Intelligent Design

[Serg]

What do any of you would say of William Dembsky's "Intelligent Design",1998 ?

I just read it, I find it refreshing in view of so much hostility in evolutionary discourse...

[boyando]

What do any of you would say of William Dembsky's "Intelligent Design",1998 ?

I just read it, I find it refreshing in view of so much hostility in evolutionary discourse...

Never read it. I like the Idea.

Over the years, I'v heard many things that make evolution, very unlikely. My testimony, for me makes evolution, impossible.

I wouldn't mind hearing from those of us who are not scienetist, what there own favorite, reason(s) why evolution, is unlikly. Lets see if we can figure out a few thing, with out being told what to think. A.

[sgallan]

And why you are being told what "not" to think..... remember to - the next time you have a medical issue - to avoid all of modern medicine, which is science based. Except for your kids, who deserve not to die because of your anti-science pogrom.

[Snow]

And why you are being told what "not" to think..... remember to - the next time you have a medical issue - to avoid all of modern medicine, which is science based. Except for your kids, who deserve not to die because of your anti-science pogrom.

Oh geeze Scott,

No one said that he/she didn't think for themselves or eschewed science. Who kicked your dog today?

[Moonfire]

And why you are being told what "not" to think..... remember to - the next time you have a medical issue - to avoid all of modern medicine, which is science based. Except for your kids, who deserve not to die because of your anti-science pogrom.

So what your saying is that science is perfect and infallible? Science never makes mistakes? So the medicines they had on the market for certain diseases and health problems, they are all good because science says so. Then can you explain to me why some of those medicines where taken off of the shelves because they caused bad reactions and in some cases death? Is science really that perfect?

And...... I believe in intellegent design myself, until I am proven wrong. I tried at one point to put my faith in human understanding alone. While we know a lot, we don't know everything, especially in the area of medicine. It is our human arrogance that makes us pretend we do know everything.

I find it hard to believe that evolution, without the guiding hand of a supreme being, could have just happened. I believe in evolution to a certain degree, but like I said I don't think all of this could have just popped up out of no where.

[Brother Dorsey]

I believe in intellegent design myself, until I am proven wrong.

I find it hard to believe that evolution, without the guiding hand of a supreme being, could have just happened. I believe in evolution to a certain degree, but like I said I don't think all of this could have just popped up out of no where.

Moon....I had my doubts about Adam & Eve also...and at 8 years old I had my own intelligent design theroy....I figured God started the whole evolutionary process from the (splitting of the first one celled animal in the oceans (Adam & Eve)) up until the first Humans appeared....I believed this.....but...after I found the Gospel and everything was explained to me...it made much more sense to me...science and theroy are not infallable...remember evolution is a theroy not a fact....God is fact, the Gospel is fact....

[Snow]

Mormons and Evolution

Please note that this is an essay that covers the current state of evidence for evolution in a summary fashion. It is written by a man, David H. Bailey, who has published a good deal of research in this area, and who is a faithful Latter-day Saint.

David H. Bailey

I must confess that I find the continuing debates about what some LDS general authorities have said about evolution and the age of the earth, or what the "official" LDS position is on these issues, to be rather tiresome at this point in time. Such debates just don't matter any more, except perhaps to historians, because the scientific facts supporting the basic notions of these theories are now just too well established. Past writings by General Authorities or other religious leaders criticizing these theories only prove that they are human. I think it's time we accepted this and moved on.

Please indulge me while I discuss this matter in some detail.

I. Overview of Current Scientific Evidence

Once one could argue that there were uncertainties in geological dating, or that there are too many "missing links" in the fossil record, or that the fundamental mechanisms of heredity and evolution were not known. But in the last few decades, things have changed.

That the earth is many millions of years old is now well established. Measured dates of individual geological layers, even when taken from samples on opposite sides of the earth, agree. Many thousands of these measurements have been made, using a number of different techniques. Can they all simultaneously be in error? One modern dating technique is known as "fission track" dating. This is based on the spontaneous fission of uranium atoms, which occurs at a well-established rate not influenced by temperature, pressure, or chemical combination. Such fissions leave a distinctive track in specimens of a certain type of crystal. Thus by counting the number of tracks in a given specimen, and by measuring its uranium content, a very reliable date can be determined.

