gwozz

Amen. That is what I was trying to convey.

I think I see what you're getting at. However, I personally think that scriptures you are quoting in matthew concerning the days being shortened are referring to the last days, when wickedness and whordoms will be running rampant upon the earth--not referring to the lifespans of mankind compared to that of the patriarchs, but to the amount of time that christ will allow satan to have power in the last days. If you look at the lifespans of the patriarchs above, you'll notice a clear trend towards shorter life-spans. Why? My opinion--because Adam was placed in perfection, with a perfect and immortal body. Over time since the fall, and over generations, the physical body of man has degenerated, or devolved, away from that perfect body--consequence of the fall. We know there are genetic mutations and a host of environmental toxins, etc that we are exposed to that the fathers were not. They've taken their toll. And were it not for the God=inspired public health knowledge, medications and herbs that we've been given, our average age of death would be down in the 40s and 30s. Man has devolved since the beginning, away from perfection, and the trending lifespan is but one evidence for it.

Well, let me give you a scripture to think about: D&C 88:25: "25 And again, verily I say unto you, the aearth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the bmeasure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—" So the earth was obedient to a law? Apparently so--the celestial law. In the same section: 36 All kingdoms have a law given; 37 And there are many akingdoms; for there is no bspace in the which there is no ckingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. 38 And unto every kingdom is given a alaw; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All kingdoms have a law given, and there is no space where there is no kingdom, thus all things have a law given them by the law-giver, who is God. There are, however, "greater" and "lesser" kingdoms. All the laws we have pertain to the kingdom in which we find ourselves. I'm sure all forms of life, earth included, have their own kingdom, with laws given them, and their judgement and respective glories in resurrection will be dependent upon their obedience to their own laws. We only have the laws of our kingdom given. We know nothing about the other kingdoms which exist. One thing is sure, however: Our earth obeyed the laws given it, and will be thus obtain the celestial. Will all planets obey and be celestial? Will all animals obey and be celestial? All will be resurrected of course, but that means our earth has a form of agency if it can choose to be obedient and receive rewards dependent upon its choosing. Deep stuff. I recommend a full read of D&C88. Its one of the greatest sections in the D&C IMHO.

I should have phrased my words more carefully. Christ came to overcome death, so that we (all life included) can be restored or redeemed from the fall, and thus taken back to a pre-fallen like state. (every wonder what the word "paradisiacal" means in referring to the earth renewal?) There will be differences in the state of man, obviously, as we have progressed, but Christ came to overcome death--spiritual and physical. Yes, he fulfilled the "law" (he fulfilled the law of moses which pointed and symbolized his atonement to pay for death which came by the fall; and also he was sacrificed from "the foundations of the world" as isaiah puts it, referring to his premortal covenant with the father to bring about the infinite atonement," so you could say he came to fulfill the law given him by virtue of his covenant with the father). But that said, the purpose of the atonement is to overcome death! Is that not the sole reason he came? So you and I can be redeemed from Death, or in otherwords, redeemed from the Fall?

