Justice

It's a tricky discussion in person, much less on-line. For any of your points to be understood the Spirit must help. We also believe that we are saved by grace. In spite of our best efforts, without the grace of Christ we are hopeless. Word this particularly careful. Whenever you have discussions with people who believe differently, the best thing you can do is try to find something you can agree on and take baby steps away from that point. If a person doesn't trust you they won't even give your words a second thought. The best way to gain trust is to agree first. Good luck. Maybe you can post a link to your discussion so we can follow it.

Technically, the only scripture God ever "wrote" was the Law given to Moses. All other scripture was written by His prophets and apostles. The Bible dictionary was written by His prophets and apostles also. I see no difference. If you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and you question the veracity of the Bible dictionary, I think there is reason for concern. Especially if that concern includes believing science and theory over God and His prophets.

I, for one, can't wait for a theocracy. :)

This is one of the many wonderful articles I came across at BYU - Brigham Young University Home I will bold the statements I found most interesting. Viewpoint: Evolution and Faith: Finding Middle Ground Quite a few editorialists attacked both the argument and writer who spoke his views concerning evolution as a scientific truth. The ignorance of the writer was asserted, while by contrast the respondents implied their own scientific enlightenment. I myself have wrestled much with reconciling scientific postulation concerning evolution with my faith's account of creation "in the image of God" and also the doctrine of the Fall-that Adam and Eve fell from a celestial condition to a carnal condition, making a redemption necessary-as well as other scriptures and settings that hint at the nature of our existence prior to the Fall. Evolution describes an ascendance to grace, not a fall from grace. Hence, many perceive a tension between evolution and their faith and the need for Atonement and redemption in an evolutionary account. Additionally, I myself have inquired and know of no scientific/empirical evidence to-date that demonstrates evolution in action. While natural selection is an indisputable scientific observation, evolution incorporates but extends well beyond natural selection. Evolution postulates (1) that there are naturally occurring variations holding adaptive advantage and leading to the natural selection of these qualities by the mechanism of genetic survival; and (2) in addition to that, there are random mutations-not intelligent design-that upon a creature incredible advances in form and function, such as lungs on a fish, or wings on (what will be) a bird. What remains a mystery - in theory and in empirical observation - is how such complexity could actually develop. Natural selection operates generation by generation, mutation by mutation; it does not wait upon the final culmination of evolutionary advances. Thus, lungs or wings, for example, cannot have arisen all at once as the byproduct of a single mutation in a single generation, selected because of the survival advantage bestowed. (Not to even mention how instinct distinctive to that advantage would be "learned" in one generation.) The complexity of a wing, developed in consequence of purely random processes, would take thousands of generations. One must wonder, too, how all the various complex parts of a wing or lung would develop by mutation alone in so wonderfully cooperative tandem. Hence, one can readily suppose the incremental mutations would for thousands of generations of a species proven no adaptive advantage at all, and perhaps a disadvantage. How then do the natural mechanisms of the physical world "know" to select and preserve these incremental and interrelated adaptations, the accumulation of which over hundreds of thousands of years will ultimately become a wing, or a lung, or so forth? We need to recognize that science's reach for parsimony has come to include a preference for naturalistic explanations that deny or ignore the existence of a higher power, divine design and intelligent creation. I have a difficult time comprehending a naturalistic evolution without the careful hand of an intelligent creator guiding development; and the theory of evolution set forth by science is clearly a naturalistic theory - it does not resort to God. Even assuming an intelligent creator, though, I still struggle with reconciling evolution with the doctrine of Creation and the Fall as presented in my faith. It is not an easy thing to reconcile science and faith, and we should be reluctant to attack or destroy the faith of another. Such vehement attacks on one of our own faith lead me to wonder what measure of tolerance we would extend to those of other faiths. Irrespective of the truth of the matter of evolution, the inability of any of the writers responding to the evolution letter to dispassionately and charitably educate and correct the views of someone they think in the wrong is cause for concern, and the greater disappointment concerning one's education at BYU. We live in a pluralistic society characterized by unbelievable diversity of faith, philosophy and bases of knowledge - e.g. faith, science, reasoning, tradition, experience and authority - and hence our civil discourse and Christian charity are undoubtedly the most important representations of a superior education. Just something to consider. Mark Butler is a professor at BYU.