With regards to evolution, every year or so it seems we hear of some new discovery of early hominid fossils -- not just isolated teeth or bones, but nearly complete skeletons in some cases. A number of other convincing "missing link" fossils have recently been discovered. Natural evolution has been exhibited in ways obvious to anyone, including changes observed in the resistance of certain diseases to medicines, and in changes in the AIDS virus since it was first discovered.

The recent advancements in molecular biology, including the discovery of the structure of DNA and the role of mutations, has provided a clear mechanism for heredity and evolution. Computer simulations of these processes not only verify the theory of evolution but have also been applied to completely different fields. The resulting schemes, which are known as "genetic algorithms", are for some computational problems the most efficient solution schemes known.

Further, countless comparisons of DNA sequences between species have now been published. Hemoglobin molecule sequences have also been catalogued for many species. These results provide virtually incontestable evidence of evolution, since scientists no longer have to rely on vague similarities in appearance between different species -- the evolutionary distance between species can now be objectively and quantitatively measured. For example, the 141-long alpha chain of the hemoglobin molecule is identical in chimpanzees, differs in only one location in gorillas, yet differs in 25 locations in rabbits and in over 100 locations in fish.

Even more dramatic are the recent announcements of recovering DNA from ancient organisms. Ironically, one of the most dramatic of these discoveries, namely dinosaur DNA, was made by an LDS scientist (Scott Woodward at BYU). These developments herald the advent of what Charles Darwin, in his wildest fantasies, might not have imagined possible: the direct analysis of the course of evolution, including human evolution, at the DNA level, through the eons.

All of these results are supported by reams of meticulous research, and there is more than enough dissent in the field to insure that any weakly supported or imprecisely argued claims are ripped apart. Too bad the religious world doesn't subject itself to such rigorous analysis!

II. Creationist Counter-Arguments

A small group of "creation scientists", funded by a coalition of fundamentalist Christian sects, has generated literature criticizing the conventional scientific theories, and proposing its own alternate theories. Many religious-minded people, including many LDS people, have found these arguments convincing, since they reinforce a straightforward literal interpretation of Biblical scriptures. However, they fall far short of having sufficient substance to be taken seriously by knowledgeable scientists (and not just because of their Biblical slant).

The most sophisticated and convincing of the creationist arguments are based on probability. I myself studied probability theory while a graduate student Stanford, and as far as I can see these arguments are all fallacious. The usual flaw is that they ignore the trillions of possible alternate biological systems that could have arisen on earth but didn't. All one can really conclude from these lines of reasoning is that our particular DNA sequence and biochemistry are unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere.

The creationist literature pretty well goes downhill from here. For example, they like to argue that evolution is impossible because it is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. Sadly, the LDS authority Elder George R. Hill used this line of reasoning in his article in the June 1993 Ensign. But the SLOT only applies to closed systems, not to the earth's biosphere, which is continually receiving prodigious amounts of energy from the sun. Using the creationists' SLOT argument, one could just as well conclude that snowflakes, convection currents in pots of hot water, as well as all other spontaneously organizing phenomena, are fundamentally impossible.

Another creationist argument is that if conventional geologic dating were correct, then the Apollo astronauts would have been engulfed in 100 feet of moon dust. This claim is based on some early, flawed estimates of the rate of flow of space dust. These estimates were corrected many years ago with more accurate measurements, made by spacecraft. Needless to say, these newer measurements are completely consistent with the small amount of dust found by the astronauts.

One other creationist favorite is the famous "human" footprint found in an ancient dinosaur fossil bed near the Paluxy River in Texas. But this has been exposed as a fraud. It is also completely inconsistent with other fossils in the area, which represent thousands of species, yet not a single specimen of any mammal larger than a mouse.

Some of the creationist theories are so ludicrous that I don't know how any intelligent person can present them and hold a straight face. One of these is the notion that all of the worldwide geological layers were deposited during Noah's flood, and that the reason more advanced animal fossils are found near the top is that they could swim better. Why then indeed are the geological layers so well defined? What about infants, the sick or the aged -- why didn't they sink to the bottom?

III. Geology and Evolution at BYU

Those of you who have attended BYU are probably aware that the conventional scientific theories of geology, paleontology, botany and zoology are taught at the school, with the approval of the administration. These departments have successfully beaten back several attempts to impose creationism at the university. BYU has a number of very well respected scientists in this area, including Scott Woodward (mentioned above) in DNA, Duane Jeffery in genetics, and Jim Jensen (now retired) in geology, who assembled what is currently the largest collection of dinosaur fossils. It is stored under the BYU football stadium.