An interesting forum! The creation is key to our understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The whole plan of salvation is built upon the three pillars of eternity--the creation fall and atonement, and if we don't understand the creation, we cannot understand the fall, and thus cannot understand from what we were redeemed through through the atonement (taken back to a pre-fallen state). We obviously do not know the details about the creation, but that which we do have we must subscribe to, and our speculations cannot refute the simple gospel truths. So, rather than harp on different theories, I just want to make a list of gospel truths that we must abide by: 1--Adam was "first flesh" upon the earth, and there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall--read the Bible Dictionary under "fall of Adam" and "death" and "flesh" for explanation and scriptural references. 2--God is omnipotent. 3--God is the creator 4--God is the law-giver 5--Man is his literal offspring (see BD under "god" for these references--also the "origin of man"). 6--All things are created after their own kind, and can only create after their own kind. (ie all bears came from bears, and can only make more bears). 7--As all things fell with Adam, all things will be saved by Christ, whose redemption was instituted to save all that fell with them, which is also all that He created. (would Christ have come had there been no fall? No. Christ came to restore life to a pre-fallen state, overcoming death (physical and spiritual). His coming was not necessary until the fall, b/c before it, all creation was already immortal, and living in God's presence. 8--The resurrection is the "inseparable union" of body and spirit. Thus if you are resurrected with a body of celestial glory, there will be no substitution for a telestial body after the resurrection. 9--Eternal progression and exaltation--the state which our Father resides in, can only be achieved as a family (man and woman as husband and wife). 10--God is not bound by "natural laws" as we understand them here on earth (ie scientific laws created by man to explain our current condition). God ascended into heaven, moved the mount Zerhin as the brother of Jared commanded, split the red sea for the israelites, and causes the earth to slow its rotation so the day is prolonged (helaman 12). Trying to limit God or explain his ways using scientific conclusions as our professors teach it will never get it right. We can only know God, his ways, and His creation as it is revealed from above ("the origin of man"). If you disagree with any of these truths, let me know and I'll take the time to give all the scirptural refereces. But, if you disagree with any of these truths, then it may be contributing to a theory concerning the creation that may not be accurate. Anyone can find justification for any obscure theory in the scriptures. This is done by isolated scriptures out of contexts and choosing the wording of one verse over another. We must take all scripture as a whole, and if it is not taught consitently in multiple places throughout the scriptures, then we must take great caution in accepting it. And our speculations cannot refute any other doctrinal principle either. Justice, I'm not sure exactly what you believe, and all the conclusions that you're getting at, but if you do know the truth concerning the creation, I'm not sure they are truths that are meant to be taught. God has intentionally left details out of the scriptures that would greatly enhance our understanding (3nephi 26:9-11). Why? He reserves the right to reveal them to the faithful who seek him. My personal observation is that those who know do not openly and explicitly teach it, and those who don't know say very much about it, creating large and detailed explanations. One thing is for sure, that an understanding of the creation, especially that of Man's creation, will open all other principles of the gospel to one's eyes, clarify and teach the deeper meaning and significance behind the the temple covenants, and result in resounding asurity concerning scientific principles that refute it--as it cannot be true. If you're interested in discussing your viewpoints more freely, send me a personal message. I'd be interested to chat.

Make sure you have all your references ready and memorized for the judgment bar when you explain to God your solid case for why you were justified in rejecting His words...

