A Mormon’s love letter to atheists

[Universeman]

A quick summery, evolution is real and the human race is the final result. God is also part of the human race, therefore evolution is the only means by which Gods race perpetuates its species, ie created us in his image. As eternal beings we have no shortage of time in which to accomplish this task an infinite number of times. There is no being greater then God, but there are countless other gods who are his equal just as our God is their equal. Because regress cannot be infinite there must have been, at some point in the almost infinite past, a first cause, a beginning to this process of the deification of primordial unorganized intelligences. In doing these thought experiments I have never come across anything which would contradict science as we currently understand it. No other religion is capable of integrating science so fully into its theology, this is yet another testimony of its truthfulness.

There is no real point in pursuing this particular subject any further as it can be nothing more than pure speculation. I just wanted to throw the idea out there because I think it is an interesting thought experiment. Keep in mind that I am always open to change, the only thing I hold to be absolute are the principles of the gospel, think of these ideas as thought experiments and nothing more. Just possible explanations of how spiritual reality fits in with physical reality.

We are co-eternal with God, he did not create us, but he provides us with the opportunity of eternal progression, if we so chose. Once we become gods we will no longer depend on having faith in our Heavenly Father. However by choosing to reject God in this life, a person forfeits this opportunity forever, everyone who has received a mortal body, except for sons of perdition, will receive a degree of glory, however anything less then exaltation is eternal damnation, or hell.

We here observe that God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift, and every good principle dwells; and that he is the Father of lights: In him the principle of faith dwells independently; and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers, for life and salvation. Lectures On Faith

D&C 58:

26For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

29But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

This is how we prepare for godhood, God has perfect love for all of his children, he loves the very worst human who ever lived or will live, just as much as he loves Jesus Christ his Firstborn Son in the flesh, even the most evil humans will receive a degree of glory, after they pay the price of their own sins. God loves us no matter what, no exceptions, we must learn to internalize that concept in order to realize just how valuable we are to the Godhead, we must learn to regard our fellow man the same way he regards us, and act accordingly.

Mosiah 2:21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

When God was a mortal man he made correct choices, overcoming the natural man, he willingly obeyed his fathers commandments without compulsion, he first learned, line upon line, to be a god during his mortal life, was judged accordingly, and by grace received his exaltation. His only desire now is to help us achieve that same end.

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

When the twelve disciples were called in the Americas, the Lord Jesus Christ commanded them: “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.” The Savior had recently finalized His successful, selfless, and transcendental mission on earth. This allowed Him to declare with authority that He and His Father, our Father, are the models to be followed by each one of us.

From a purely human point of view, at first this seems to be an impossible task. However, it begins to appear possible upon understanding that in order to achieve it, we are not alone. The most marvelous and powerful helps for which a human being may seek are always available. First is the generous and loving hand of the Eternal Father, who desires that we return to His presence forever. As our Father, He is always willing and desirous to forgive our errors and weaknesses and the sins we commit, subject only to total and sincere repentance. And as a complement to that—and as the maximum manifestation of His immense love for each one of His children—He provides us with the consequences of the singular work wrought by the Savior, namely the Atonement, brought about by an obedient Son always willing to do the Father’s will in benefit to each one of us. Attempting the Impossible

[Universeman]

Good read on faith and the power of science from BYU professor and evolutionary biologist Steve Peck Why science is so darned powerful The Mormon Organon

What I do want to point out with this article on science is that the spiritual is every bit as important as the physical. They are literally two sides of the same coin, I want to build on this concept before I bring the desires of our heart back into the equation. Alma teaches that spiritual knowledge is discovered in the same manner scientific knowledge is discovered, if we run the experiment properly, the results will always be the same. In Lectures on faith we are taught that unless we have a correct understanding of who God is we cannot exercise faith in him sufficient for our salvation. Alma also teaches that faith can be viewed as a scientific experiment, with predictable results of faith gained.

Base assumptions / paradigm (Alma 32:39) Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

Observation (Alma 32:28)

Hypothesis (Alma 32:28) Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Null hypothesis (The null hypothesis is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.) (Alma 32:32) Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

Experiment (Alma 32:27 & 36) 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

Analysis (Alma 32:33) And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

Knowledge created (Alma 32:34) And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. Mormon Scholars Testify Blog Archive A. Scott Howe

Question. Is there a being who has faith in himself independently?

Answer. There is.

Q. Who is it? A. It is God.

Q. How do you prove that God has faith in himself independently?

A. Because he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnicient; without beginning of days or end of life, and in him all fulness dwells. Eph. 1:23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Col. 1:19. For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell. (2:12.)

Q. Is he the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers, for life and salvation?

A. He is.

2 Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

3 First, The idea that he actually exists.

4 Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

5 Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Having shown in the third lecture, that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation, and that without correct ideas of his character, the minds of men could not have sufficient power with God to the exercise of faith necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life, and that correct ideas of his character lay a foundation as far as his character is concerned, for the exercise of faith, so as to enjoy the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even that of eternal glory; we shall now proceed to show the connection there is between correct ideas of the attributes of God, and the exercise of faith in him unto eternal life.

2 Let us here observe, that the real design which the God of heaven had in view in making the human family acquainted with his attributes, was, that they through the ideas of the existence of his attributes, might be enabled to exercise faith in him, and through the exercise of faith in him, might obtain eternal life. For without the idea of the existence of the attributes which belong to God, the minds of men could not have power to exercise faith on him so as to lay hold upon eternal life. The God of heaven understanding most perfectly the constitution of human nature, and the weakness of man, knew what was necessary to be revealed, and what ideas must be planted in their minds in order that they might be enabled to exercise faith in him unto eternal life. Lectures On Faith

Edited June 14, 2011 by Universeman

[Seminarysnoozer]

What I do want to point out with this article on science is that the spiritual is every bit as important as the physical. They are literally two sides of the same coin, I want to build on this concept before I bring the desires of our heart back into the equation. Alma teaches that spiritual knowledge is discovered in the same manner scientific knowledge is discovered, if we run the experiment properly, the results will always be the same. In Lectures on faith we are taught that unless we have a correct understanding of who God is we cannot exercise faith in him sufficient for our salvation. Alma also teaches that faith can be viewed as a scientific experiment, with predictable results of faith gained.

