The Pteranodon Photo and Religion

An old photograph has been bouncing around the internet for quite some time, with many persons giving it a careless glance but very few indeed examining it closely and with an open mind. In the first few months of 2017, however, that changed.

The “pterodactyl” photo called “Ptp”

Beware of confusing this with a known hoax. Ptp is not the same photo that was created to promote the Haxan Films television show Freakylinks, around the year 2000. Compare the two of them side by side:

Comparing a hoax-photo with a genuine old photo

See for yourself: hoax versus original photo (click on them)

The older photograph, that was used as a model for the newer fake-photo, has been verified as authentic by two scientists, including the physicist Clifford Paiva, from California. Skeptical remarks about the soldiers have been answered and those careless criticisms have been exposed in the new nonfiction book Modern Pterosaurs.

The Flood of Noah and extant pterosaurs

Religion is related to the “Pteranodon” photograph that is now called “Ptp,” but those skeptical comments from critics who assume extreme bias in all Christian supporters of living-pterosaur investigations—those critical comments are incorrect. Paiva and I have looked carefully at this photo, with an open mind about various possibilities of hoaxing. Ptp has survived the close scrutiny extremely well.

How does an extant pterosaur in the 19th century relate to the Flood of Genesis? If it were only one species of extremely rare pterosaur, one photo by itself would give quite limited support for a literal Flood of Noah, but there’s much more. More than two types of these featherless flying creatures still live on our wonderful planet, and although they appear to be nocturnal (or at least mostly so), their overall existence is not very rare or confined to only one remote area.

Eyewitness reports come from at least five continents, confirming that pterosaurs are seen by countless persons worldwide. The most common type resembles what would be expected of an extant Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur: It has a long tail with a flange at the end of the tail. The type seen in Ptp, however, is not as common: an apparent Pteranodon or at least a similar Pterodactyloid.

How does that support the literal interpretation of the Flood of Genesis? Although the great majority of pterosaur species appear to be extinct, both major types are still flying overhead at night, in many areas of the world. Although they are uncommon, extant representatives support the concept that the fossils are not nearly as old as many persons have assumed. They have not evolved feathers, nor have enormous changes in anatomy taken place. Since so many recent extinctions have been seen to have come from human interference, we can easily imagine that at least some pterosaur species met a similar fate. The existence of both major types of pterosaur supports a literal Flood of Noah.



Dinosaur Extinction

Consider the following direct evidence for the authenticity of the “pterodactyl photograph” and its significance. Earlier this year (2017), the physicist Cliff Paiva and I independently examined belt buckles on those soldiers in Ptp. We both came to the same conclusion: The soldier that appears to be standing in front of the animal is indeed closer to the camera than the other soldiers.


Civil War Pteranodon photo

. . . a scientist (Clifford Paiva, a physicist) has found a number of evidences for the authenticity of the image of the apparent Pteranodon in the older Ptp photo.


Civil War pterosaur photo

Do not Confuse two Photographs


Pterodactyl in a Civil War photograph

Years ago, a scientist in California began noticing details in a photograph, clues that the image of an apparent modern pterosaur was genuine. On January 14, 2017, I spoke with Clifford Paiva (a physicist) by phone. We agreed that the photo (now labeled “Ptp”) has a genuine photographic image of a modern pterosaur.


Posted in Faith, Live Pterosaurs | Tagged | Comments Off on The Pteranodon Photo and Religion

Easter Verses

These two verses (numbered #1 and #2) are actually the third and fourth verses of my hymn “Through my Savior.” Since they’re in the spirit of Easter, I submit them here:

Verse 1

Now in the morning of shadow waning,
Like when the light of morning filled a tomb,
Grant us forgiveness: both giving, gaining;
Fill us with light: Dispel avenging gloom.
Once in a garden, the blood was dropping;
Once on a cross, the voice of mercy said,
“Oh, my Father, forgive my brother;
I forgive him with the blood I shed.”