TO THE THIRD-PARTY READERS OF THIS EVOLUTIONARY BLOG: DOES OUR CHURCH SUPPORT EVOLUTIONARY TEACHINGS? NO. DO THEY TEACH ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC? NO. BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION. I HAVE BEEN BUTTING HEADS WITH SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNING EVOLUTION, AND THEY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE MAY BE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO EVOLUTION INASMUCH AS IT INVOLVES GOD, CLAIMING THAT "SCIENCE" HAS "PROVED" EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE. SUCH IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUE. IT IS TRUE THAT A MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS SUBSCRIBE TO IT, BUT MACROEVOLUTION IS NOT A PROVEN FACT, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF MANKIND. IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A BOOK CONCERNING IT: READ "SHATTERING THE MYTHS OF DARWINISM" BY RICHARD MILTON. ITS AN EASY READ, WRITTEN BY AN ATHEIST, AND HE IS WILLING TO OPENLY AND HONESTLY TALK ABOUT WHAT IS PROVEN VS WHAT IS BUILT MORE ON WISHFUL THINKING AND ASSUMPTION. IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A BOOK WHICH LISTS ANOMALOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS WHICH DEFY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, READ "FORBIDDEN ARCHAEOLOGY" BY CREMO AND THOMPSON. IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY EXPLAINING WHERE MAN REALLY CAME FROM, READ "THE ORIGIN OF MAN" (First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26). IT CAN BE FOUND ON LDS.ORG IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ WHAT BOYD K PACKER HAS TO SAY ABOUT EVOLUTION AND THE GOSPEL, READ "THE LAW AND THE LIGHT," WHICH CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://moleff.com/church/TheLawandtheLight.pdf ALSO, ALLOW ME TO MAKE WHAT WILL BE A VERY CONTROVERSIAL OBSERVATION: THESE INDIVIDUALS WITH WHOM I HAVE BEEN BUTTING HEADS ON THIS ISSUE ON THIS SITE ALSO HAPPEN TO HAVE LEFT THE CHURCH. I KNOW THERE ARE A GOOD MANY PEOPLE WITHIN OUR CHURCH WHO BELIEVE IN THEISTIC EVOLUTION (AS PACKER TALKS ABOUT), BUT THERE ARE SOME EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES AS TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS WHICH REFUTE WHAT HAS BEEN TAUGHT IN THE SCRIPTURES (SEE MY PRIOR POST FOR A FEW EXAMPLES). IF YOU WATCH THE NEW MOVIE "EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED," YOU WILL LISTEN TO THE MOST FAMOUS AND INTELLIGENT PRO-EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS OPENLY DECLARE THAT YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN GOD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ACCEPT THE "TRUTHS" OF SCIENCE. THIS IS THE END ROAD OF A BELIEF IN MACROEVOLUTION, ACCORDING TO THE STAUNCHEST ADVOCATES OF EVOLUTION. SCIENCE MAKES CONCLUSIONS BUILT UPON ASSUMPTIONS WHICH REFUTE GOSPEL TRUTHS. IF YOU CHANGE THE ASSUMPTION TO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T REFUTE THE GOSPEL, THEN ALL THE SUDDEN SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS SUPPORT THE GOSPEL. READ THE BOOKS AND ARTICLES I'VE LISTED, AND STUDY THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF. DO NOT PLACE BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE WITHOUT EVALUATING AND PRAYING ABOUT IT FOR YOURSELF! AND IF YOU WANT TO READ BOOKS EXPLAINING WHAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE, READ: THE BIBLE DICTIONARY UNDER "FALL OF ADAM" AND "FLESH"; "THE ORIGIN OF MAN" AS PREVIOUSLY CITED; "MAN, HIS ORIGIN AND DESTINY" BY JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH; "DOCTRINES OF SALVATION" VOLUME 1 BY THE SAME AUTHOR, AND "MORMON DOCTRINE" UNDER THE HEADING "EVOLUTION"; IN THESE LOCATIONS, YOU WILL FIND ALL THE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES AND EXPLANATIONS WHICH TEACH CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF MAN, THE CREATION, THE FALL, AND THE ATONEMENT. FURTHER, CONCERNING JAMES E TALMAGE AND BH ROBERT'S WRITINGS, THEY DID NOT SUBSCRIBE TO EVOLUTION, AND THEIR WRITINGS NEVER DECLARE A BELIEF IN IT--AND IN JAMES E TALMAGE'S MUCH CITED TALK ENTITLED "THE EARTH AND MAN," HE MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE BODY OF MAN DID NOT COME THROUGH AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. WITH THAT SAID, I'M DONE HERE IN THIS FORUM. ITS BEEN FUN, AND I HOPE NONE TAKE OFFENSE TO MY WORDS. BUT I ALSO KNOW MANY WILL DISAGREE WITH ME. I AM DECLARING MY PERSONAL BELIEFS. I'VE BEEN FRANK CONCERNING MY BELIEFS, BUT THATS BECAUSE I'M DONE HERE DEBATING THIS ISSUE. THANKS.