I agree with everything you say in this last post with the exception of this paragraph but it is not a big difference. It depends on what physical you are talking about. In the scriptures there is description of "physical" that is talking about the resurrected state of physical body plus spirit which is different than talking about our current situation.

One thing to keep in mind is that we are in a fallen state, in terms of intellect, knowledge, awareness etc. The question is how far one thinks we have fallen. Our spirit maintains the memories of things learned in pre-earthly life, it just cant access them because of the veil. The body also drives us towards carnal desires and directly opposes the spiritual drives. I hope that the body, as my life goes on is less in control and the spirit drives desires more. If one really believes that we learned all we could before needing to obtain a body, I would imagine there is no amount of secular knowledge or intellectual prowess of anyone who has ever lived or will live in this existence that could come close to matching our spirits knowledge. As soon as we die that will all come back to us.

The only need to pursue secular knowledge is to advance the work of God not for the sake of learning again something that we have likely already learned and will remember after death. If the learning will allow us to work on our faith more than that is a worthwhile pursuit. There are many advancements in this world that allow us to be more productive in the spreading of the gospel, like this computer, etc. and therefore are worthwhile.

... more on this latter if you want to talk about it, I have to go. I guess the summary of what I am trying to say is that the importance of spiritual discovery far outweighs the importance of secular learning. ... which is what I think you are also saying by pointing out the importance of faith. I don't see those as equal sides of the coin, per se, one side is heavier than the other.

[Mute]

You didn't read the words carefully enough. I am using the word reason to mean 'purpose'. That doesn't mean I can't be happy in this life, I am very happy. I am happy in part because I know that this life is not the end, it is not a fleeting moment for me. Our current happiness (even supported by those scripture references you gave, thanks) is dependent on putting our motivations in the right place "that they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness". Yes, that gives me current happiness and current blessing but dependent on maintaining my focus on the eternal blessings, so no I do not do it for the current blessings.

I am talking about the reasons behind doing certain things in this life, the motivation, the purpose. That isn't to say that good things will not come from it. Maybe better stated is that the primary reason is for heavenly treasure not earthly reward. I didn't say that there can be a reward for doing well, there is, but I hope that I receive the reward in the next life. The reward comes from having my heart set on eternal treasures.

The distraction of my poor words, maybe, pulled you away from my point, I am sorry. The point is that it seems a contradiction to seek pleasure in things that will be erased completely in a few years. I am saying that if a person truly did not believe in an afterlife, I do not comprehend how this life would have any value to them at all after they are dead. When that person is dead, if that concept is true, they will have no feeling as to the matter, good or bad. The only way that I can make sense of that is if they really do believe in an afterlife in their heart of hearts to some small degree, even if they deny it, the spiritual sense of what really our situation is. To me that is why there is a sense of doing good now. That is how I can explain it to myself, I am sorry if that offends you.

The things we do WON'T be erased in a few years. Like I said before, the people who live after us and those who still live will benefit from what we do with our lives. That is enough reason in and of itself for someone to choose to do good. Atheists don't believe in an after life but they do believe that life will continue even after their own death and life does continue after our own death. If an atheist were to die shortly after helping me in their life, would I say that is some how a waste? Of course not. I will continue living. I won't forget what they did for me. What you do for others has the potential to be like a drop of water in a pond. We can't always see the end conclusion to our actions but that tiny bit of time we spend to make a difference can change the world. We learn from those who have come before us. They are our history. A person does not have to believe in an afterlife to have a desire to do good in this life.

If you want to explain it to me fine, go ahead, I am willing to hear, instead of berating me for trying to explain these contradictions that I see. I can't have you correct me on these apparent contradictions unless I say what I think they are. (That is not telling people what they believe) You tell me exactly, then (since it seems that you are claiming to understand that point of view) what value does this life have to that person after they are dead, not now, AFTER THEY ARE DEAD, what value does this life have to the person who is dead?

What value does this life have to someone after they are dead? After they are dead, none. That wasn't the point you were originally making though. You were saying saying atheists could have no motivation to do good in this life if they believe they will receive nothing when they die unless they secretly believe in an afterlife and that is entirely untrue.

That person who is dead is not going to have any feeling of guilt or pleasure or anything in between as to how well they did or if anyone benefited from their existence or not, nor will they retain any memory of their earthly pleasures of any kind, so how could it matter to that person?

If I told you I would pay for the vacation of your life, 2 weeks on a warm private beach somewhere with all the best food, any activity you wanted to do, no worries but in the end I would erase all memory of you having done that and anyone around you would not retain any memory of you having done that as if it never happened, you would find some value in that experience?

But others DO continue to have that memory. Others are affected by our actions after we die. I've never met an atheist who didn't believe life would go on after they die. What you're saying is not the same.

If you find it pointless for someone to do good in this life because they believed it will one day end, then you would also have to find it pointless for someone to do evil in this life if they knew it would one day end. I've already listed a lot of reasons for why people choose to do good in this life in my last post but people do good in this life because it makes them happy and it brings happiness to others. They find it is more worthwhile to them than doing wrong to others.

[Mute]

The problem is that far too many atheists tell me that because I have a religion I am not as good a person as they.

I have never personally met an atheist that said that but I am sorry you have. Not all atheists are kind the same as not all lds or all people from any group are kind. You're going to find rotten apples in any bunch. There are lot of very friendly atheists out there that would not say those things to you and I hope you meet them some day.