Verse 2

Through thine Anointed, we seek forgiveness,
Grasping thy mercy, casting off our sin,
Through our election of his atonement,
Touching Perfection, cleansing us within.
Though opposition may feign to hinder,
Like thine Anointed we begin to be.
Oh my Father, I now remember:
My Redeemer gave his life for me;
Through my Savior, I come to thee.

Some of this is symbolic. Notice the reference to the New Testament healing of the woman who touched the hem of the clothing of Jesus:

touching the hem of the garment of Jesus

Touching Perfection, cleansing us within

Of course we need to apply that in a little different way in our own lives. We need to approach the Savior in our prayers to received his healing influence, yet the healing we usually most need is spiritual.



Forgiveness – A Song Verse Explained

When is the “morning of shadow waning?” The dispelling of this particular shadow refers to attaining forgiveness, both forgiving and receiving forgiveness, so the particular “morning” is unique to each of us. In fact many of us may be enlightened by many such mornings in our lifetimes, moments when we forgive another person or when someone forgives himself or herself, or moments when we accept forgiveness from another person.

Images of Christ

We each have a mental picture of what we think the Savior looks like. But if we painted pictures of Him, they would all be different. We don’t really know what He looks like, but we can come to know His perfect love for us and draw closer to Him . . .


Posted in Faith | Tagged | Comments Off on Easter Verses

Pornography Avoidance

The best approach to disease is to avoid catching it. Likewise our best choice regarding pornography is to avoid it as much as possible. In a world in which filth can sometimes invade our field of view, however, what about those times when we have been exposed against our will? A number of protections are available even in those conditions.

A General Conference Talk

In the April-2014 General Conference, Linda Reeves (Second Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) mentioned one condition from an experience in her family:

Many years ago one of our children was noticeably distressed. I stepped into her bedroom, where she opened up her heart and explained to me that she had been at a friend’s home and had accidentally seen startling and disturbing images and actions on the television between a man and a woman without clothing. She began sobbing and expressed how horrible she felt about what she had seen and wished she could get it out of her mind. I was so grateful that she would confide in me, giving me a chance to soothe her innocent and aching heart and help her know how to get relief through our Savior’s Atonement. I remember the sacred feelings I had as we knelt together, as mother and daughter, and petitioned the help of our Heavenly Father.

Sister Reeves also said, “Filters are useful tools, but the greatest filter in the world, the only one that will ultimately work, is the personal internal filter that comes from a deep and abiding testimony of our Heavenly Father’s love and our Savior’s atoning sacrifice for each one of us.”

Other Protections

Becoming aware of the dangers of pornography addiction, and of how serious that addiction can become, can help us avoid becoming trapped. Yet many more protections are available, and they can be simple.

Before using a computer or hand-held device connected to the internet, think about how you will change pages, or turn away, or even turn it off, should you inadvertently encounter anything pornographic. That could be a life saver.

Place a decent photo of a family in view, especially where you can turn to it should any dirty image accidentally come into your view. It could be your own family, or even a family of persons that you don’t know, as a framed picture on the wall behind your computer screen. Tell yourself, before you use your computer, that you’ll look to that photo if anything filthy comes across the screen of your computer. That way, you’ll have something positive to enter your mind, taking the place of the filth that was thrown at you against your will. In addition, that would be a good time to say a prayer.

A young family having fun at a beach




What Should I do When I See Pornography?

A delightfully refreshing video to help children know what to do when they have seen a pornographic image. (Turn away from it and talk to a parent or trusted adult.)

Family Home Evening: Pornography Solutions

“May we ever be courageous and prepared to stand for what we believe, and if we must stand alone in the process, may we do so courageously . . .” (President Monson)

The Filter of a Deep and Abiding Testimony

“What do I want my grandchildren to know?” This morning I would like to talk frankly to my family and to yours.