It is important to note that not one of the numerous LDS scientists at BYU currently espouses the creationist viewpoint, according to a recent surveys of the faculty. Thus those Mormons who insist on a literal reading of Genesis not only place themselves outside the mainstream of worldly scientific thought, but they also place themselves outside the mainstream of LDS scientific thought as well.

IV. Religious Implications

None of this means that one has to abandon belief in God, the Plan of Salvation, the Atonement of Christ, or any other basic doctrine. One can even believe that God oversaw the process of creation and evolution and be consistent with known scientific facts. But, in my opinion, thinking latter-day saints (or thinking Christians of any denomination, for that matter) cannot continue to cling onto the classical notion that God created the earth and universe a few thousand years ago, or that there were no living or dying beings on earth before Adam. We have to at least accept the basic outline, that the earth is many millions of years old, and that there has been a steady progression of living organisms, culminating in beings much like modern humans, through the ages.

The only other choice, as far as I can see, is to posit that God created the earth out of thin air about 6000 years ago, complete with an intricate system of fossil-laden, radiometrically dated rocks, plus a hundred other very convincing indications of a old evolutionary origin. Further, depending on how one reads Genesis, one may have to posit (as creationist Duane Gish has actually suggested) that God created the entire universe at this time, complete with light rays already streaming on a path to the earth as if they had originated from stars that are millions of light years away. Why? As a "test of faith"?

I submit that such a creator, guilty as he/she presumably is of executing a deliberate fraud of an inconceivably wide-ranging scope, is utterly unworthy of our worship or obedience. My God is a god of truth, reason and rationality, who rewards diligent, honest seekers of truth with ever grander rewards of knowledge.

Furthermore, if Mormons continue to deny very well established scientific facts, then the LDS Church will find itself in a camp with only most extreme wing of the literal fundamentalists. This in general is the same group which produces most of the anti-Mormon propaganda that is distributed. Would this have been the wishes of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other founders of our faith? Is this your wish?

Joseph Smith shocked his contemporaries by teaching that the Bible is incomplete, incorrectly translated and not necessarily 100% inspired. He also taught, contrary to orthodox Catholic and Protestant doctrines, that God's miracles are not contraventions of natural law, but that instead God works within the realm of natural laws, and that we can discover these laws by diligent study and faith. Joseph specifically denied the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Brigham Young was particularly explicit in rejecting a highly literal

reading of the creation scriptures: “ As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.” [brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, pg. 116 (May 14, 1871).]

Growing up in Utah Valley, with its ring of mountains exposing intricate, convoluted geological layers, and with amazing fossils (esp. dinosaurs) at numerous locations around the state, it seemed clear to me that the Lord led the Saints to this region so that they would not be seduced by creationism. Why then do Mormons cling to Biblical literalism even today? It beats me!

V. Conclusion

A quote from Elder B. H. Roberts sums up this discussion quite well: “On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side of Adam's advent to the earth, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed by some, is to fly in the face of the facts so indisputably brought to light by the researcher of science in modern times, and this as set forth by men of the highest type in the intellectual and moral world; not inferior men, or men of sensual and devilish temperament, but men who must be accounted as among the noblest and most self-sacrificing of the sons of men -- of the type whence must come the noblest sons of God, since ‘the glory of God is intelligence’ (D&C 93:36); and that too the glory of man.”

These searchers after truth are of that class. To pay attention to and give reasonable credence to their research and findings is to link the church of God with the highest increase of human thought and effort. On that side lies development, on the other lies contraction. It is on the former side that research work is going on and will continue to go on, future investigation and discoveries will continue on that side, nothing will retard them, and nothing will develop on the other side. One leads to narrow sectarianism, the other keeps the open spirit of a world movement with which our New Dispensation began. As between them which is to be our choice?

[brigham H. Roberts, "The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology", 1930 (republished by SRA in 1994), pg. 363-364.]

Note that the above passage was written by B. H. Roberts in 1930. Consider for a moment how much more compelling this conclusion is today!

[Moonfire]

That is an excellent article. And what amazes me is the time it was written.

There is so much we don't know that it out shadows what we do know. But I will still say, no matter the scientific methods involved, nothing is 100%. We know a lot but it is only a piece of a much larger puzzle that we as humans will never completely understand no matter how close we get.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I found the above article to be sound and I agree with much of it.

