What's new

Whatever happen to the Dinosaurs?

I have been told that the LDS explanation for dinosaurs is that they were never on this planet. When god made this earth he took parts from other planets and that's how we got dinosaur bones. I'm guessing that isn't Mormon canon but just a common theory.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk
 
I have been told that the LDS explanation for dinosaurs is that they were never on this planet. When god made this earth he took parts from other planets and that's how we got dinosaur bones. I'm guessing that isn't Mormon canon but just a common theory.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk
This explanation is almost (but not quite) as stupid and lazy as CJ's link to this article, which he only believes supports his position because he did not read any further than the title.
 
This explanation is almost (but not quite) as stupid and lazy as CJ's link to this article, which he only believes supports his position because he did not read any further than the title.
I agree, it's not my opinion at all. Just throwing some wood in the fire.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk
 
This explanation is almost (but not quite) as stupid and lazy as CJ's link to this article, which he only believes supports his position because he did not read any further than the title.

While I agree that this is a poor (i.e. provably incorrect) explanation of the existence of dinosaurs, the idea that the Earth, as a whole, is an amalgam of older and previously independent parts is cosmologically true. Some Mormon historians have traced this notion back to the early ideas about what it means to organize as a community, and to the development of the concept of 'Zion' -- so it's both cosmological and existential (i.e. cool). And, relative to other Christianities, this notion has provided a substantial amount of conceptual freedom with respect to thinking about the physics of matter -- since there is no inherent contradiction at the idea of 4.3 billion year old rocks. (Paging Colton and babe).

In my youth I was exposed to this explanation of dinosaurs by two different elder Mormon gentlemen. One was trying to use it as a way to quickly disprove a theory of the earth that conflicted with his narrow one. He was defensive, trying to brush something off. The other gentleman used it as a springboard for thinking about the inherent independence of all things, and the temporary, highly contingent nature of our contemporaneity. In other words, the latter was letting the notion radicalize nature -- a move that I profoundly respect -- while the former repeated a move that you see not only in the majority of religious believers, but in a staggering number of scientists who dogmatically hold to what is "True".

Nature always goes beyond our laws and recognitions. A good rendering of Nature is to regard it as Supernatural.

The point of this post is to tell you that some Mormons have used this "stupid explanation" in ways that are highly constructive -- even if they've discarded it as inadequate for the specific case at hand (dinosaurs) -- using it to move into conceptual terrain well ahead of their time. But, sure, condescend.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that this is a poor (i.e. provably incorrect) explanation of the existence of dinosaurs, the idea that the Earth, as a whole, is an amalgam of older and previously independent parts is cosmologically true.

Hmmm. While I don't disagree, that statement applies to literally everything in existence. It would be an absurd explanation for dinosaur bones even if we knew nothing of the history of life on Earth, simply given the mechanics of said amalgamation.
 
Hmmm. While I don't disagree, that statement applies to literally everything in existence. It would be an absurd explanation for dinosaur bones even if we knew nothing of the history of life on Earth, simply given the mechanics of said amalgamation.

You can say that now. And I agree. But that view hasn't always been held, and it still cuts across the common sense way we ontologize things. When this view was put together by Mormons in the 1840s, the idea that the Earth was constructed of independent things of various ages was a fringe belief, and nothing was known of the mechanics of Earthly accretion. In fact, the geology taught at Universities was still totally dominated by a Biblical model of time that dated the Earth to about 6,000 years old.
 
Hmmm. While I don't disagree, that statement applies to literally everything in existence. It would be an absurd explanation for dinosaur bones even if we knew nothing of the history of life on Earth, simply given the mechanics of said amalgamation.
Did NAOS actually say that the idea that dinosaur fossils came from other planets is both provably incorrect and cosmological true? A fossil is not an atom which was once part of a fossil. A dinosaur fossil is an actual fossilized bone. There are millions of them on earth. They did not come from other planets. End of story.
 
I think dinosaurs were doing pretty great for a while, then they started getting into hip hop and tatting themselves up. After that they were "never much on thinking.....spent most of [their] time chasing women and drinking!"
 
Back
Top