Posted in Family | Tagged | Comments Off on Pornography Avoidance

Forgiveness – A Song Verse Explained

During the past five years of occasional revisions of my song “Through my Savior,” the third verse I left alone. I felt that I could not improve it. The meaning of the first line, however, needs explaining. Here’s the verse:

Now in the morning of shadow waning,

Like when the light of morning filled a tomb,

Grant us forgiveness: both giving, gaining;

Fill us with light: Dispel avenging gloom.

Once in a garden, the blood was dropping;

Once on a cross, the voice of mercy said,

“Oh, my Father, forgive my brother;

I forgive him with the blood I shed.”

When is the “morning of shadow waning?” The dispelling of this particular shadow refers to attaining forgiveness, both forgiving and receiving forgiveness, so the particular “morning” is unique to each of us. In fact many of us may be enlightened by many such mornings in our lifetimes, moments when we forgive another person or when someone forgives himself or herself, or moments when we accept forgiveness from another person.


The Resurrected Jesus Christ.

The Second Line

When did the light of morning fill a tomb? On Easter morning, the Savior walked out of that tomb, shining with all the glorious light of truth that the eyewitnesses were able to endure, for Jesus continued to give his disciples what they were ready to receive.

The tomb itself was left open, sitting with an open mouth as the morning light crept in. All who dare to approach that mouth, all who dare to listen and to look—they will hear that still small voice and see that this particular tomb is empty.


Posted in Music | Comments Off on Forgiveness – A Song Verse Explained

Adahmeve – The New Word For Marriage

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that same-gender couples have the constitutional right to be married. Most Americans probably failed to realize that this ruling impacted our language: With one little-known exception, no longer do we have a single word, in English, that refers to the formal union of a man and a woman in marriage. That exception is the word adahmeve.

Why do we need the word adhmeve? For those who recognize and honor God’s plan of uniting a man and a woman in marriage, and who understand it, any substitute is repulsive. So how do we now refer to traditional marriage? We use the word adahmeve, and when we speak we pronounce it uh-DAH-meve.

Adahmeve means traditional marriageAn adahmeve celebrated in Southern California

Verb Form for “Marry” – Admeve

How would we now say that Adam and Eve were married? Use the word admeve, which is pronounced uhd-MEVE.

Adam and Eve were admeved.

Adjective for “marital” – Admevial

The adjective to use is admevial, and the old form was marital. How do we now refer to the intimate relations between and husband (man) and wife (woman)?

admevial relations

The word is pronounced uhd-MEV-ial.

What’s Wrong With Just Using the Old Words?

Why use these new words (adahmeve, admeve, admevial)? If you only communicate with those who believe exactly as you do, it might seem to work. Tell your friends that your nephew is getting married, however, and even those who share your beliefs might not be sure what’s happening. Is your nephew in harmony with your belief in the sanctity of traditional values, or is he rebelling against them? That is part of the problem that the U.S. Supreme Court has left us with, changing the meaning of the word married.

No government, however can change the meanings of the following words:

  • adahmeve
  • admeve
  • admevial

These words originated without any government ties, simply referring to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman. In other words, since these words are not contained in government marriage license text, they cannot be altered in meaning (in a legal sense) by any federal, state, or local government.



New Word for Marriage Between a Man and a Woman

A new word has been appointed for traditional marriage between a man and a woman: Adahmeve. . . . God himself organized marriage in the beginning as between male and female. The word “adahmeve” is now available to avoid confusion, for it only refers to the traditional formal relationship between husband and wife.

Marriage and a new Word: Adahmeve

A new word was introduced into the English language on June 28, 2013, the same day that licenses were granted to same-gender couples in California.


Posted in Family | Tagged | Comments Off on Adahmeve – The New Word For Marriage

Evolution and Religion

This relates to concepts about the “age of dinosaurs,” but let’s put aside that concept for the moment. Have you ever encountered a statement similar to the following?

“Evolution is a proven scientific fact.”

True scientific progress requires working with details, and “evolution” (meaning Darwinian theory) has been compared to a room full of smoke, according to David Berlinski, in the documentary Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed:

One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian Theory is: man that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke. Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined and delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematical Physics. And Mathematical Physics lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual decent down the level of intelligibility, until we reach Evolutionary Biology.