There are a number of things which are not taught or discussed among LDS Church members that bear consideration. The main problem most LDS members have with evolution is that it requires the occurence of the death of billions of organisms over millions of years to account for the fossil record in the strata of the earth's crust. Yet the scriptures say there was no death before the Fall of Adam (Moses 6:48, 59). How can these two seemingly contradictory teachings be harmonized?

There is a way for both views to be correct at the same time. The first clue is found in the Pearl of Great Price. Readers should note that the account of creation in the Book of Moses is a record of the spiritual creation of the earth and the life forms inhabiting it, etc... while the account of creation in the Book of Abraham is a record of the physical creation of the earth and the life forms inhabiting it, etc...

Abraham 5:3 says the Gods decided to sanctify the earth on the seventh day of the physical creation. Well okay, what does sanctify mean in this context? Does it just mean to designate it as a day of rest? Or could it mean something else entirely? Let's turn to D&C 77:12 for the answer:

"Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?

A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming."

I've put important bits in bold type. I'm not putting forth this idea as gospel truth (if you'll pardon the pun), but bear with me if you'd be so kind. This verse links the sanctification of the earth and all life on it on the seventh "day" of creation with the sanctification of the earth that will take place at the beginning of the Millennium, after Christ's Second Coming. Well I won't list all the scriptures but I'm sure we're all pretty familiar with the fact that during the Millenium there will be no death, the earth will be changed (valleys exalted, mountains brought low, etc...) and essentially "translated" into a more glorious state than it now occupies.

So we have sanctification being loosely defined as changing a telestial planet where death occurs into a more glorious planet where there is no death. Hmmm, a glorified earth without death...sound like the conditions of the earth during Adam and Eve's stay in the Garden of Eden prior to their Fall?

Well if you look at D&C 77:12 again, it not only says that the earth wasn't sanctified (which involves banishing death if we define sanctification according to the sanctification of the world during the Millennium) until the seventh "day" of creation, but it also says that on the seventh "day" of creation is when man was formed of the dust of the earth...basically, when Adam and Eve were placed in Eden.

So let's construct a few syllogisms, shall we?

Syllogism #1:

A. During the Millenium, there will be no death and the earth will become more glorious than it now is;

B. D&C 77:12 calls this change "sanctification;"

Therefore...

C. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death.

Taking the C from above and using it as the starting point for a new syllogism:

Syllogism #2:

A. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death;

B. D&C 77:12 says God sanctified the earth on the seventh "day" of its creation process;

Therefore...

C. For the first "six" days of the earth's creation process, it was unsanctified.

Taking the first and second syllogism's C's we form the next syllogism:

Syllogism #3:

A. For the first "six" days of the earth's creation process, it was unsanctified;

B. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death;

Therefore...

C. Before the seventh "day" of creation when the earth was sanctified, there could have been death among the forms of life inhabiting it.

Note again how D&C 77:12 links the placement of man onto the earth with its sanctification. This sanctification can rightly be called "a beginning." It was the beginning of the earth's existence in a more glorious, death-free state, and it was the beginning of mankind's existence on this new death-free earth. So...

Syllogism #4:

A. The earth was sanctified on the seventh "day" of creation;

B. Adam and Eve were formed of the dust of the earth on the seventh "day" of creation;

Therefore...

C. There was no death on the earth after the arrival of Adam and Eve, until their Fall.

Hence, Adam truly did bring death into the world with his and Eve's transgression. This does not preclude the possibility that life forms inhabiting the earth could have died before the earth's seventh-"day"-sanctification. As we've seen, sanctification is linked with changing matter and life to a death-less state of existence (as per the Millennial change to come). So for first six "days" of the earth's creation process, all manner of life could have lived, multiplied, and died on the earth, leaving massive amounts of fossil data for us to uncover in our day. But, after the seventh "day" when the earth was sanctified and Adam and Eve were placed on it, there would have been no death if Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the forbidden fruit.

With these concepts in mind, it is entirely possible to marry the seemingly contradictory ideas proposed by science and faith, namely:

First, the idea that organisms (simple and complex) lived and died for millions of years in this earth's ancient existence; and,

Second, the idea that there was no death prior to Adam's Fall after the earth was sanctified or made death-free on the seventh period of creation.