I don't know what I'm suggesting, I just know that God's offspring did not evolve. I read something that put it very well by a professor at BYU. It's lengthy, but I'll post it next for those who want to read it. It says exactly what I feel but could not put in words. In any case, I saw the question earlier in this thread, "Did Adam have a belly button?" To anyone who believes in the restored Gospel and has learned the truth about Heavenly Mother, the only answer can be YES!

I haven't scoured this thread, so I don't know if someone already made this point. The thing with discussions about evolution, is that most people think that if the earth went through some sort of evolution process that Adam must have been part of that evolution. So, in order to clarify one certain part of evolution we must consider that Adam was the first offspring of God that lived in a physical body on earth, and he did not evolve. Whatever else you want to include in an evolution discussion is fair game.

Sorry, I just noticed a mistake in what I said earlier. It is not Moses that gives some details about the spiritual creation, but Abraham. I was thinking so much about Moses in my thought I just typed his name again. Sorry.

I have always read contrary by Church Apostles, professors, and authorites. Contributions of the Book of Moses Going from Genesis to the book of Moses, we find explanations replacing enigmas. At the conclusion of Genesis 1 and the beginning of Genesis 2, the record of the six creative periods—including the creation of man in God’s image—seems to be complete. (See Gen. 2:1–2.) But then we discover that “there was not a man to till the ground.” Consequently, the Lord “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen. 2:5–9.) How could this be, when Genesis 1:26–27 has already declared that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him?” [Gen. 1:26–27] Many scholars assume that two different writers were at work recording two different versions of Moses’ account of creation and that the second half of Genesis is the beginning of the second version. They attribute the redundancy to a rather unskillful scriptural editor. Complicating the issue, however, is the doctrine clarified in the Book of Moses that all forms of life were created in heaven “spiritually before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.” (See Moses 3:7–9.) (This teaching that spirits were created in heaven before they gained bodies on earth should instruct Christians, who usually assume that the spirits or souls of men are created at the time of birth.) Complicating the issue further for some Latter-day Saints is the idea that Genesis 1 may not be an account of Creation by another author but may, in fact, be an account of another creation, Genesis 1 being, in their minds, the account of the spiritual creation and Genesis 2 of the physical creation. But a close reading of the scriptures indicates otherwise. [Gen. 1; Gen. 2] If Genesis 1 is an account of the spiritual creation, then Genesis 1:26–27 would be the account of the creation of the first man in the spirit—“the first-born of every creature,” the premortal Jesus. [Gen. 1:26–27] (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.) The Moses account, however, shows that this cannot be so: “And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image. … “And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him.” (Moses 2:26–27.) Since Jehovah was there when the man referred to in Genesis 1:26–27 was formed, the spiritual creation obviously had already occurred. [Gen. 1:26–27] The object of their creative intent could only have been Adam, the first earthly man. Thus, the creation being described in Genesis 1 is the physical and not the spiritual creation. The conclusion is that the Bible offers no account of the sequential process by which all things were spiritually created, although it does offer a reference to the spiritual creation in Genesis 2:5. [Gen. 2:5] Joseph Fielding Smith said: “The account of the creation of the earth as given in Genesis, and the Book of Moses, and as given in the temple, is the Creation of the physical earth, and of physical animals and plants. … There is no account of the Creation of man or other forms of life when they were created as spirits.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., comp. Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:75.) from the Ensign » 1986 » January "Four Accounts of the Creation" By Keith Meservy

Scholars have long since had concerns about some of the text in the books of Isaiah in the Old Testament. Some of them don't quite make sense. Some of these scholars are LDS, and they had a theory. They decided to translate the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages to Hebrew and compare them to the oldest writings of Isaiah that still exist in Hebrew. It was amazing what they found! Still, if you are reading to know if the Book of Mormon is true, and you are getting hung up on the books of Isaiah, I suggest you are not reading it with a real intent to know if it's true. As you read, let what you don't understand take care of itself. If there is something you don't understand, don't let it cause you to doubt. Be believing. Imagine, "what if this book is true?" Don't look for ways it isn't. If you have a real intent to know of it's truth it can only be manifest to an open heart. If you are doubting as you turn the pages, I don't think your heart is in it.