[Peanutterrier2009]

Wow! I have never had difficulty accepting that God is the ultimate mathmatician and scientist. I do not hold to strick evolution however. I agree, some of your information seems sound. However, evolution fails to follow basic math. All science is quantified by math. 1x+1y does not equal 2xy combining and seperating unlike terms can not be done. This is, of course, over simplified for expedience sake. Thus, one thing does not give rise to another. The idea that we are all, at our base form, unevolved pond scum monkies is repulsive. The idea that progeny recapitulates philogeny is a stretch at best. It should not come as any great surprise to us that, living things share common features. God used the same DNA building blocks but, he created each thing independently. We know that things change in response to enviormentle sterss. In this manner, I agree with evolution. However, consider dogs. This species has been,theoretically, companioned with man for millions of years. More and more stess has been placed on the animal to perform greater tasks. Yet, the animal remains remarkably unchanged. It has not evolved greater intellect nor has it achieved self awareness. It would follow that, all creatures would continue to evolve and eventually reach higher levels of ability and become self aware. We know that creatures sharing a similaur brain structure and size as that of man have not reached self awareness. They are of a higher social order but, are not, as yet, self aware. Creatures that were on this planet long before man, still posess no more than a basic reptile brain. The pressure for these animals to evolve has been intense. Yet, they have remained unchaged for billions of years. It's obvious that you have a keen intellect. I respect the amount of time you have spent in considering and supporting your position in this matter. I would submit however, that all this is far less complicated than our atheist brothers and sisters would want us to believe. God said He did it and that He has always been. Too many facts does away with any need for faith and we know this is a key factor for all Christian doctrins. God and science do go hand in hand. But, I would exercise a degree of caution when attempting to reconcile man's wisdom with that of God's...

[Vort]

However, evolution fails to follow basic math. All science is quantified by math.

For the record: Evolution in no possible sense fails to follow basic math. "I think the implications of organic evolution are icky" does not qualify as mathematics, basic or otherwise.

[Peanutterrier2009]

Thanks so much for your feed back. Your reply confuses me, however. :huh:Please, show me an example of how evolution can consistantly, repeatedly and without deviation be quantified by math. As I understand it, this is the very reason it remains a theory and has yet to become law. I would submit that, it can not repeatedly be tested, quantified or substantiated by math. Now it's been some time since I took biology, chem. and zoology in college. But, as I recall, this is the gold standard for something to be scientifically elevated fom theory to law. Gravity and thermal dynamics have become laws because, they can be tested in a lab and repeatedly proven and substaniated by math... Evolution, can no more be scientifically (absolutly) proven than can the existance of God. This is where the Bible and the Book of Mormon come into play, as I understand. It gives us a bit more to go on than the theory of a man. Just as I can twist the facts of the Bible to make it say, what I want it to say, when taken out of context; so too, can modern science twist the record to support a position which would seek to denie the importance of man and so, the existance of his creator. The concept that we evolved from pond scum is more than "iky" It's nonesense...

[Seminarysnoozer]

The things we do WON'T be erased in a few years. Like I said before, the people who live after us and those who still live will benefit from what we do with our lives. That is enough reason in and of itself for someone to choose to do good. Atheists don't believe in an after life but they do believe that life will continue even after their own death and life does continue after our own death. If an atheist were to die shortly after helping me in their life, would I say that is some how a waste? Of course not. I will continue living. I won't forget what they did for me. What you do for others has the potential to be like a drop of water in a pond. We can't always see the end conclusion to our actions but that tiny bit of time we spend to make a difference can change the world. We learn from those who have come before us. They are our history. A person does not have to believe in an afterlife to have a desire to do good in this life.

What value does this life have to someone after they are dead? After they are dead, none. That wasn't the point you were originally making though. You were saying saying atheists could have no motivation to do good in this life if they believe they will receive nothing when they die unless they secretly believe in an afterlife and that is entirely untrue.

But others DO continue to have that memory. Others are affected by our actions after we die. I've never met an atheist who didn't believe life would go on after they die. What you're saying is not the same.

If you find it pointless for someone to do good in this life because they believed it will one day end, then you would also have to find it pointless for someone to do evil in this life if they knew it would one day end. I've already listed a lot of reasons for why people choose to do good in this life in my last post but people do good in this life because it makes them happy and it brings happiness to others. They find it is more worthwhile to them than doing wrong to others.

The memory passed on to others will also die with that person and on and on, in that scenario. Eventually the sun will explode and all that work will be for nothing all will be destroyed and forgotten. At a minimum as the millions of years go by the memory of what any one person did will be as little as what fisherman Jens did in his life, 300 B.C. You remember him right? It means nothing. You don't remember the joy he had when he met his wife or saw the birth of his first child or what he taught his children. You don't remember when he saved someones life or when he killed a neighbor's son. Nobody in this life remembers him .... as if it never happened.

All the reasons you point out for people doing good in this life is because within their heart (which is to say their spirit), even if it is just a small feeling, not knowledge yet, believe that there is something more to this life, their spirits tell them that. Prove that wrong. You can't.

It would be like if you were told now that you before this life lived in another world at another time and you had a family there and some of your descendents are still around but you know nothing of that previous world. Do you have any feelings towards that previous world that you know nothing about? Does it matter to you whether anyone maintained any memory about your existence or what you did in that world? No, because you are not even aware of it. That is how it will be, by their own description, after the atheist dies from this world ... it won't matter to them one way or the other if they did evil, good or in between. It can't matter because there is nothing left to reason with afterwards.

If a person develops Alzheimers in this life and looses all memory of previous events, some of which they never told anyone, then for the atheist, that experience is gone forever at that moment. Even the shortcomings of our own memory doesn't allow us to remember everything we did when we were young. Memory, by the way, is not a video recording of past events, it is directly tied into the emotional significance of the event. So, in the atheist mind, memory is reality. The murderer whose brain tries to cope with the horrible things that were done convinces himself that he didn't do it, really believes that he didn't do it, becomes reality for him. The person that convinces themselves that they didn't really tell a lie or that they really didn't steal, in their mind then that is reality. There is no higher law but the perceptions of own actions. So, happiness is just based in our own laws of ourselves, we judge ourselves. ... is the way I see the atheist morals.

Suppose, if I convince myself, in my own mind that killing thousands of a certain people is happiness, then I will be happy if I do that thing since there is no moral standard outside one's own understanding. If I am taught as a youth that the most righteous thing I can do is to strap a bomb to my chest and kill as many as possible, being judged by my own made up standards then that will bring happiness to that person and all the family and friends around him that believe the same way ... so good for them, right? So, an atheist would morally support whatever that person thinks would bring them happiness, isn't that right? An atheist would support terrorism and suicide bombings etc.

If my family is poor and I am close to death anyways and I devise a plan to rob a bank, give the money to my family not telling them where it came from and I die immediately after doing that, there would be good from that in the atheist's mind, right? The person who died, doesn't remember, the family is not poor any longer and they have no idea where the money came from ... all is good, right?