Remember, Abraham's account of the earth's physical creation refers to the seven periods as "times," not "days" as does Moses's account of the earth's spiritual creation. Furthermore, Abraham never states that the seven periods of time were equal in duration.

So one last syllogism:

Syllogism #5:

A. For six periods of time in the earth's creation process death could have existed among the many life forms living on it (since it was not yet sanctified);

B. The earth was sanctified or made death-free in the same period of time (seventh) when Adam and Eve were placed on the newly-sanctified earth;

Therefore...

C. After the earth was sanctified, there would have been no death from the time Adam and Eve arrived until their Fall, hence Adam did bring death into the world as the scriptures teach.

I'm not saying this is the gospel truth. I'm proposing a way of reading and interpreting scripture and scientific data that allows both to exist side-by-side without contradiction. I will leave you all to draw your own conclusions. My view about all of this is liquid and dynamic, open to change as new facts and/or revelations come to light. For now, I take the stance that death could have existed prior to the earth's seventh-day-sanctification, but not after Adam and Eve arrived on the earth until they transgressed.

These concepts are explored in greater depth in the excellent book "Earth in the Beginning," by LDS author Erik N. Skousen, Ph.D.

[Serg]

I do not agree with the idea of macro evolution, but indeed accept micro evolution. But as to Demsky's book, and to settle the science thing down, he (as most others) accept "Science, is after all, a very falliable enterprise".

I accept th Design Inference as science, because(not only it IS) but it is more sound than evolution. Theistic evolution(as judged by naturalistic-atheist-evolutionists) is a sign of denial and desperate(coward) try to reconcile the "autosufficient nature" to the reality of scriptural faith.

We may do good to expose, that nature is NOT autocontained, or autosufficient, or autogoverned by "natural"(hence, logical and impersonal) "laws" that are out of the reach of the Three. That is a thought that was developed in th e18 century, a shame we still have that load on us.

Even Darwin did not agree with theistic evolution, as he himself(not an atheist) confessed(in the last chapter of teh origin of Species): 'it is not that God is a false explanation for all this, is just that I cannot give it as a satisfactory cientific explanation".(not a textual quote)

[Moonfire]

This is a great forum. I love the way everyone discusses things, does not judge and explains things in an informative and detailed way.

This is a nice change compared to the insanity of todays world.

I am seriously thinking about a home study of some sort soon.

So far I have seen that Mormons are definitley Christians, but also intellegent and thinking Christians that don't just follow the herd blindly. Again this is a nice change compared to other things in this world.

I have a question that is more or less a part of this conversation. If I understand this correctly, we all pre-existed, correct? If so then how does that fit into all that we are talking about here? If this was already covered here and I missed it I apologize. My attention right now is split between a few things.

[Serg]

That depends, how it affected the issues of the Godhead, the planning for earth, the "heacenly council", the Temple Truths, you name it, it is too wide for me or anybody to just answer. Be specific :)

[Moonfire]

I seem to be doing more then I can handle, lol. Give me a second to respond to this. Does anyone know if I am coming or going?

Edit:

Ok. What I mean is with Evolution. Lets say that God created the world. Each "day" is a time period. With each "time period" it is not known how long each one was.

So, going with that, on the seventh day?, God created man in his image. Could it be at that point, after thousand or millions of years of creating earth, that then the spiritual beings became human, after our spiritual pre-existence, maybe that was the last stage of our human evolution?

I am not sure at all if I am understanding this or if I am even explaining this correctly. Even though I briefly studied with Mormons before, it was not for that long. Life pushed its way in and I stopped studying (twice actually.) So I didn't learn much and what I did learn I forgot much of it. I remember bits and pieces.

[Traveler]

There have been a number of excellent post about science and religion. Snow and Apostle Knight both posted some good stuff that I do not think I want to add to - it was good enough.

As to the question of intelligent design. It is a good idea that has run amok, in that it has become an attempt to bring back creationism under a different name. It is given as a "Christian" alternative to science. My post to to point out that creationism and intelligent design is not science, and is a bad attempt to replace science or if you get right down to it - It just ain't science and has no place in any class room.

I see nothing in current scientific theory that prohibits an intelligent belief in G-d. Those that attempt to define things that do not need new definition make a mistake as far as I am concerned.

The Traveler

[Ray]

I only read part of Snow's post containing some thoughts from somebody else, and I'll read some more on this topic later, but so far I don't see where God is acknowledged as the Father of Adam and Eve.