YES! My wife just brought me the DVDs of the last General Conference. We now have the last 3 on DVD. I wanted to share this with those who did not know you could do this. When you go to the Church web site and re-order your Church magazines, there is an option you can click to add the General Conference DVDs for a year's worth of Conferences (2) for $14.00. Each shipment comes with 3 DVDs and consists of all talks given at all sessions of Conference, including the Priesthood session. Since you get both Conferences, you get 6 DVDs for $14.00. It's a no-brainer! It's good to read the talks in the Ensign or on-line, but there's nothing that compares to WATCHING them. You can use them for Sunday School classes, Family Home Evenings, your own personal study, or just pop the pop corn and have a good time! They come with a card inside with Gospel topics and references for which talk to listen to for the topic. Trust me, it can't be beat.

Tough Grits and Jenamarie, you 2 are awesome. I can tell by not only what you post, but how you post it. I have known Tough Grits for quite some time, and Jenamarie I just met here. But, I can tell that you both are truly daughters of our Heavenly Father. It is a pleasure to meet and know the both of you.

I re-read my post, hoping I did not say anything that would offend anyone. While doing so, I remembered something Elder Bednar used to say... "Some Gospel truths are meant to be caught and not taught."

Wow. I had to read a LOT and concentrate a LOT to read this thread. It took me quite a while to catch up. What I mean by "having to obey" is that in the Celestial Kingdom one has to obey those laws or they will cease living there. Just as if God did not follow those laws He would cease to be God. Alma 42: 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. 25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. So, God must obey the law also. I believe it is what we are striving to do, reach a point where it is no longer a choice for us to do right, it becomes our nature and disposition. It is in this regard that I say the elements must obey, like those who are in the Celestial Kingdom, or else they will cease to have whatever glory they have that keeps them in the sphere they reside. I appreciate all the comments. We only made it to verse 5. The meat of what I wanted to point out is in the next few verses. My wife told me that no one would listen. She didn't listen for many years. She read the account of the creation hundreds of times in her life and thought the same thing about it that most did. Then one day, about a year ago, as we were reading the creation as part of a Family Home Evening, she started crying. Later she told me that she finally saw what I had been trying to show her for the past 16 years of marriage. Brothers and Sisters, this is how the Lord works. We can read scripture and reason through it until we can satisfy our understanding with the words we read. But, I promise you that there is a greater meaning to many stories in scripture and we are not allowed to see it until we are ready. I don't know how we get ready. I wish I knew. Maybe this was my mistake for trying to share something I learned by the spirit. But, I now sense that I am not supposed to share this here at this time. I wanted to, badly, in hopes it would help someone. I thought I was being told to, but now I see it was just my pride in wanting to share something I learned. There's a surprise, I made another mistake. :/ There are great hidden treasures of knowledge in the first 10 verses of Genesis, that much I can promise you. When the spirit revealed it to me it was as if a movie played in my mind and I saw it happening. The words leapt off the page and I understood them for the first time. I had read the creation account hundreds of times in my life, but until that moment the spirit showed me I totally missed what was trying to be taught.

Good point, Tom. He was speaking to the element that existed before the creation... otherwise there would have been nothing to speak to, as Joseph Smith said. Maybe it was intelligence and light. It's interesting that He created light first in Genesis, and we know it was not from nothing. We even know that light is a dual nature thing made up of element and rays. I don't believe it has a choice whether or not to obey, possibly in the same sense that we will not have a choice to obey when in the Celestial Kingdom. Or, it could be that element exists as a lesser intelligence and must obey when God speaks.

I'm going to post the next 3 verses because I have no comment on how this happened. To my knowledge, we are not given specifics, just clues. Genesis 1: 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. What we can learn from these verses is that God spoke, it happened, then He named His creation. This is consistent with the rest of the text. This is evidence He did not create anything in verses 1 and 2. This is very critical when you try to understand where the water came from. I'll post the next bit tomorrow after work.

I can see what you're saying. I would word it differently, though. It's not really your body controlling you, because your body without a spirit inside can not exist. I would word it that your spirit gave into temptation. Satan uses your senses to tempt you to go against the spirit. WHen we sin we are being carnal, sensual, and devilish. It is a choice we make. Our physical body is incapable of making choices. Our intelligence is our spirit. As a dual being of body and spirit (or a soul) we can chose one or the other. However, temptation comes via our physical body. When we "yield" to one or the other we are making a choice. Either we yield to the temptation coming from our physical body, or we overcome the desire and choose based on the still, small voice. It is the same consciousness that makes the decision, no matter which way we choose.