The argument for atheism with morals is what, to me is in question. I could accept atheism without morals, that would make sense to me. Otherwise to me that is nonsense. I could be wrong, I have been wrong many times before, this is just how I see it.

I am trying to let you know that if a person does something "good" without seeking personal reward and that feels right to them, that in and of itself is proof of a higher law, or a spirit within that directs what is right versus wrong and the significance it holds as to the purpose of this life.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Vort]

Thanks so much for your feed back. Your reply confuses me, however.

Peanutterrier, I'm sorry I've confused the issue. I'm one of those weird Mormons who has no issues with organic evolution. But if it doesn't make sense for you, then that's fine. We have the light of the gospel, and that is what's important. All else is just talk. Don't take too seriously what I or anyone else says on the topic.

My son baptized a lovely young woman in Lake Stevens, a good friend of his who, I believe, has unfortunately fallen into inactivity and returned to the faith of her parents. Sweet girl, though.

[Mute]

The memory passed on to others will also die with that person and on and on, in that scenario. Eventually the sun will explode and all that work will be for nothing all will be destroyed and forgotten. At a minimum as the millions of years go by the memory of what any one person did will be as little as what fisherman Jens did in his life, 300 B.C. You remember him right? It means nothing. You don't remember the joy he had when he met his wife or saw the birth of his first child or what he taught his children. You don't remember when he saved someones life or when he killed a neighbor's son. Nobody in this life remembers him .... as if it never happened.

All the reasons you point out for people doing good in this life is because within their heart (which is to say their spirit), even if it is just a small feeling, not knowledge yet, believe that there is something more to this life, their spirits tell them that. Prove that wrong. You can't.

I'll explain this post to you but I'm not going to continue with this anymore.

Like I said before, if you're going to say the reasons an atheist does good is because of their spirit telling them it or them secretly having a belief in an after life, then you would also have to apply that same reasoning to why someone does harm to another. I gave you reasons for why someone would find it logical to be kind to others and spend their time trying to improve the lives of others and their own life. You might personally find it worthless to live if your existence will one day end but atheists and agnostics do not. Saying I can't prove something is a very poor argument. The burden of proof is on you because you're the one stating it. It's the same as me saying "prove there isn't a pink unicorn right now controlling your every action. You can't." That must mean I'm right right? No it doesn't and it would be absurd for me to think so.

It would be like if you were told now that you before this life lived in another world at another time and you had a family there and some of your descendents are still around but you know nothing of that previous world. Do you have any feelings towards that previous world that you know nothing about? Does it matter to you whether anyone maintained any memory about your existence or what you did in that world? No, because you are not even aware of it. That is how it will be, by their own description, after the atheist dies from this world ... it won't matter to them one way or the other if they did evil, good or in between. It can't matter because there is nothing left to reason with afterwards.

It would be nothing like this. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you originally stated and I feel you are missing the point of anything I said. We're not talking about when someone is dead and gone. We're talking about why they choose to do what they do when they are alive. We're not talking about some place they never knew of. We're talking about why people choose to give a (insert bad word) about this world. I've already listed a lot of reasons for why people would care to do good in this life.

People know of this world. It's not some unseen place. They know life will go on after they die. Maybe some day life will end for all creatures on this world. Maybe our race won't find a way in time for mankind to escape the death of our sun's supernova but that day is not today. You make it sound like there is no point for mankind to even try to progress. Like there is no point to do anything at all worthwhile in this life and if we do try to do good, it's because we have a secret belief in an after life. Instead of jumping to conclusions about what others believe, maybe you should analyze your own thoughts and beliefs. Maybe it's you who would find life meaningless without a religion. Maybe the only reason you try to do good is because of your religion. Maybe you secretly don't want to do things in your religion which are seen as good but feel obligated to do them because of your religious beliefs. Anyways, I've already explained valid reasons why people would choose to do good regardless of their religious beliefs. I can't help if you don't accept that.

I can't stop you in believing as you do but you are not right about why I choose to do what I believe to be right and you are not right about any of my atheist friends and why they choose to do what they believe to be right. I hope one day you see that not all people do hold religious beliefs.

Think about this question to yourself. If this world is the end, what type of person would you want to be? I'd want to be just the way I am.

Suppose, if I convince myself, in my own mind that killing thousands of a certain people is happiness, then I will be happy if I do that thing since there is no moral standard outside one's own understanding. If I am taught as a youth that the most righteous thing I can do is to strap a bomb to my chest and kill as many as possible, being judged by my own made up standards then that will bring happiness to that person and all the family and friends around him that believe the same way ... so good for them, right? So, an atheist would morally support whatever that person thinks would bring them happiness, isn't that right? An atheist would support terrorism and suicide bombings etc.

I don't know if you noticed, but atheists don't kill people in the name of a religion nor do they view religion being a motivation for harm to others as right or morally just. There are a fair amount of atheists who actually find religion harmful but that is a whole other topic. I've never met an atheists who would say it's a good thing for someone to go blow up others if it makes them happy. Society can't function that way. So long as our actions do not harm others, then my guess is that a lot of atheists probably wouldn't find it wrong but not all atheists think exactly the same.

This is why I'm not going to continue this conversation. Instead of jumping to conclusions about what someone else believes, I'd recommend going and actually asking an atheist what they believe. Isn't that what you would want as an lds? I'm sure you don't like it when people attempt to tell you what you believe or come to you saying you believe things you don't. Go find an atheist and talk to them without trying to tell them what they believe. Just ask them. Elphaba is a well known and respected atheists by many on these boards. You could try asking her what she thinks.

If my family is poor and I am close to death anyways and I devise a plan to rob a bank, give the money to my family not telling them where it came from and I die immediately after doing that, there would be good from that in the atheist's mind, right? The person who died, doesn't remember, the family is not poor any longer and they have no idea where the money came from ... all is good, right?

The argument for atheism with morals is what, to me is in question. I could accept atheism without morals, that would make sense to me. Otherwise to me that is nonsense. I could be wrong, I have been wrong many times before, this is just how I see it.