Well, I assumed that those with whom I was conversing were LDS as well. I'm not saying you shouldn't be here, but I don't really see the point from your perspective if you have no interest in the church. obviously you can do what you choose. Hopefully you're very respectful and considerate of those beliefs which differ from your own, and you don't fall into the "leave the church but can't leave it alone" category. Knowing that you have absolutely no belief in the church, that definately changes the approach I would have taken concerning this whole macroevolution thing. I simply don't believe it, but I recognize that my paradigm stems largely from my religious convictions. There are too many anomalous findings which cannot be accounted for within the theroy of macroevolution (read "fobidden archaeology," along with the other 2 authors I've cited--all the references are in there, just like your references are within a webpage). Look, if I didn't believe in the religious tennets of my faith, then I'm sure I'd have no issue with macroevolution. I'd still recognize that there are some weaknesses which exist, but it does give a logical rational for life on the earth, assuming that God does not exist. If you fail to recognize the weaknesses of the theory, along with the strengths (which are largely in the microevolution category IMHO), then you're shooting yourself in the foot if your goal is really to understand the "truth." I recognize that evolution is a logical rational to explain many of the scientific observations that exist. The reason I began to question the issue, was because I believe this church is true, that God speaks to men called prophets, and that the prophets teach the truth. I also believe that truth is obtained using science. As such, true religion and true science will harmonize perfectly and completely. misunderstood religion will conflict with true science, and misunderstood science will conflict with true religion. I have come to understand truths from God, which are true, not because man told me, but because God told me. Standing upon that ground (that there was no death upon the earth before the fall), I reanalyzed all the scientific observations with that assumption, and I feel there is another logical and reasonable explanation to account for the scientific observations made. Does science "prove" my theory true? Absolutely not. Does science "prove" macroevolutionary theory true? Absolutely not. The nature of macroevolutionary evidence makes it impossible to control for bias and make objective measurements in the same way microevolutionary principles are tested. I see there is nothing to be gained from continuing to have the same arguments, when we stand upon different assumptions which we will never leave--me: that there was no death before the fall. You: that the story of Adam, his creation, fall, and being the patriarch of the human family is not true. I've had meany long discussions which have lasted months with pro-macroevolutionists, and I'm not interested in hacking out the same arguments over and over again. I thought you were a member of the church who believed the scriptures, and as such I engaged. To conclude my posts on this with the two of you, I'm going to make a post to the third party reader, which is truly not intended as an insult to you, but you may take offense to it, and I hope that you do not.

So why are you on this site and even in this dicussion? If you don't believe in the church, isn't this all a waste of time for you? Or are you trying to open the minds of us believers to realize the error of our ways?

you're right, majority doesn't mean anything. that wasn't what I was trying to get at, but valid. That said, the nature of the witnesses is very different than what other churches teach/preach--its focused on the individual finding a witness directly from God, not trusting what other say.

I think I understand what you are saying. Trying to distinguish a "seer's" attributes is difficult since “A seer is a revelator and a prophet also” (Mosiah 8: 15-16), thus all attributes that go with being a prophet and a revelator are also given to the title "seer".

But if the church weren't true, you wouldn't have so many people testifying that they KNOW it is true because they got on their knees, and in prayer asked God if the Book of Mormon was true, and were sincerely willing to act according to the answer. That is the ONLY reason that I know this church is true, and the only reason I'm on this blog declaring that it is true. You want proof, read the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses to the book of mormon. How many historical accounts of the 1820s have 11 witnesses declaring the truthfulness of a single event? Usually its just a couple of journals which don't have a completely consistent story. and all these witnessess do not ask you to believe on thier words, but to kneel and ask God, who will tell you they are true. Other churches do not do this. Other churches (at least none that I have studied) do not tell their membership to pray and ask God if the church is true, and by that you come to know. This church is unique, because God tells its members that it is His church, and any person who seeks God, to do his will, and to submit to him, and is willing to ask, knows. Its that simple. But remember, you will receive no witness till after the trial of your faith (ether 12:6). I know my faith was sore tried before I came to know, so I can sympathize with you and encourage you to press forward--God will tell you the truth if you seek his will. He's promised to tell you. Rely on him and no other.

Yikes. Is as if I'm talking to a wall pointing to a website. I went there, looked through the articles. Its nothing new that I haven't already read (well, at least I didn't see anything new, but in all honesty, didn't dig too deep as they're consistently the same arguments on both sides--unless you know of something new in the last 6 months, let me know.). 1--of course gravity is objectively proven. I was never claiming it wasn't, just that it is not complete, and there is much more involved of which we have no clue (ie how jesus could ascend with a body up to heaven). Do you agree or no? 2--I'm familiar with tectonic plate teachings. Reading the scriptures I cited in D&C and 3Nephi however, and the changes they describe, I do not believe the current explanation/understanding of tectonic plate movement (ie always relatively small movements--and those "slips" that causes earthquakes are still relatively small movements) can fully account for it. Do you agree or disagree? You mentioned you have no problem with it, so does that mean you would have no problem believing that the rocky mountains could have been created in 30 minutes? 3--As for you referencing this online blog as your source (which I've looked at), why don't we do this. You seem to be so convinced that science has proved macroevolution, so why don't you tell me the 5 most convincing aspects of macroevolution to you, and we'll start there. 4--as for the scientific method, here is a quote from your wiki reference that highlights the point I was trying to get across: "Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[citation needed]) It doesn't seem like you believe this. Do you? 5--just to clarify, I'm not pushing for a "young earth." Who knows how long a creative "period" was. I don't think its relevant at all. What I do think is relevant is how long DEATH has been on the earth. This is where the gospel-science conflict exists. Not age of the earth (see Bible Dictionary "fall of Adam").