I think he just forgot to insert the work "not." However, I have not seen any critical issue where the prophets and apostles have not taken a firm stance on- Pam has mentioned some crucial ones. I believe it's worded, "When a prophet says 'thus saith the Lord' he speaks for the Lord." However, he is free as a person to offer opinion just as anyone else is for anything else. I kinda think a prophet's opinion is pretty valuable as well.

Traveler, your post is refreshing. For the life of me, I can't figure out how most people can read the Bible and think they don't have to "do" anything. So many scriptures teach that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a "doing" gospel. Not that our works can save us, but that if you don't do His works then you really don't believe.

I believe that all temptation in this life comes to us via our physical bodies. If we listen to and obey the voice of the Spirit we can overcome these temptations and not give in. This life is a strugle to be born of the spirit, or reborn from the physical birth that brought us into this life. It means we must listen to the Spirit and not give in to physical temptation. If you carry it on to what's in store for those who inherit eternal life it only makes sense.

Most of what is left in Genesis is the physical creation. Remember in the spiritual creation man was created first, and in the physical creation man was created last.

I think it helps to understand exactly what Christ meant when He said "paradise." If you think paradise is heaven (or the Celestial Kingdom) I can see where this might confuse you. Paradise and Spirit Prison are the 2 places where spirits await judgment and resurrection. The only distinction between the 2 being that those in paradise believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is partly responsible for modern Christianity's belief that all you have to do is "believe" in Christ to be saved. Well, if you mean saved into paradise, then yes. But, Christ taught you had to be obedient to His laws in order to truly believe. This is why we will be judged according to our works, and not just our beliefs. Heaven, as meaning the Celestial Kingdom for those who lived on this earth, will not exist until after the resurrection. So, the thief could not be in heaven with Jesus the next day, because the thief will not be resurrected before Christ was.

I wasn't going to ask this, but I think it might be an important question for some to see, even if it can't be answered. If God created all matter out of nothing, meaning matter did not exist before, and God existed forever, what made Him change His mind about things as they were? And, why didn't He discover that He could have created matter, and had a better creation, before He did? Isn't God perfect and unchanging? Again, it doesn't make sense that God would decide "there is a better way" than things currently were, and that caused Him to bring a physical universe into existence so He could make life forms to worship Him forever... and punish the ones that didn't. No, it doesn't make sense at all. The only thing that makes sense, if God is all-knowing and all-seeing, is that things have always been the way they are now, so there was nothing to change. He did not bring about an instant change because He did not like the way things were. No, this is how they have always been, namely worlds to create and populate with His children. For this discussion to mean anything, you have to open your mind to new possibilities and understandings. For the sake of this discussion, pretend that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that his words are true. Pretend he actually saw what Moses saw and understands how the text and words were originally meant. Otherwise, all this will be is a battle of opinions, just like every other discussion about the creation that has taken place on forums all over the world.

This is why I felt it important to decide whether or not God had actually created anything in the first verse, before we began the discussion. If He did, and that is actually where He "willed" matter into existence, then why does He go on to describe how He created "the heaven and earth?" And, if He did create the heaven and earth out of nothing in verse 1, why does He then go on to organize and form it? He said after verse 1 that it was void and without form. He is powerful enough to bring matter into existence from nothing, but not powerful enough to bring it into existence already formed and organized? I'm not making fun of your beliefs, but trying to look at it logically. I don't think God would go out of His way to make things harder or take longer. And, if He willed matter into existence, all at once, why did it take Him 6 days, or time periods, to accomplish it? Would that have not been instant, as has been an accepted belief through other Christian churches? The text just doesn't add up with the "willed into existence" belief held by most of Christianity today. It was a belief derived from uninspired people during the Dark Ages who explained it the only way they could, which is to not explain it at all. If you slowly read the text of the first 10 verses, and participate with an open mind, you will see the text spelling it out clearly. As I said, there are going to be many views and many interpretations, but I am attempting to lead a discussion about the text itself, not about common beliefs. We will use beliefs held that support the text. So, simply show me where water was also created and then I can move closer to the understanding that your belief is actually based on the text, and not tradition.