You are missing the point entirely. This isn't about whether some people will rationalize their actions as being ok. Some atheists are not going to care about others the same as all Christians or all religious people don't. You're going to find people who act differently in any group of people. You're going to find people who only care about themselves the same as you will find people who care about a lot of people but that isn't the point as I've already said. You make it sound like atheists couldn't possibly give a (insert bad word) about anyone unless they are religious and that is just absolutely false in every sense of the word. Have you EVER in your entire life talked with an atheist? I don't see how you could possibly have gotten these outrageous ideas if you did.

[Universeman]

Instead of jumping to conclusions about what someone else believes, I'd recommend going and actually asking an atheist what they believe. Isn't that what you would want as an lds? I'm sure you don't like it when people attempt to tell you what you believe or come to you saying you believe things you don't. Go find an atheist and talk to them without trying to tell them what they believe. Just ask them. Elphaba is a well known and respected atheists by many on these boards. You could try asking her what she thinks.

I completely agree with the point mute is trying to make, what we refer to as “the light of Christ” is in fact evolutionary in origin (kind of cool actually). What mute is saying is that you can be an atheist and be moral because our moral compass is fundamental part of our brain, we are hard wired to know right from wrong. The main source of evil in this world is in fact religion, not atheism.

Here are some fun examples:

The Earth Is Not Moving Discovery Institute

Look out Oct 21st is just around the corner

October 21, 2011 Judgment Day and End of the World! Tract - eBible Fellowship

The universe and the Earth were actually created 6000 years ago and in just 6 days, forget all the “Evilution” nonsense I have been talking about, silly me.

The Young Earth Creation Club

So how many “jewels” do you have in your crown?

MORMONFUNDAMENTALISM.COM

WARNING! Do not go to these links with children in the room! You will see gruesome aborted fetuses, my mother exposed me to this kind of crap when I was very young because she was a anti-abortion protester, yes it traumatized me. I remember staring at anti-abortion pamphlets with pictures of trash bags full cut up fetuses and I was unable to take my eyes away from the horror! To this day they are seared into my mind. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Army of God

Writinigs of Paul Jennings Hill

These people think that God wants them to murder abortion doctors because they have “murdered” thousands of innocent children. They want to create an “American Taliban” an intolerant regime bent on killing everyone who dares to disagree with them, especially “Mormons”, atheists, gays, Jews, ect. They would abolish most science, especially evolution, and thinking of any kind which does not include a strict "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

But why stop at just one puny little abortion doctor when you can go all jihad on the USA. September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A wacky, yet harmless “religion”, and they don’t want to hurt anyone or force them to believe what they believe! Just click on “Join Us”.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Blessed truth and sanity all in one neat package.

Mormon.org & The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

For the views of atheists check out - RichardDawkins.net “The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering.”

I just finished reading Dawkins book "The God Delusion" and i am going to read it several more times, it is absolutely brilliant. A word of warning, don't read this book unless you have a kryptonite proof testimony, or you are already an atheist, unless of course you are contemplating atheism. I however found it to be extremely enlightening, I also discovered, for me at least, that the LDS faith is incredibly compatible with atheism! I am free from guilt (I have a testimony of the saviors atonement), I am free from dogma, I am free from superstition and the supernatural and I have embraced science as completely compatible with my faith. It has taken me my entire life to come to this personal realization, and it was a real struggle for me to come to grips with my faith and my skeptical mind. But in the end the LDS faith is the only religion which can go toe to toe with atheism, and that is no small feat, trust me. But you have to have an open mind, but what can possibly be more open minded then thinking that the human race is the offspring of deity, humans have the potential to become a god! But it’s ok if people do not agree with what we believe, it is one of the basic tenets of our faith, true freedom of thought. As LDS we are every bit as tolerant of other peoples beliefs as are atheists, except when those beliefs pose a threat to society, just like atheists.

[Universeman]

I do not hold to strick evolution however.

"You must do what you feel is right, of course."

The idea that we are all, at our base form, unevolved pond scum monkies is repulsive.

"Oh, the human mouth is a disgusting place."

Too many facts does away with any need for faith and we know this is a key factor for all Christian doctrins. God and science do go hand in hand. But, I would exercise a degree of caution when attempting to reconcile man's wisdom with that of God's...

Ignorance is bliss

peanut I am not trying to poke fun at you, you are of course entitled to your own beliefs, which is very likely more in line with what mainstream LDS members believe. And that is ok, you are not the odd ball here, I am.

But alas it is late and I must get up for work very soon, I will try to help you as best I can understand my perspective, hopefully with out comming across as superior, because I am just a stocker at the base gas station.

[DigitalShadow]

Interesting thoughts all around. I apologize that I don't have the time to properly read through the entire thread and make specific responses, but I will give my perspective as an atheist particularly regarding Mute and Seminarysnoozer's discussion.

I honestly strongly doubt that there is any type of consciousness after death. I don't know this with certainty and of course I would hope that I can continue existing in some form after passing away but I'm not counting on anything.

So why do I continue on? Well, if this is indeed the only chance at any type of existence I get, you can be sure I'm going to make the best of it. Even if I don't exist forever, every action I take will ripple on into eternity as the people I interact with will be slightly different for having known me and the same for the people they interact with and so on.

If I told you I would pay for the vacation of your life, 2 weeks on a warm private beach somewhere with all the best food, any activity you wanted to do, no worries but in the end I would erase all memory of you having done that and anyone around you would not retain any memory of you having done that as if it never happened, you would find some value in that experience?

I think, more accurately, the vacation analogy could be stated as: If you were stuck on a warm private beach for 2 weeks even knowing you wouldn't remember anything at the end, wouldn't you live it up and enjoy yourself? Applying that analogy back to life, whether you would "value" the experience before or afterwards is a moot point if you don't think there is a before or after life, but while in the moment and having fun I'm sure you would consider it more valuable than moping around about how it wouldn't last forever and there is no point.

If anything, I would think the inverse would apply and that religious people would have the mentality of "why should I do something useful right now when I have eternity to get things right." Perhaps in your heart you know that your existence is only fleeting and want to make the best of it?