I definately agree with you that Joseph Saw more and knew more than he shared with the church at large. As for references of them using the "key" of seership, I think one good example is the proclamation of the family. Look at what year it came out, and then analyze all the issues that have come up concerning marriage and family in our society since then. They foresaw. If you're talking about use of the urim and thummim, no one talks about it. Well, let me rephrase, those who know don't say, and those who say don't know.

Well, what are you looking for? It says that IF you accept this lesser account, and manifest your faith in it, then the greater things will be given to you. This knowledge of the greater things which take us beyond "faith" in the Book of Mormon towards a "knowledge" come not by artifacts and scientific observations. It is by the revelation from on high. God's system is very convenient--it is the only way for him to dictate who gets to know his mysteries and greater truths--he reserves the right to give them to the individual himself. As such, those who manifest faith are rewarded, and their faith becomes firm unto a knowledge (see alma 32-34). We can KNOW that jesus is the SON (which is the seed in the allegory). To some it is give to know, to others it is given to believe on their words (see gifts of the spirit). You may consider this process an "inconvenience" just like how having to learn how to read and write were an "incovenience." Exercizing faith to come to know the great things makes us really appreciate higher light and knowledge given us. If it came easy, we wouldn't value it nearly as much. And, if all things were open for the world to see, then those who rejected the truth (when they had the greater portion given), would have all the more condemnation upon their heads. God's plan is perfect for the development of his children on earth. We shouted for joy to be here (well, atleast I hope we were among the faithful ones who did shout for joy). No inconvenience, this is the central part--to exercise faith to come to know God.

I recommend you read the Bible Dictionary under "holy Ghost": the second paragraph says: "For some reason not fully explained in the scriptures, the Holy Ghost did not operate in the fulness among the Jews during the years of Jesus’ mortal sojourn (John 7: 39; John 16: 7). Statements to the effect that the Holy Ghost did not come until after Jesus was resurrected must of necessity refer to that particular dispensation only, for it is abundantly clear that the Holy Ghost was operative in earlier dispensations. Furthermore, it has reference only to the gift of the Holy Ghost not being present, since the power of the Holy Ghost was operative during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus; otherwise no one would have received a testimony of the truths that these men taught (cf. Matt. 16: 16-17; 1 Cor. 12: 3). When a person speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost that same power carries a conviction of the truth into the heart of the hearer (2 Ne. 33: 1). The Holy Ghost knows all things (D&C 35: 19) and can lead one to know of future events (2 Pet. 1: 21)." The Holy Ghost was testifying in the hearts of men that Jesus was the Christ. The manifestation, however, is different than the gift, and the situation while the Son was on the earth is "not fully explained." Anything taught beyond this is conjecture, as it cannot be measured by the "standard" (scriptures). It definately was not the Father that was communicating the testimony of the Son to the heart of men at Jesus's time. It was the Holy Ghost.

I don't know what "theory" you're trying to push in order to make your preconcieved notions true, but we have 15 prophet, seers, and revelators who declare truth. You seem to be placing more faith in what Joseph didn't mention, rather than what the more current brethren have clearly declared. If you read "the origin of man," I bet whatever your theory concerning the rib will conflict with it, and D&C 107:27,29 declare that unified quorum statements are to be considered of the same authority as the cannon. The rib is figurative. Thus without Eve, Adam could not be made whole. They needed to be "sealed" in order for Man, male and female, to be made whole. The perfect wholeness of God's plan cannot be realized without men and women sealed together in the temple. That is what is being taught. To think that the "rib" is anything other than figurative would cause us to consider bizarre and false theories concerning the creation of mankind (and IMHO, that is why the brethren have been so clear that the rib is figurative). Not many things in the scirptures have been declared as figurative, so when something is declared such, I would think it is because it is important, if not essential, to our understanding of higher light and knowledge. Anyway, hopefully my opinion on the matter should be clear. You can believe whatever you want, but you shouldn't selectively pick and choose certain prophets. As Brigham Young said (summarized): I'd rather have a living prophet over any and all other scriptures and writings of the dead ones.