Unlimited Common Ancestry

We can blow away some of that smoke by being specific. Many persons assume there is only one concept of biological evolution and they just call it “evolution.” But the General Theory of Evolution mainly involves the philosophy of unlimited common ancestry, so let’s look deeper. Yes indeed it is philosophy and not science, although many persons have assumed it is pure science.

What is unlimited common ancestry? (I like to use that phrase for it is specific.) It’s when a person assumes that when two different biological organisms may have had a common ancestor then they did have one. That is not scientific, it is philosophical.

Darwin used that approach in his books On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, and countless of his followers have continued to use that philosophy. One of the big problems is that this philosophy has been forced into our consciousness (or subconsciousness) in the name of “science.”

When I say unlimited common ancestry (we’ll use UCA), I don’t mean insistence that all living organisms must have had one common ancestor; it’s not quite that. The concept that all plant life had one common and all animal life had another common ancestor—that could fit well into the philosophy of UCA, if the evidence was convincing enough that the two basic forms of life had different original ancestors. The point of this philosophy, in that case, would be insisting we then assume that there were not more than two original ancestors. Notice the insistence.

What do we learn from Genesis? Biological details are scarce indeed, but it seems that this planet originally had many original ancestors of modern organisms, perhaps thousands of original life forms. That’s a far cry from both the insistence of UCA and the countless species that now exist in our wonderful world. Hardly anybody denies all forms of evolution, for humans themselves have caused a wide variety living things to come forth, for example: domesticated animals, including many varieties of cattle, horses, dogs, and cats. But those many kinds came about by human intelligence and from a variety or original ancestors. We did not start with mud puddles but with wonderful early forms of animals. Environment may play a part in shaping some characteristics in animal life, over long periods of time, but the shaping was done in selecting from among many of the wonderful genes that had already existed “after their kind.”

Dating Problems With Dinosaurs

I refer to carbon-14 radiometric dating problems, not dinosaur extinction from those animals hanging out in groups and avoiding serious courtship dating.

The two problems with C14 testing of dinosaur bones comes from two perspectives:

  1. The dates are shocking
  2. The dating has been discontinued, because of shock

Soon after the 2012 geology conference in Singapore, carbon-dating laboratories, at least in the United States, stopped testing any materials that might be dinosaur remains.

Why? It could make them look silly, for the dates always turn out to be in the range of tens of thousands of years, with radioactive carbon always present. How shocking!

Directly testing the ages of dinosaurs bones always shows them to be only a tiny fraction of the ages that we have been indoctrinated into believing. Dinosaurs really did live alongside humans, and that knowledge comes from carbon-14 dating.



Carbon Radiometric Dating of Dinosaur Bones

Scientific methods and instrumentation have greatly improved since the earlier days of dinosaur dating, and those old assumptions are now being tested.

Carbon dated dinosaur fossils

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

The Gospel and the Scientific View

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes.

Evolutionary Boundary

Darwin’s Natural Selection actually PREVENTS ANY major biological-development change in ANY organism.

LDS Nonfiction Book

Three nonfiction books by the L.D.S. author Jonathan Whitcomb—each can take you into an astonishing world of cryptozoology, into a narrow field of the paranormal-like investigations of eyewitness accounts of apparent living pterosaurs.


Posted in History | Tagged , | Comments Off on Evolution and Religion

Honest or Trying to Deceive?

This past summer, I wrote about a biology professor in Minnesota who criticized me for what he declared were my bad motivations. His post was not like a scientific article, not even slightly like a peer-reviewed paper in a journal of science; it appeared more like a dirty political attack. But I don’t recall ever hearing any American politician refer to the writings of his opponent with the word “turds,” and this biology professor was referring to my online publications in general, not to a collection of animal feces.