[Dravin]

Two weeks is also a curious time frame for the hypothetical. To an atheist that vacation, as you point out Digitalshadow, doesn't represent some small amount of time out of a much larger to infinite span. Turn two weeks into your entire existence and it seems like much less a valueless thing. Also that nobody else will remember seems strange, as while given sufficient amounts of time you may be forgotten, your memory, particularly if you live a 'good' life, can reasonably be expected to affect those you knew in life. So what if 10,000 years from now nobody remembers you, you can still impact those you love for the better and in turn they can do so and so on and so on.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Dravin

[hungrytrash]

If Lazarus could be recreated as he was, I have no problems with Adam being made from the Earth. What we see as pointers to a common origin could easily be the result of God designing all life similarly, and with the same code (which isn't surprising), with certain fundamental characteristics common to more and more life the further back you go. I believe in evolution on some level, but not in its entirety. I don't know how evolution works together with the Fall. It doesn't bother me, but the Fall is one of the things I am most curious to understand. There are important things we can learn from it.

1) God couldn't create us Telestial. He had to create us Terrestrial in order to be in harmony with Eternal Law.

2) We couldn't become Celestial without falling to the Telestial. To fall to the Telestial, we had to do it on our own through breaking the Terrestrial law, and thus falling to the lower Telestial law.

The Fall is something like a loophole. God wanted us to fall, which is strange to think about, since to fall is to sin. How could God have wanted us to sin, ever, and still be perfect? Perhaps it didn't matter, since that sin would be forgiven through the atonement, thus God couldn't sin by wanting Adam to sin, knowing Adam's sin was already forgiven through the atonement and that the result would be good. Time doesn't work for God the way it does for us.

Likewise, the atonement is also a loophole of sorts. I don't think we'll ever really understand either of them in this life. I reject the conflicting commandments idea also. I do not believe God is allowed to do that.

Another idea. The Atonement affected people before it happened. The Fall could have as well.

I personally believe Adam and Eve were physically immortal. They had Terrestrial bodies, equivalent to the body of a translated person. The fruit could have mortalized their bodies, if it was literally a fruit, which is up in the air.

We know specifically that the plants of the Earth are here because seeds were brought here from other worlds. They didn't evolve from one common origin of life. It's strange to think about, because one would think that the method of creation would be the same universally. Why make life out of existing life for plants, but create Adam spontaneously? Everything is so confusing >_<

[Seminarysnoozer]

If Lazarus could be recreated as he was, I have no problems with Adam being made from the Earth. What we see as pointers to a common origin could easily be the result of God designing all life similarly, and with the same code (which isn't surprising), with certain fundamental characteristics common to more and more life the further back you go. I believe in evolution on some level, but not in its entirety. I don't know how evolution works together with the Fall. It doesn't bother me, but the Fall is one of the things I am most curious to understand. There are important things we can learn from it.

1) God couldn't create us Telestial. He had to create us Terrestrial in order to be in harmony with Eternal Law.

2) We couldn't become Celestial without falling to the Telestial. To fall to the Telestial, we had to do it on our own through breaking the Terrestrial law, and thus falling to the lower Telestial law.

The Fall is something like a loophole. God wanted us to fall, which is strange to think about, since to fall is to sin. How could God have wanted us to sin, ever, and still be perfect? Perhaps it didn't matter, since that sin would be forgiven through the atonement, thus God couldn't sin by wanting Adam to sin, knowing Adam's sin was already forgiven through the atonement and that the result would be good. Time doesn't work for God the way it does for us.

Likewise, the atonement is also a loophole of sorts. I don't think we'll ever really understand either of them in this life. I reject the conflicting commandments idea also. I do not believe God is allowed to do that.

Another idea. The Atonement affected people before it happened. The Fall could have as well.

I personally believe Adam and Eve were physically immortal. They had Terrestrial bodies, equivalent to the body of a translated person. The fruit could have mortalized their bodies, if it was literally a fruit, which is up in the air.

We know specifically that the plants of the Earth are here because seeds were brought here from other worlds. They didn't evolve from one common origin of life. It's strange to think about, because one would think that the method of creation would be the same universally. Why make life out of existing life for plants, but create Adam spontaneously? Everything is so confusing >_<

Amen to most everything you say here (except Terrestrial bodies idea and seeds brought from another world - could have just been patterns brought here, i.e. - DNA, RNA). I am wondering where you get that God created Adam and Eve as Terrestrial bodies? Is there a source for that information?

So, God can 'walk and talk' with Terrestrial bodies? I thought it was common belief that God walked and talked with Adam in the garden. Also, Adam (Michael) was celestial before getting the body, wasn't he?

[hungrytrash]

It is specified as seeds, but I'd be fine with accepting it as symbolism. The world was Terrestrial when God created it. The Fall made it Telestial. "...that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory."

Telestial bodies don't live in a Terrestrial world.

The entire fact that Adam fell should make it clear. He fell from Terrestrial to Telestial.

“This earth and all that pertains to it, including every form of life on the face thereof, was first created in a terrestrial or paradisiacal state. Incident to the fall of Adam, the earth itself and all life on its face fell to their present telestial state” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., p.633).

God talked face to face with Joseph Smith, only requiring that he was transfigured (and thus had a temporary Terrestrial body). Adam and Eve weren't permanently in God's presence, but were visited by Him. Being immortal, they could withstand His presence.

----------

"Also, Adam (Michael) was celestial before getting the body, wasn't he?"

In a sense, yes. But physically he wasn't. I'm referring to physically. I don't know by what method of progression our spirits excelled in the premortal world. We were intelligences before we gained our spirit bodies, and I don't know what kind of law intelligences live by. What I do know, is that experiencing opposition was necessary for every single person that has ever and will ever live, in order to have a fulness of joy and reach maturity. If it weren't so, all spirits that could have progressed to a "Celestial" point in the premortal world would have been reared to such a state, and then instantly given resurrected bodies. There would have been no point in this entire probation. The fact is, we reached a point where we couldn't progress any further in the mansions of our Father. There's a difference between living solely in the Celestial home of our Father and us each having our own Celestial home. A child can live in the house of his parents, but just because he lives in such a beautiful home doesn't equate that he possesses the maturity and growth necessary to acquire a similar one of his own.