to Elphaba and Snow: You guys need to think outside of the box a little more--you know, a little for yourself. You've cited "gravity" as your support for the soundness of scientific theory. Well, what of gravity? Do you believe that Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you believe that Moroni when he appeared to Joseph Smith was levatating above the ground? Well, but gravity is the "natural law," the "proven law." So, either gravity is not the whole explanation, and there are flaws in it that we don't understand--just as newtonian physics was incomplete until the theory of relativity came around. So, what of tectonic plate movements. Scientists have proof for the theory of their slow and steady movement to account for all the mountains, valleys and other geographic features. Well, what about great and marvelous changes that took place upon the earth in 3nephi7-9, where valleys became mountains, and mountains leveled into valleys, cities sunken into the earth and the sea, and the "whole face of the earth" was changed in a matter of days if not hours? All these happened in a matter of days, not billions of years. What about mount Zerin that the brother of Jared moved in a matter of minutes if not seconds? --oh, those are just figurative stories. They can't be real because science has "proof" that things just can't happen like that. The great underlying assumption of science: The conditions of the earth as we observe it now can be extrapolated both forward and backwards. In other words, if the tectonic plates currently move a few centimeters per year, then they have never moved faster or slower since "the beginning." What about D&C 133, in referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ: 23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the aislands shall become one land; 24 And the aland of Jerusalem and the land of bZion shall be turned back into their own place, and the cearth shall be like as it was in the days before it was ddivided. 25 And the Lord, even the Savior, shall astand in the midst of his people, and shall breign over all flesh. well, go ask your "scientist" buddies in whom you seem to place so much trust, and they'll tell you this is impossible! It would take the same billion number of years to reverse the effects of the last 4.5 billion years. These same types of assumptions are what macroevolution are based upon: The first is dating. Science assumes that radioactive elements have always been the same level, more or less. They try to verify Carbon levels using tree rings, and microparticles in icecaps, but trees only go back so far, and microparticles in icecaps necesitates us to establish the current rate of ice creation, which again necesitates that we assume that the rate is constant over the last billion years. Mathmatics can calculate it, but the whole calculation is wholly dependent upon whether or not the underlying assumptions are true. As for uranium dating, why don't you answer me this question: what is the basis for assuming that all the radioactive lead (206 and 207) is a decay product of Uranium (the assumption science makes in order to date our earth at 4.5 billion years)? Especially since that assumption would require the release of a proportionate number of helium atoms into the atmosphere (which if the earth really is 4,600 million yrs old as uranium dating estimates, then there should be 2800 times more helium in the atmosphere than what has been currently measured)? I consider that a "gaping hole" personally. Going back to geological layers, another gaping hole--what is the basis for assuming that there is a constant rate of sedimentation over billions of years? Just for example, the Cretaceous period, is said to have lasted 65 million years, having a rock layer that is 15,000 meters thick, and an average annual sedimentation rate during this period 0.2 millimeters per year. In this same layer, however, there are also fossilized forests and large animals. With a constant sedimentation rate of 0.2 millimeters per year, it would be impossible for plants and animals to be fossilized at all. As such, why then do scientists assume constant sedimentation rates? Especially since there is no evidence of any life being fossilized currently using the "constant sedimentation" theory. Why do scientists assume constant sedimentation rates, extrapolate current carbon14 levels backwards millions of years, and assume all lead 206/7 came from uranium? Because they must in order for it to fit their theory. Without such a long time frame with life living and dying on this earth, it wouldn't be logical or plausible to assume an evolutionary process. Oh wait, but "scientific theories are proven fact" (which is more or less what you're trying to say). I'm so dumb, I really need to learn what a theory is... Have you ever considered that there really ARE false theories of men mixed with scripture that are very popular and widely accepted, which teach false and vain and foolish teachings which conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Why don't you name a few for me... I'll give you one: Macroevolution (go read the BD under "fall of Adam" and tell me macroevolution doesn't conflict with gospel teachings). I'd like to hear how you've accounted for these holes. Merely overlooking them and saying that they do not exist is ignorant. Claiming that "scientists" have complicated answers for them which you don't understand, but you trust that they understand would be a great manifestation of your trust in the arm of flesh. I'm in the field, I understand the evidence, and there are no logical science based answers to account for the holes. The answer to such arguments is to merely point out something else and say "its our best guess." Now that, I have no problem with. Scientists can make educated guesses, and say its the best we've got right now. Thats fine, but the problem here is that you're claiming it isn't a guess, its a full fledged proven fact. And it is far far from that (completely setting aside the fact that inasmuch as science asserts that there was death upon the earth prior to the fall, it conflicts with the gospel). Why don't you go read the book dude, check out the other side, and educate yourself a little bit. If you don't like milton, fine. But pick someone else on the other side of the aisle and read about it. I just picked milton for you b/c he's an athiest, and you said you don't like reading works of people who you assume have a religious agenda. Oh, and just to sum something up you apparently missed in Bio 101: a hypothesis by definition cannot be proven true. You fail to prove it false, and thus it remains. The point of the scientific method is to make a statistical case to reject the null hypothesis, relying on probabilities that your results prove the hypothesis false, not true (the reason why low p values are good--means its a low probability that your null is true, not a high probability that your alternative hypothesis is true). Where did you get your scientific education? You seem so sure of yourself on this stuff.