More recently, I was surprised that an American paleontologist, Donald Prothero, had written a similar post, mostly about me, with special emphasis on the word deception. He even wrote, “Whitcomb admitted the deception.” I do not accuse Dr. Prothero of telling a lie, but I respond to his words against me. I was not trying to deceive anyone.

In his comments at the bottom of his post, Prothero reveals that he had read the post by that biology professor in Minnesota. I suggest he put too much confidence in those non-scientific declarations. Let’s now consider the basic accusation against me, that I have used deception in my online publications. I maintain that I was being honest.

“Sock puppets” or proper pseudonyms?

I’ve already written much, on other posts, about my temporary use of two pen names. They were not “sock puppets” but used on a minority of my blogs for a legitimate purpose. Years earlier, a few skeptics had accused me of dishonest, making it difficult for some readers to consider the eyewitness reports that I was publishing. To make the truth known to more online readers, I began using two pseudonyms. That allowed anyone to learn about the worldwide reports of apparent pterosaurs, without any reader rejecting them because of my name. At the same time, I continued to use my regular name, Jonathan Whitcomb, on most of my blogs and in most of my posts.

What about being honest in portraying how many people support the idea that one or more modern pterosaurs are still living? In his post “Fake Pterosaurs and Sock Puppets,” Dr. Prothero says, “Virtually all discussion of the ropen comes from a single individual, Jonathan Whitcomb!” A few words later he uses the word deception. Let’s look deeper.

How many people promote belief in the ropen?

If Donald Prothero had said that my web pages dominate those of any other single writer, when “ropen” is used with a search engine, then he probably would have been correct. But he says nothing about Garth Guessman or David Woetzel, two of my associates. Those two cryptozoologists have given lectures with plenty of “discussion” on the ropen. They have written material online, over the years, and I don’t recall ever reading any of it that appeared to have come from any of my writings. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find many mention of “Jonathan Whitcomb” on any of their web pages, for they are independent searchers and researchers, with only limited and occasional help from me.

If I had used two pen names to fool people into thinking several people were promoting the concept of a non-extinct pterosaur, when it was only me, I would have been acting dishonestly. Reality is far different.

Two Americans and one Australian, at least, are almost entirely unheard of. They have been either anonymous or unheralded in publications. I have communicated with two of them but will not reveal their names. Consider now how they relate to the possibility that I may not have been completely honest in the use of two pen names.

What could be greater evidence of a belief than this: traveling from a developed country to a remote island in Papua New Guinea to search for something most Westerners believe does not exist? Three men have done this without fanfare or great publicity online.

I knew of them while using two pen names online, so how could I have tried to deceive people into thinking more people were deeply involved than were actually involved? If I had been trying to deceive readers by dishonestly magnifying the number of those who passionately believe in modern pterosaurs, I would have had to use at least four pen names, instead of two. Remember, three men have searched for the ropen in Papua New Guinea with hardly a trace of their names being publicized.

“Fake Pterosaurs and Sock Puppets” and other posts by other critics appear to attempt to discredit me through accusations about dishonesty and impropriety. Dr. Prothero appears to want to isolate me as almost the sole source for the idea that the ropen is a real creature that is a modern pterosaur. I suggest paleontologists would do better writing about fossils.


Donald Prothero and “Fake” Pterosaurs

I’ll not say much about the sock puppet accusations here; I’ve written much on it already. For those who go to that link in question, it may become obvious that I was not trying to deceive anybody concerning reports of modern living pterosaurs, including the flying creature called ropen; for those who read only that post by Prothero, however, it can seem like I’ve tried to deceive people about the ropen and that I did so almost single-handedly.

Honesty in Ropen Searching

A different kind of attack has been launched, as an American paleontologist has dismissed the ropen as a “fake” pterosaur and dismissed me, Jonathan Whitcomb, as one who practices deception. He also ridicules my belief in the Garden of Eden and in the Flood of Genesis.