If I keep reading will I see that acknowledgement???

If not, I will not agree.

I do know that Adam and Eve truly lived... in Eden... in a garden. They lived.

They lived, and then died, and their spirits kept on living. And they have already been resurrected.

Follow-up:

I really liked your post, ApostleKnight, and I now know which book to get next. :)

And btw, I'm not saying I agree with your thinking, but it could possibly be what God thinks.

[Ray]

I seem to be doing more then I can handle, lol. Give me a second to respond to this. Does anyone know if I am coming or going?

Edit:

Ok. What I mean is with Evolution. Lets say that God created the world. Each "day" is a time period. With each "time period" it is not known how long each one was.

So, going with that, on the seventh day?, God created man in his image. Could it be at that point, after thousand or millions of years of creating earth, that then the spiritual beings became human, after our spiritual pre-existence, maybe that was the last stage of our human evolution?

I am not sure at all if I am understanding this or if I am even explaining this correctly. Even though I briefly studied with Mormons before, it was not for that long. Life pushed its way in and I stopped studying (twice actually.) So I didn't learn much and what I did learn I forgot much of it. I remember bits and pieces.

Moonfire,

As you study with "Mormons", please keep one simple thought in mind.

There are some issues which are essential for you (and all other people) to know, and then there are some other issues which really don't matter at this point in time because if your ideas are wrong on those issues at this point in time you can learn the truth later after you understand all of the really essential issues.

For instance, learning all of the details concerning what happened before we were born on Earth is one of those other issues which is really not essential for you or anyone else to understand right now. There is truth concerning those things, but they are not essential. They don't lead you to how to know the truth.

And to whittle all of the essential issues down to as few words as possible, I'd say that what matters is really knowing God... and to get to that point you need to understand the principle of Faith (which concerns how to know God and what God knows is true).

Or in other words, to sum up all that I am trying to say to you in this post, I am saying that when you study with the "Mormons", please don't focus on all of these other issues which are really not important for you (or anyone else) to undertand right now, and instead please focus on what you (and all other people) really need to know right now, which is God and how to know God.

And then once you understand that issue, and it's importance, you can simply ask God what God thinks about anything that you really want to know about.

Other than God and how to really know Him, everything else is just fluff...

... but it can be fun to hear what others think. :)

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

I seem to be doing more then I can handle, lol. Give me a second to respond to this. Does anyone know if I am coming or going?

Edit:

Ok. What I mean is with Evolution. Lets say that God created the world. Each "day" is a time period. With each "time period" it is not known how long each one was.

So, going with that, on the seventh day?, God created man in his image. Could it be at that point, after thousand or millions of years of creating earth, that then the spiritual beings became human, after our spiritual pre-existence, maybe that was the last stage of our human evolution?

I am not sure at all if I am understanding this or if I am even explaining this correctly. Even though I briefly studied with Mormons before, it was not for that long. Life pushed its way in and I stopped studying (twice actually.) So I didn't learn much and what I did learn I forgot much of it. I remember bits and pieces.

Moonfire,

As you study with "Mormons", please keep one simple thought in mind.

There are some issues which are essential for you (and all other people) to know, and then there are some other issues which really don't matter at this point in time because if your ideas are wrong on those issues at this point in time you can learn the truth later after you understand all of the really essential issues.

For instance, learning all of the details concerning what happened before we were born on Earth is one of those other issues which is really not essential for you or anyone else to understand right now. There is truth concerning those things, but they are not essential. They don't lead you to how to know the truth.

And to whittle all of the essential issues down to as few words as possible, I'd say that what matters is really knowing God... and to get to that point you need to understand the principle of Faith (which concerns how to know God and what God knows is true).

Or in other words, to sum up all that I am trying to say to you in this post, I am saying that when you study with the "Mormons", please don't focus on all of these other issues which are really not important for you (or anyone else) to undertand right now, and instead please focus on what you (and all other people) really need to know right now, which is God and how to know God.

And then once you understand that issue, and it's importance, you can simply ask God what God thinks about anything that you really want to know about.

Other than God and how to really know Him, everything else is just fluff...

... but it can be fun to hear what others think. :)

A thing "matters"in the extent a person considers it a need, a whim, a want, a desire, a commandment, etc... It certanely "matters" to teh Body of the Church(in terms of RULES) that males would wear black shirts instead of white ones, you may say(as i do) that is not essential to salvation! But indeed can be(in teh eyes of the Rules) because those ordenances(that really "fit"in the "essential"cathegory) cannot be done or enjoyed if not with a white(accidental, and non important in my eyes) shirt.