You're rediculous. If you were going to judge the Book of Mormon based on what others say about it on the internet, especially "scientists," you'd never read it--life's too short, right? Milton speaks nothing of the issues you've mentioned. You are ignorant. Read the book. Its not too long of a read--and a new york times best seller (which means nothing in my opinion personally, but some consider that a barometer of quality).

Ah, but assuming the church is true, a humble seeker of truth would never leave it, regardless of their personal situation and trials they confront. If we truly humble ourselves before our father, and ask to do his will over anything else, no one would ever leave the church.

Sounds to me like you'll just have to ask God why he's done it that way. He's clearly told us that it is intentional: 3ne26:9-11 says: 9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the agreater things be made manifest unto them. 10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the agreater things be bwithheld from them, unto their condemnation. 11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord aforbade it, saying: I will btry the faith of my people. There are gaps and holes intentially. Thats just the way it is to try your faith.

President Spencer W. Kimball taught: “ ‘And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.’ [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]” The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 71. Also, as for Moses 1:34, you need to read the verse b/f and after it as well: 33 And aworlds without number have I bcreated; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the cSon I dcreated them, which is mine eOnly Begotten. 34 And the afirst man of all men have I called bAdam, which is cmany. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I aknow them. The first man on each earth is Adam, which is many, because there are many worlds, and the first man on each is named "Adam." Moses 4:26 goes along with the same. There are many "eve's" b/c such is the wife of all "adams" as the first parents on all worlds. while our account is only of this earth, it seems reasonable to assume that the same plan we read about here is what happened on other worlds as well. If there were many adams, then everything the prophets have said concerning Adam, his position as the father of humanity, the steward over the earth, the ancient of days who will come again in Jackson, and to whom all prophets of all dispensations will give an account, and then he, Adam, the man from whom all mankind stemmed, will give an accounting of this earth up to our lord and savior. There is an order, and he is the patriarch. Here is the Bible dictionary under "Adam": The name Adam is given to the first man of the human family on this earth as cited in the account of the creation in the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, and in many instances in the New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. From these scriptures we learn that Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth. The aggregate of the scriptures certifies that his transgression in the garden of Eden, although designated as a “fall,” was necessary to the advancement and spiritual progress of humanity on this earth, and Adam rightly should be honored, not denigrated. Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael. He is the archangel and will come again to the earth in power and glory as the patriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (Dan. 7: 9-14; D&C 116; HC 3: 385-387; HC 4: 207-8). There are many teachings concerning one man and one woman, Adam and Eve, from whom all mankind stem. But I've never read anything that contrasts to your idea as applied to animals, ie many animals of the same kind being on the earth in the creation prior to the fall. My personal opinion: one Adam though.

