … We should take advantage of all these great discoveries … and give to our children the benefit of every branch of useful knowledge, to prepare them to step forward and efficiently do their part in the great work” (Deseret News, 22 Oct. 1862, 129). (emphasis added)

And Brigham was the one who advocated that anyone who married a "negro" should have a javelin put through his heart. Did Brigham receive this utter garbage by revelation?

Today, this idea is not only preposterous, but deeply offensive. Do you and others on this board think you will win converts by denying statements like this? Do you think the public are fools? Have you examined why so many leave Mormonism? It's because ignorant people like you don't study enough of your own religion. And now I suppose you may well turn against Mormonism one day, and be one of its fierciest critics, because you have such a superficial understanding of it. You, my friend, would like it all in black and white, wouldn't you? I have news for you - the world doesn't work that way.

So answer my question - was there anything "scientific" about Brigham's revelations or ideas about blacks?

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I hesitate to respond because I don't want this to turn into a flame war, but your personal attack against my knowledge of the gospel and my personal character demands rebuttal.

Then why did the Church change its Black policy? Why did it abandon polygamy? Revelation for circumstances? Do you know what Elder Mark E. Petersen taught about blacks? Or Alvin Dyer? You seem to speak from sheer ignorance. What do you think made the Church revise these policies? I won't quote Petersen's ideas, because they are too offensive, yet, at the time, they came from "the Lord's anointed". The Church has now buried them into a Black Hole, so naive people like you can't read them. They had no scientific basis whatsoever.

I am very familiar with Brigham Young's comments on blacks. And not his only, but several other early church leaders. I quote from Brigham Young again (spelling as in the original): "...the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth." This statement and the speech in which it is contained is available in official church archives.

And Brigham was the one who advocated that anyone who married a "negro" should have a javelin put through his heart. Did Brigham receive this utter garbage by revelation?

Young also said "If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."

Today, this idea is not only preposterous, but deeply offensive. Do you and others on this board think you will win converts by denying statements like this? Do you think the public are fools? Have you examined why so many leave Mormonism? It's because ignorant people like you don't study enough of your own religion. And now I suppose you may well turn against Mormonism one day, and be one of its fierciest critics, because you have such a superficial understanding of it. You, my friend, would like it all in black and white, wouldn't you? I have news for you - the world doesn't work that way.

I never denied any statements like you suggest, since none were made here for me to deny, and I would not deny them anyway because I am fully aware of their existence.

Most of the people in the world are fools, yourself and myself included.

For all the people leaving Mormonism, it seems to be increasing in number at a phenominal rate.

I know the doctrines and teachings of my religion far better than you assume, and your assumption and the way you presented it are wholly without purpose except to bring anger and contention to this board. My understanding of the doctrines and teachings of this church are far from superficial, and whether I leave this church at any future date will be wholly unrelated to any of the comments you've made here tonight.

By the way, I never saw one mention of blacks and the priesthood until you mentioned it just now. I wonder how you think that relates to evolution and the fossil record? I also wonder how you think that bringing up the subject in such an offensive and contentious manner will help anyone? And more offensive than your words is the self-righteous conceit with which you wrote them. I suggest you get down off your high horse and rethink your approach to gospel discussions before posting here again.

I close with a few wise words from my foolish brother.

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

I think the original question on this thread has been answered and I suggest that it be locked to prevent an argument from arising. Ray, if you have anything intelligent to say (an apology for your libel would be nice) you can private message me.

[Ray A]

I hesitate to respond because I don't want this to turn into a flame war, but your personal attack against my knowledge of the gospel and my personal character demands rebuttal.

I am very familiar with Brigham Young's comments on blacks. And not his only, but several other early church leaders. I quote from Brigham Young again (spelling as in the original): "...the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth." This statement and the speech in which it is contained is available in official church archives.

And you believe this garbage? What's even more poignant is that you know this, but still seem to believe it! Are you for serious? Please explain. This is unscriptural trash.

Young also said "If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."

Not used as "dumb brutes"? But what about the pre-existence doctrine? No mention of that here.

Unless they repent? Repent of WHAT? Considering being born black a curse? Has that been repented of? Sitting on the fence in pre-existence? Where is this justified in scripture? Where does it say black people were fence sitters, or not valiant? What is the current explanation of this by the Church? "We don't know the reason" Then why has there not been a formal apology for denying them their due privileges until 1978? "We don't know"? Or do some still believe this racist garbage? We DO know, and this is the reason - they were BLACK! That's the reason. Not "we don't know". Good grief.

I never denied any statements like you suggest, since none were made here for me to deny, and I would not deny them anyway because I am fully aware of their existence.