Hence, evolution is a topic(just as any other one as a progressing person may rise) that MATTERS, at least to he who needs to know(or more than "knowing", giving it thought at least!), so much, that it was an issue raised more than 75 years ago WITHIN the Church Authoriries, which was the resolution? That they (not all, but those who didnt want to give it some thought or helpful debate), considered it not neccesary to define "at this moment".

Logic, philosophy, theology, science, all are important issues to those who consider them so, as it is part of the knowledge we can gain before leaving this world(not that we will get all the answers, but at least-anmd most importantly-will give it some space and effort in our minds).

Now, as to the topic of evolution, let anybody say what they believe, just that we require some sort of logic and plausible BASE for such a belief, so we can also grow and learn. If all our issues were to be considered "not essential" because we recognize that we have a limitation concerning it's understanding, then we might as well try to understand nothing of the gospel at all! For who in here "comprehendeth light" so fully as to describe the glories that result of charity? Who here grasps fully the power that "faith" can have not only unto repentance but concerning the inimaginable worlds it might lead to? Who here TRULY understand at least 1/2000000000 of Christ's deep love and suffering for us? And many more things, YET we consider these all too deep "issues"as the first "principles"of the gospel!

I am just bringing this out because we have to understand that as much as we want to, we can not be always ending with the circular motto of "that is not an essential" thing, hence, as I myself don't get it(even if YOU can get it) i consider it needless to understand... Imagine when Joseph asked or began practicing plural marriage, if all authorities would have said(as indeed many did-but not all) "hey""lets not practice that or define it now, for we dont comprehend the depth of such -sempiternal covenant-". They would have never practiced it! And we would have been devoided of one of the few preacious times of this Church.

It is true, moonfire, as Ray says, that there are things that "do not matter", but it is that they do not matter "as much"as another "more"essential(or USEFUL) topic, not that it dont matter at all. So you (and all including Ray) can and will speculate and study ALL sorts of topics which we consider important, but we will know always(as a given-so obvious it is even needless to mention it) when such a topic looses contact with it's edifying nature and begins only to be a gibberish human talk.

That's it, :)

regards

[Ray]

It is true, moonfire, as Ray says, that there are things that "do not matter", but it is that they do not matter "as much" as another "more" essential (or USEFUL) topic, not that it dont matter at all.

Thank you, Serg.

I think you got my point.

All we need to know everything is God. :)

[Dr T]

Moonfire,

As you study with "Mormons", please keep one simple thought in mind.

There are some issues which are essential for you (and all other people) to know, and then there are some other issues which really don't matter at this point in time because if your ideas are wrong on those issues at this point in time you can learn the truth later after you understand all of the really essential issues.

For instance, learning all of the details concerning what happened before we were born on Earth is one of those other issues which is really not essential for you or anyone else to understand right now. There is truth concerning those things, but they are not essential. They don't lead you to how to know the truth.

And to whittle all of the essential issues down to as few words as possible, I'd say that what matters is really knowing God... and to get to that point you need to understand the principle of Faith (which concerns how to know God and what God knows is true).

Or in other words, to sum up all that I am trying to say to you in this post, I am saying that when you study with the "Mormons", please don't focus on all of these other issues which are really not important for you (or anyone else) to undertand right now, and instead please focus on what you (and all other people) really need to know right now, which is God and how to know God.

And then once you understand that issue, and it's importance, you can simply ask God what God thinks about anything that you really want to know about.

Other than God and how to really know Him, everything else is just fluff...

... but it can be fun to hear what others think.

Attempted Edit of Ray's above posted:

Moonfire:

When looking into the LDS faith, please keep in mind that there are "essentials" and "nonessentials".

What happened in the preexistence is an example of a “nonessential”. On the other hand, it is essential to Know God (which can be done through faith). Or as Ray said, “Other than God and how to really know Him, everything else is just fluff...”

Does that what you meant Ray?

[Ray]

No, Doc. Here are my comments of your comments of my comments, to try to help you know what I think:

When looking into the LDS faith, please keep in mind that there are "essentials" and "nonessentials".