Solely living with God was never the hard part. We achieved that millenia ago. God wants more for us. He wants us to grow up. The only way for us to grow up was to leave our home and experience life without being spoon-fed by our Parents. We needed to become somewhat independent. Our Parents are always there to help us when we need it, and to guide us on the best path, but in order for us to reach our potential and become independent, we had to be separated from the presence of our Father.

Isn't that the glory of it all? Life here is about more than just receiving a body. God could have given us all resurrected bodies and we'd be dwelling in His mansions right now. But that would have permanently halted our growth, and the amount of joy we could experience. God is our Father, and He wants His children to grow up and be happy. He wants us to become independent and start our own families. Had we not these experiences of opposition, we'd never have been prepared or capable of rearing our own families in the eternities and having our own houses.

The definitions of Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial are somewhat tricky. They hold up best in reference to a Being that already has a body. We obeyed Celestial law in the premortal world, and in that sense, we were Celestial. But there was more growth to be had, obviously. When I say that God can't create something Celestial without it first being Telestial, I'm referring to with bodies. I believe that once a person is resurrected, there's a degree of permanence to many things about them. And if someone is resurrected prematurely, their state becomes somewhat permanent and their growth is, to a degree, halted. Thus why there is no progression from kingdom to kingdom. Thus why there is no marriage given after the resurrection. So maybe God could give us Celestial bodies without a probation, but it would be wrong for Him to do it. He'd be stunting us, as we'd never be able to feel opposition with those bodies, and our spirits would be unprepared to possess the bodies.

I really just confused myself a whole lot. Need to ponder!

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is specified as seeds, but I'd be fine with accepting it as symbolism. The world was Terrestrial when God created it. The Fall made it Telestial. "...that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory."

Telestial bodies don't live in a Terrestrial world.

The entire fact that Adam fell should make it clear. He fell from Terrestrial to Telestial.

“This earth and all that pertains to it, including every form of life on the face thereof, was first created in a terrestrial or paradisiacal state. Incident to the fall of Adam, the earth itself and all life on its face fell to their present telestial state” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., p.633).

God talked face to face with Joseph Smith, only requiring that he was transfigured (and thus had a temporary Terrestrial body). Adam and Eve weren't permanently in God's presence, but were visited by Him. Being immortal, they could withstand His presence.

----------

"Also, Adam (Michael) was celestial before getting the body, wasn't he?"

In a sense, yes. But physically he wasn't. I'm referring to physically. I don't know by what method of progression our spirits excelled in the premortal world. We were intelligences before we gained our spirit bodies, and I don't know what kind of law intelligences live by. What I do know, is that experiencing opposition was necessary for every single person that has ever and will ever live, in order to have a fulness of joy and reach maturity. If it weren't so, all spirits that could have progressed to a "Celestial" point in the premortal world would have been reared to such a state, and then instantly given resurrected bodies. There would have been no point in this entire probation. The fact is, we reached a point where we couldn't progress any further in the mansions of our Father. There's a difference between living solely in the Celestial home of our Father and us each having our own Celestial home. A child can live in the house of his parents, but just because he lives in such a beautiful home doesn't equate that he possesses the maturity and growth necessary to acquire a similar one of his own.

Solely living with God was never the hard part. We achieved that millenia ago. God wants more for us. He wants us to grow up. The only way for us to grow up was to leave our home and experience life without being spoon-fed by our Parents. We needed to become somewhat independent. Our Parents are always there to help us when we need it, and to guide us on the best path, but in order for us to reach our potential and become independent, we had to be separated from the presence of our Father.

Isn't that the glory of it all? Life here is about more than just receiving a body. God could have given us all resurrected bodies and we'd be dwelling in His mansions right now. But that would have permanently halted our growth, and the amount of joy we could experience. God is our Father, and He wants His children to grow up and be happy. He wants us to become independent and start our own families. Had we not these experiences of opposition, we'd never have been prepared or capable of rearing our own families in the eternities and having our own houses.

The definitions of Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial are somewhat tricky. They hold up best in reference to a Being that already has a body. We obeyed Celestial law in the premortal world, and in that sense, we were Celestial. But there was more growth to be had, obviously. When I say that God can't create something Celestial without it first being Telestial, I'm referring to with bodies. I believe that once a person is resurrected, there's a degree of permanence to many things about them. And if someone is resurrected prematurely, their state becomes somewhat permanent and their growth is, to a degree, halted. Thus why there is no progression from kingdom to kingdom. Thus why there is no marriage given after the resurrection. So maybe God could give us Celestial bodies without a probation, but it would be wrong for Him to do it. He'd be stunting us, as we'd never be able to feel opposition with those bodies, and our spirits would be unprepared to possess the bodies.

I really just confused myself a whole lot. Need to ponder!

Thanks for your answer, I am wondering why you are saying they were created in a Terrestrial world when we know that God's presence wont be with the Terrestrial kingdom. Adam and Eve were in Gods presence while in the Garden. We know they were in a paradisaical state. We are just comparing that to degrees of glory of course but wouldn't it compare better to Celestial, as they are in God's presence?

[hungrytrash]

Well, as I sort of mentioned, God has appeared to us even in this Telestial world. The Terrestrial kingdom won't have the fulness of the Father, but I would venture to say that He would definitely visit. We know that we, as exalted Beings, can visit Terrestrial worlds. To say that God would never do so seems a bit strange.

The difference is, the Celestial kingdom is LIVING with the Father, rather than the occasional visit.

[Universeman]

I believe in evolution on some level, but not in its entirety.

We know specifically that the plants of the Earth are here because seeds were brought here from other worlds. They didn't evolve from one common origin of life. It's strange to think about, because one would think that the method of creation would be the same universally. Why make life out of existing life for plants, but create Adam spontaneously? Everything is so confusing >_<

the·o·ry

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution is not a "belief", it is fact. By saying you only "believe" in evolution on a certain level (evolutionists don't "believe" in evolution, evolution is a proven fact from numerous different scientific disciplines), You are basically saying to science:

"I do not believe what you say. Show me that it must be true and I will still continue not believing it."