Honesty in Reports of Modern Pterosaurs

A deceiver intends to lead someone away from truth; intention is a critical ingredient of the poison. Nobody can accidentally deceive anyone, as in carelessly typing on a keyboard and hitting “Tr” instead of “R,” resulting in a sentence about “Troy” instead of “Roy.” Someone can be mislead by a mistake like that; one cannot be deceived by that.


Posted in Live Pterosaurs | Comments Off on Honest or Trying to Deceive?

Noah: Film Versus Scripture

Since childhood, I have enjoyed watching films depicting Bible stories, with a very early memory of the depiction of some of Christ’s apostles. I probably saw several versions of the Genesis Flood story, with Noah and the Ark.

With all the various treatments, in films, of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Isaac, Joseph and his wayward brothers, I came to understand that portions of those movies were purely fictional, with words and actions not taken from the Bible but from the imaginations of those who wrote and directed those dramatizations. Yet I found joy in those parts that were from Genesis. I cannot, however, recommend the 2014 film Noah, which gets further and further away from the Biblical account and is foreign to the real man Noah.

I stopped watching the movie (which I borrowed on DVD from a library) when Noah, who was protecting animal life on the Ark, became determined to kill his only baby grandchild, even before that child was born. How could anyone imagine any characterization more foreign to the actual character of the person whom we call Noah?

I know that the film creators were not intending to portray the Genesis account; they were creating a fantasy based upon a few principle parts of that scriptural record. But why use the name Noah? Why not create a fantasy without tearing down that name? I can only plead with everyone to avoid this film. The violence has almost few boundaries and the spirit of the original record of the Genesis Flood is absent.

In contrast, I highly recommend the film 17 Miracles. How inspiring that Mormon pioneer historical dramatization is!

Posted in History | Tagged | Comments Off on Noah: Film Versus Scripture

Promoting Pterodactyls and the “Mormon Religion”

Did I promote the “Mormon Religion” by publishing my web page “Searching for Ropens and Finding God?” I would be delighted if a reader not yet a member of my church investigated the LDS faith after reading that page, yet that was not on my mind when I wrote it. This needs explaining.

A biology professor in Minnesota wrote a blog post, the other week, blasting my research and investigations into sighting reports of apparent pterosaurs (AKA pterodactyls). Most of his declarations about my intentions, however, were false. His mistake about my purposes in writing that page on lds-nonfiction-dot-com, however, was interesting to me; I was actually writing to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who might enjoy reading my most recent book, Searching for Ropens and Finding God (every person deserves to know the truth). That’s why the page is on lds-nonfiction, instead of something like “Christian Nonfiction-Book Readers” or something like that. I was simply targeting members of my own church.

I suggest blog writers stick to issues rather than pin imagined motivations onto the names of those with whom they disagree. Bulverism may be getting worse, since C. S. Lewis invented that name. Since the biology professor in Minnesota was trying to discourage readers from considering my writings, using bulverism, I’ll quote, on the subject of bulverism, from the third edition of Searching for Ropens and Finding God:

The Smithsonian post suggests that Jim Blume and David Woetzel are themselves a problem, as they attempt to persuade people that dinosaurs and pterosaurs are still living. Switek says they’re creationist explorers, which nobody denies, but that labeling implies we should doubt modern pterosaurs could exist. Be aware: most eyewitnesses are non-creationists, a fact unknown to many skeptics. (Thus many eyewitnesses are shocked at what they see.) Let’s avoid even a hint of bulverism, examining ideas for their own strengths and weaknesses. Keep to the subject, the concept that one or more species of pterosaur may be still living. [page 295]

C. S. Lewis gave us “bulverism,” lamenting the decline of human reasoning. He defined the word in the mid-twentieth century: “The modern method is to assume without discussion that he [someone whose opinion you dislike] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.” How much better to talk about the subject at hand! [page 326]


Evidence for Pterosaurs and Honesty

For modern living pterosaurs, however, we have BOTH physical evidence and eyewitness evidence. The difficulty some persons have with it, however, is that reported eyewitness encounters with living pterosaurs dominate the physical evidence, in both quantity and quality. So if you quickly scan a few sentences on one or two web pages, on modern pterosaurs, you’ll see only one or two sighting accounts, probably eyewitness evidence, not physical.