I was trying to say there are things we really need to know right now, and some other things we don't need to know right now. After reading what you said I got the impression that you think there is a clear line between what is essential and "non-essential" forever, and that is really not what I meant.

What happened in the preexistence is an example of a “nonessential”. On the other hand, it is essential to Know God (which can be done through faith). Or as Ray said, “Other than God and how to really know Him...”

... a nonessential for right now, or for when studying with some "Mormons".

The only essential thing I need to know, and that others need to know, is God (which can ONLY be done through Faith)

Or in other words, I believe that the only thing I (I won't speak for all "Mormons") should be trying to teach others (especially others who are not "Mormon") is God and how to know God... and from there they can ask God what God knows.

...everything else is just fluff.

Exactly. Everything but God and how to know God and all that God knows is just fluff...

... but it can be fun to know what other people think. :)

[Serg]

end of reasoning, Moonlight, dont stop learning or speculating, just keep on it as long as you desire, but cathegorize it as a non-crucial topic as to define the truthfulness of God's reality or this Church's(or any other's) Truth value. Go ahead sweetie, keep asking all the good questions, and look for answers(they ARE out there).

[Dr T]

Ray,

You are a good sport.

:)

Dr. T

[Ray]

Go ahead sweetie, keep asking all the good questions, and look for answers(they ARE out there).

Heh, yes, they are definitely out there. God knows everything about everything there is to know. :)

And once we know God we can know all that God knows.

Kinda neat how it works that way, huh!

Ray,

You are a good sport.

:)

Dr. T

Thank you, Doc. I'm glad you weren't offended by what I was trying to share with you. :)

[Moonfire]

My turn to make some comments on the comments others made of the comments that where made with my original thoughts and comments.

Phew....

I understand what you mean. But let me mention this. When I said I was not going to base things on human understand or logic alone, I should also add this.

For most of my life I have studied and/or have been a part of many different relgions. From various Christian religions to various "pagan" beliefs and religions, including Satanism (Theistic and Symbolic,) as well as Atheism.

Through all of these I noticed a few things. One of the things I noticed is that you always have three types of people.

(These groups are in no special order)

Group 1 - Blindly believe anything and everything (I don't mean this in a "faith" sort of way but in a way that goes to the unthinking extreme.)

Group 2 - Always looking to find human ways and use human logic to to reinforce their beliefs. (I hope I explained that right.)

Group 3 - Looking for human ways and using human logic to dispell what they believe, whether they directly know/realize they are doing it or not.

So for me....

I like to know and understand. I have a major curiousty in knowing and learning, at my own pace though, lol.

At one time, when I studied years ago with Mormons, I did ask if the Book of Mormon was the truth. I thought I didn't get an answer. In reality I think the answer has taken years for me to get or at least start to get.

I am going by a gut instinct right now. Yes, I know that is very "illogical" and "un-scientific." I don't care anymore. I am just tired of picking apart every little thing to prove or disprove something.

I know there is a God. He has been with me even when I denied him in the worst ways possible. I know Jesus is the son of God. I also know that God would not just leave us here and take a vacation, or whatever, lol.

The bible itself has never made any sense to me. I tried to force it to make sense but I have always seen the human influence with the writing in plain view. Then add the problems with translating from one language to another. It just felt wrong, though I was never able to understand what I was feeling.

I have also seen the bible as a "work in progress," so to speak. God seems to have always given humans what we could understand and what we needed at various times. He also seems to be teaching us to progress from what we where several thousand years ago to what we are now and what we will become. And we, humankind, are a stubborn and sometimes idiotic people, so it is not something that can just happen over night. I am glad God is patient, lol.

Over the years I have learned that, as much as we try, Humans cannot do things alone. No matter what we do we eventually screw it up and many times we make things even worse. If anyone here would like to challange that statement, I welcome the challange.

So some questions I ask here will have no impact on what I believe or don't believe. What has more of an impact on me is seeing how people who say they are Christian actually treat one another and others that are not of their "faith."

[Dr T]

Hey Moon,

I don't know why you keep talking/writing about things you think. Haven't you learned from Ray, "He doesn't care what you think!" You are a human-not god therefore, your thoughts are useless! I don't know why you continue, but I appreciate that you do (in spite of what Ray say and what he doesn't say while he thinks that he is sharing his thoughts and actually says what he doesn’t mean to say though words that exhibit is ultimate thoughts while saying it, know what I'm saying?)

Dr. T