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Douglas Adams

I honestly think the problem most members have with evolution is a lack of understanding of the deeper meaning of the gospel. On my mission I remember worrying about dinosaur fossils and the fall of Adam, I even prayed for an answer to this question, it really really bothered me. I am sorry to report that I did not receive any revelation on the matter, it has always been there, a nagging little doubt. Only recently did I find The Mormon Organon and I was like holy cow BYU teaches evolution?!!! That settled it for me once and for all, no more false dichotomy, I am at completely at peace except for the trembling excitement I feel every time I learn something new about evolution. I freely confess to not believing in evolution untill recently, I understand your doubts about it. But I also encourage all to study the topic, look at the evidence, it is all there, in the ground and in every creatures DNA.

BYU NewsNet - Science professors don't view evolution as an 'either-or' proposition

"Too often we assume a false dichotomy," said biology professor Jerry Johnson. "Yet one can accept evolution and still be a faithful follower of Christ."

The Fall is something like a loophole. God wanted us to fall, which is strange to think about, since to fall is to sin. How could God have wanted us to sin, ever, and still be perfect? Perhaps it didn't matter, since that sin would be forgiven through the atonement, thus God couldn't sin by wanting Adam to sin, knowing Adam's sin was already forgiven through the atonement and that the result would be good. Time doesn't work for God the way it does for us.

Why the mental gymnastics? If we have no clue on a particular gospel subject, and no way of finding out the answer unless we receive specific revelation on it, then dont worry about it. Stick to the gospel basics and its cool to go nuts with science, We can embrace science, we really really can. From here on out I ban mental gymnastics, only scientific truth or basic gospel principles are allowed, don't make me unleash FSMs noodly wrath on you! http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/fsmbrochure.jpg

“This earth and all that pertains to it, including every form of life on the face thereof, was first created in a terrestrial or paradisiacal state. Incident to the fall of Adam, the earth itself and all life on its face fell to their present telestial state” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., p.633).

Just because an apostle has a personal opinion on a topic, like evolution, does not gospel it make. General authoritys are not infallible.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Universeman
spelling

[hungrytrash]

the·o·ry

Evolution is not a "belief", it is fact. By saying you anly "believe" in evolutionon a certain level (evolutionists don't "believe" in evolution, evolution is a proven fact from numerous different scientific disciplines), You are basically saying to science:

Evolution is a very big topic. Multiple theories about the same thing exist within it. To say 'Evolution is not a "belief", it is fact,' is far too general. Two people can believe evolution works differently, but still acknowledge that it happens.

I acknowledge that there are mutations and that a species can and will change over time. I acknowledge the majority of evolution, but not necessarily the conclusions and ideas that are drawn from its existence. I don't, for example, believe that because of evolution, all examples of life on this Earth are the descendants of a single instance of life that reproduced and evolved over countless millenia. That would make the idea of spirits being made in the form of their future physical bodies a bit strange to comprehend.

I believe in facts. I am careful about the way that I interpret supposed "fact" relative to the revealed words of the Lord.

[Universeman]

I believe in facts. I am careful about the way that I interpret supposed "fact" relative to the revealed words of the Lord.

I am by no means an expert on the subject of evolution, but my testimony is strong enough that I do not have to walk on egg shells about how I interpret scientific fact with relation to our limited knowledge of how our Heavenly Father runs the universe.

D&C 130:18Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. Bertrand Russell

“Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!”

What is Evolution?

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

BYU NewsNet - Science professors don't view evolution as an 'either-or' proposition

"We have the best of both worlds," Whiting said. "We can teach in the light of the restored gospel. [When students have a] better understanding of evolution, they realize their faith isn't being challenged."

Professors do not avoid the topic of evolution at BYU or modify Darwin's theories in class. "We're teaching a solid, rigorous evolution course," Johnson said.

"We spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible," Johnson said. "We try to unburden students from the idea of either-or. That's baggage they don't have to carry."

"Faith-affirming" evolution

Johnson said his study of evolution has not diminished his faith, but has strengthened it by giving him a greater understanding of the creation.

"It gives me insight into the creator's mechanism," Johnson said. "I hope every student comes out of my class with a greater testimony of the creation God has made."

Whiting, who teaches a Book of Mormon class this semester as well as evolutionary biology, said he finds it much more impressive to view God creating species through the mechanism of evolution rather than individually.

"I find it very faith-affirming," Whiting said. "We learn about the nature of the creator."

Johnson said sometimes fitting together science and religion does create challenges, but students should not let this become a roadblock.

He gave an analogy of building a rock wall. When he finds a good rock, but it doesn't fit into the wall, instead of throwing it out, he sets it aside to see if it will fit later. Johnson said often in biology, religion and life, all the answers do not come immediately, but that does not mean we should discard good ideas, such as evolution.

"We need to be careful not to think that we understand everything, both from a science and religious perspective," Johnson said. "It's OK not to have all the answers."

Professors said it helped students to understand the view of the creation in LDS theology, which does not always align with traditional interpretations of the creation story in Genesis.

"The first thing is to realize we are not creationists the way the world understands it," Crandall said.

He said understanding this makes it easier to fit the two together.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well, as I sort of mentioned, God has appeared to us even in this Telestial world. The Terrestrial kingdom won't have the fulness of the Father, but I would venture to say that He would definitely visit. We know that we, as exalted Beings, can visit Terrestrial worlds. To say that God would never do so seems a bit strange.

The difference is, the Celestial kingdom is LIVING with the Father, rather than the occasional visit.

Okay, I can accept that, thanks. Tell me where you got the description that the world and that the Garden of Eden was a "terrestrial" type creation. Where can I find that described in that way? Specifically, where can I find it written that Adam and Eve were created as Terrestrial beings in the Garden of Eden?

... we lived with our Father before we came here too.

[hungrytrash]

Okay, I can accept that, thanks. Tell me where you got the description that the world and that the Garden of Eden was a "terrestrial" type creation. Where can I find that described in that way? Specifically, where can I find it written that Adam and Eve were created as Terrestrial beings in the Garden of Eden?

... we lived with our Father before we came here too.

Didn't I give it to you?

“This earth and all that pertains to it, including every form of life on the face thereof, was first created in a terrestrial or paradisiacal state. Incident to the fall of Adam, the earth itself and all life on its face fell to their present telestial state” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., p.633)."