Live Pterodactyl

In daylight, seven native boys or teenagers climbed up to a crater lake, around 1994, on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, with no worry about the legendary ropen. Why fear the ropen, for the flying creature comes out at night, rarely in daylight; but this day was different.

Strange Flying Creatures and Bulverism

“Bulverism” C. S. Lewis labeled the slick ploy of avoiding reasoning on a subject by pointing out the reason ones opponent is so silly. Do some criticisms of living-pterosaur investigations qualify as bulverism? I believe so.


four copies of Whitcomb's nonfiction cryptozoology true-life adventure "Searching for Ropens and Finding God"

Nonfiction spiritual/true-life-adventure/cryptozoology book by Whitcomb

Searching for Ropens and Finding God

This cross-genre book is becoming known as “the Bible of modern pterosaurs.”

Posted in Live Pterosaurs, Nonfiction Writing | Tagged | Comments Off on Promoting Pterodactyls and the “Mormon Religion”

LDS Nonfiction?

The Amazon page quotes the nonfiction book Searching for Ropens and Finding God:

Three Christians—one middle-aged LDS-Mormon high priest and two Protestant young earth creationists—explored Umboi Island in two separate expeditions in 2004, interviewing eyewitnesses of a glowing animal of the night: the elusive nocturnal ropen. [from the back cover]

That page does not mention that the author is that latter-day saint. The book itself mentions my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in the first chapter, although little is said about it except the following:

My confidence with humans came from serving in Louisiana and Mississippi for two years as a volunteer missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I myself was a convert at age twenty-two). [page 15]

So is this book LDS nonfiction? Much of it covers research and expeditions by my Christian associates and me, emphasizing how people of various belief systems need to be open minded to the work of those of different faiths:

This is not propaganda for any human philosophy, yet I extoll the accomplishments of those Young Earth Creationists who have been my associates for many years. I suggest we allow ourselves to find literal truth in the Bible, regardless of whatever passages we had assumed were mainly symbolic. For those who think that pill too bitter, at least avoid ridiculing those labeled “creationist.”

SFRFG I wrote for persons of many faiths (not including atheists, who can be offended). With that said, parts of it can be more easily appreciated by LDS readers. Living true to one’s testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ—that is not mentioned explicitly in the book, yet I hope it is understood by LDS readers. During the past eleven years, I don’t recall any temptation to compromise my convictions, although I have often associated with Christians of other faiths.

Religious Bias

Latter-day saint readers should well understand the following:

What went wrong? They had already made arrangements for a party of two Americans to fly to Umboi; in addition, Woetzel didn’t want to change plans by adding an explorer he had never met: At that time, to him I was a stranger, an unknown Mormon Californian. Left out of the expedition, I was dejected.

I ended up leading the first expedition of 2004, and Woetzel led the second. Since then, we have cooperated a number of times, in promoting the truth about eyewitness testimonies of apparent living pterosaurs. (To the best of my knowledge, only two scientific papers have been written on this subject and published in a peer-reviewed journal: one by Woetzel and one my me.) As it turned out, the two separate expeditions we led in 2004 were the best way of investigating sightings by natives on Umboi Island. Although we all failed to photograph or videotape a ropen, our differing interview techniques succeeded in complementing each other. In addition, most of the interviews were non-overlapping, with their eyewitnesses being mostly different from my own.

So, is this an LDS nonfiction or not? Yes, read the book and decide for yourself.

LDS Nonfiction Author

LDS author Jonathan David Whitcomb wrote the revised and enlarged third edition of the book Searching for Ropens and Finding God.


Nonfiction book "Searching for Ropens and Finding God" - third edition - by LDS author Jonathan David Whitcomb

Third edition of Searching for Ropens


Posted in Live Pterosaurs, Nonfiction Writing | Comments Off on LDS Nonfiction?