Cook's book focuses on radioactive decay and dating methods. Not the biological basis for evolution. And he is very qualified to speak concerning radioactive decay. I know I'm not going to convince you here in this forum. And yes--I have looked at the other side, as I use to be a macroevolutionary sympathizer. And the fact that you recognize that expelled has "ruined Stein's credibility among scientists," and that you would deem me not a real scientist because privately I do not subscribe to macroevolution is telling, wouldn't you think? Those who don't go along with the dogma, and question it get labeled "nuts" and are outcast by the field. You should watch ben stein's movie. It doesn't push Intelligent Design, he just inverviews renown people on both sides of the aisle. Personally, I didn't seriously question the teachings I got in highschool, college, and my master's program; but while completing my doctorate, and actually came to understand the field, the evidence, and possessed the skill set to evaluate scientific observations and publications on my own, I came to realize how much is based upon assumption. Don't be so closed to turn off anything that questions the tennets of macroevolution. IMHO, those who rage against the ID folk, label them and outcast them, tend to be the same individuals who declare unflinchingly that God is not, and science proves it so. Most scientists just stay out of the debate, and privately beleive in God. I'm not ignorant--I'm in the field and know the people. It sounds as though I'm the first person to ever present you with a rational as to why macroevolution isn't a fact. Read about it. there are gaping holes in the theory which get overlooked, and many of the underlying assumptions used are more wishful thinking rather than fact. And before you discount Cook's and Miltons, and any other scientist's writings, don't you think you should read them for yourself, rather than read a critique online? Seems logical to me.

An athiest, Richard Milton, wrote a book that you need to read: "shattering the myths of darwinism." There are a host of scientists within the community, which do not subscribe to evolutionary theory. They are silent on the matter in the literature, however, because history has taught us that vocal anti-evolutionist scientists lose funding, some have lost jobs, and they tend to have a hard time finding new ones. They're labeled as quacks, and their ideas and teachings suppressed. Haven't you watched Ben Stein's new documentary about the suppression of ideas within the community? ("expelled, no intelligence allowed") Why do you think I am on these annonymous forums talking about it rather than publishing it papers and books? Well, I want to keep my job at the pompous university I work for, and I don't want the label that every scientist who questions the tennets of God-less evolution. One of these days when I feel more secure, I'll use my name recognition to hopefully break the iron grip this macroevolutionary theory and abiogenesis have upon the colleges in america. There are outrageously large holes in the theory, and the scientists just wave their hands over, claiming "its complicated" or "everything else works out, so we KNOW it must be true." Those who are ignorant to what is going on within the scientific community need to expand their paradigm, and not believe everything that your professor tells you. Go read and explore and think for yourself! Don't beleive the opinions of old godless men who will declare to till their dying breath that God has nothing to do with creation! These are the men that are the main force behind the suppression. How? Because they are the "giants" in the field, they are the ones which perform the majority of reviews for peer reviewed journals, and they sit on the grant-funding committees! Science should not fear new ideas, they should test them, not seek to suppress them! Go read about this issue! Read the books written by the "quacks" as your science professors will call them. If they're "quacks," then you have nothing to fear. Go read Melvin A Cook's books and publications on this issue--one of the most renown scientists in the world 25 years ago, who at the end of his career spoke strongly against the scientific "evidence" for macroevolution. Expand your paradigm, study the issue, the science, and the gospel, and you will find that macroevolution sits upon a throne of assumptions...or guesses if you prefer. If you change those underlying assumptions, and then reanalyze the scientific observations, everything changes. This is called a paradigm shift, as defined by Kuhn. I recommend you step out of your paradigm, analyze it in a new light, and then compare the two paradigms. If you can't see it from both sides, then you are blind and ignorant to the truth.

In making this statement are you inferring that it has happened? I'd like to hear your thoughts...