And what have you said? Nothing? So, are blacks still under some kind of stigma? A pseudo-stigma? They are still, really, "descendants of Cain"? When will we get clarification, or denial of this? Many still wonder, in a universal Church.

Most of the people in the world are fools, yourself and myself included.

For all the people leaving Mormonism, it seems to be increasing in number at a phenominal rate.

True, but Why? Maybe because of some kind of intellectual dishonesty?

I know the doctrines and teachings of my religion far better than you assume, and your assumption and the way you presented it are wholly without purpose except to bring anger and contention to this board. My understanding of the doctrines and teachings of this church are far from superficial, and whether I leave this church at any future date will be wholly unrelated to any of the comments you've made here tonight.

You don't need to leave the Church, at any stage. All you and other Mormons need to do is stop BSsing people and tell them the truth. Tell them your past leaders were racist bigots like most in the 19th century, and urge them to offer a formal apology to black people. Don't come with this crap that "the negro" was somehow "inferior", as suggested in Mark E. Peterson's comments in the 1950s! And how much of this racism still lingers because of these teachings? I can only wonder.

By the way, I never saw one mention of blacks and the priesthood until you mentioned it just now. I wonder how you think that relates to evolution and the fossil record? I also wonder how you think that bringing up the subject in such an offensive and contentious manner will help anyone? And more offensive than your words is the self-righteous conceit with which you wrote them. I suggest you get down off your high horse and rethink your approach to gospel discussions before posting here again.

I thought you saw it all. Pardon me. My mistake. Evolution explains why people are black, or white. Pre-existent behaviour and curses of Cain don't. That's where science comes into it. And if someone believes the utter nonsense that the earth was created in six days, or even six thousand years, they're also likely to believe that black people came from Ham, and that some curse that never existed, was "lifted", in 1978.

I close with a few wise words from my foolish brother.

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

I think the original question on this thread has been answered and I suggest that it be locked to prevent an argument from arising. Ray, if you have anything intelligent to say (an apology for your libel would be nice) you can private message me.

An apology for MY libel? When will The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offer an official apology to black people?

You want friends? You want converts who will stay? Tell them the truth! At the moment in Australia there's an 80% inactivity rate. I am only one voice telling you what the others don't have time for, or even care about, because they have long dismissed the trash like the doctrines about "negroes".

They think you live in Fantasyland. In regard to these 19th century beliefs.

I confess I'm an idiot. But I'd prefer you preface that with "heretical idiot".

My aim is not to keep Mormonism from people, only from the idiocy that lingers in false doctrine and beliefs.

How many Mormons still believe this rubbish because of what people like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie have written in the past? Many, I suspect.

[Ray A]

And here is what McConkie quoted in his "mea culpa", not in regard to blacks being descendants of Cain, but the time frame for them getting the priesthood:

2 Nephi 26

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

I leave these same men to "assess" scientific evidence. They were wrong about scripture, but, somehow, what they say about the creation of the earth - has merit. And who, in a certain book, has stinging criticism of evolution as the "theories of men"?

Guess. (maybe now you get my point of all this "digression"?)

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

And here is what McConkie quoted in his "mea culpa", not in regard to blacks being descendants of Cain, but the time frame for them getting the priesthood:

2 Nephi 26

I leave these same men to "assess" scientific evidence. They were wrong about scripture, but, somehow, what they say about the creation of the earth - has merit. And who, in a certain book, has stinging criticism of evolution as the "theories of men"?

Guess. (maybe now you get my point of all this "digression"?)

This thread was started to address the church's official stance on dinosaurs and the fossil record. If you have some other grievance regarding church doctrine or church leaders you can start your own thread about it. You clearly have a wealth of (one-sided) knowledge on the subject of the church, priesthood, and blacks, and I would urge you to start a thread about it because it's a good discussion topic that a lot of people are ignorant of. But I would suggest that if you do so, you keep it a bit more civil and mature of a discussion; screaming and shouting on a soap box about past wrongs is not going to get you heard by anyone who cares.

I again reiterate my opinion that the orginal purpose of this thread has been answered and that the thread be locked to prevent an argument - or rather now to stem an argument that's already started.

Ray: I'm not going to respond to anything more you have to say. Do not take my silence as a lack of knowledge or interest in the subject. Take it as a desire to prevent harmful contention on these public forums. Again, you can private message me if you want to continue this discussion with me.

[Moksha]

Ray, what's going on? Everything okay?

[Ray A]

Ray, what's going on? Everything okay?

I'm cool, Mok, thanks anyway. Getting ready for work later, putting on battle-gear for dealing with the occasional intractables. Such is life, such is work. Rough, rough stone rolling along.