No, I do not believe matter is being brought into existence from nothing. The text does not teach that, if you read it closely. I have done word studies on the Hebrew word "bara," or "baurau." There are a LOT of conflicting opinions on what this word means. The fact is, it did not mean "out of nothing" when the text was written. Here is what Joseph Smith had to say... He told the Saints that the word create comes from the Hebrew word baurau [bara], which means to organize, and that “God had materials to organize the world out of chaos … [which] may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed.” From: The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation By Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch... and can be found at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Most of the sources I searched agreed with this definition, but there were a few that did not. Most of the people who claim it means "out of nothing" seemed to be twisting it to mean what they thought because they did not tell the whole story behind the word, and did not go back far enough. The meaning of it today is more in line with what you propose, but that is only because people misunderstand the creation and think "it must mean out of nothing since that's how the creation was." Their close-mindedness has forced them to alter the meaning of the word over time, and they have shot themselves in the foot as a result. The sources that actually discuss the word that attemp to define it as it pre-dates the modern era all agree that baurau did mean "to organnize" in the ancient language. Besides, show me in the text where water is being created, and then we can have a discussion about it. As of now, I don't see where all matter is being discussed, just "heaven and earth." If you show me where the water was created, we can begin to think about "all matter" instead of just heaven and earth. You will see as this discussion moves forward, if you keep an open mind, the creation of "heaven and earth" are plainly laid out and defined by God Himself. The creation of other "matter" such as water, is never mentioned.

Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. This verse can be divided and discussed in 3 different parts... 1: And the earth was without form, and void; 2: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. 3: And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. So, we'll divide them and offer comments on them separately. And, by the way, the other 2 accounts are worded differently, but they teach the same events as in Genesis... perhaps even more clearly. First: 1: And the earth was without form, and void; I believe the later text of chapter 1 offers some clues as to what this might have been. So, before we dive into this one, let's discuss the other parts of verse 2. We'll even get more clues to "without form and void" later in verses 3-10. 2: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The first question that comes to my mind is, "The deep what?" Any speculation? I have spoken to some who say this refers to deep and black space, since nothing has been created yet. It might be reaching too much here, but I don't beleive this is the case. The words "face" and "the" in front of deep do not paint a picture of space to me. Deep space doesn't have a face, really, and is never really referred to as "the deep." If I didn't know better, it sounds like it is referring to a huge body of water like an ocean, or much larger. Water has a face, and is frequently called "the deep." In fact, I draw some of that conclusion from the very next statement in the same verse, which I believe is speaking about the same thing... 3: And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. I believe God is speaking about "deep waters" that have a face and are dark because no light has been created yet. The part that takes prayer and the spirit is that, in answer to my question in the last post, is that God has not created anything yet. He has not spoken the words that are headed by, "And God said..." so frequently throughout the creative texts. Backing up to verse 1, if indeed God is answering Moses' question about how the heaven and earth were created, there is no answer given for where, or if, matter itself began. God is answering Moses and telling Him where creation of this heaven and earth began, and it began with this water, spoken of in verse 2, that was present when God started creating. Later verses confirm that the water was present when God began, and that it was not part of what He is speaking about creating in the account of "The Creation." Now, whether or not God created the water first, or it was just there in some form when He began, the text does not say. But, I think it is more than telling that scientists believe that life begins in the water. This is where I beleive the scientists are right on track with the Bible. Now, backing up to the first part of the verse... 1: And the earth was without form, and void; ...if, at this point, there were no "heaven or earth," but only water, it makes perfect sense how the "heaven and earth" would be without form and void. I believe the answer to whether or not matter existed before the creation of this earth is very apparent in the text of the creation. We plainly see that God has not began the creation process here, yet, since we are told His Spirit moved upon the face of the water. As he "moved" in location to create, the water was present. I believe that this answers the question, "Did God create this earth from nothing?" The equivocal answer within the text is no. Whether you believe God created the earth from nothing or not, you must see the text shows He did not create the water, and He used the water as the basis for creating this earth. So, either the water is part of an earlier creation, not described at all in Genesis, or Joseph Smith was right when He said, "matter is eternal and cannot be destroyed or created." Let the real discussion begin. :)