I want to believe

[WANDERER]

Another attempt: Science tries to give substance to things not seen.

[tubaloth]

Interesting read. I don’t really know much about the whole science of things (and of evolution). I do like the way science is approached, but usually for me when I have to pick sides I stick with God.

With that said….

-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.

The source of the LDS church’s view on where Adam came from comes from 1909. Sense quoting small points won’t help, I paste the full “Message” after this post. Its pretty easy to understand, that we can’t both believe in scripture and in evolution. The main point the “Message” is that Man was created in God’s image. To assume that God took Thousands of years to get man to that point seems kind of absurd. (or really any animal)

Even more some other scriptures that teach us truths.

We learn that each animal came after its own kind. A cattle brings for another cattle.

(Moses 2:24-25.)

24 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so;

25 And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and I, God, saw that all these things were good.

Lehi teaches that with out the Fall, death, and birth never would have entered this world.

(2 Nephi 2:22-23.)

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

I have heard people assume these means just Adam and Eve and that the changes outside the Garden of Eden were happen all along.

Also Korhor who was taught by the Devil to preach this to the people.

(Alma 30:17.)

And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.

but how can it be anything other the blind faith to believe in something that you've seen evidence to the contrary but never seen or felt evidence for?

I found this interesting. You haven’t seen evolution; you have only seen what result is what you believe it is now. (DNA from other species). You haven’t watch a species evolve over thousands of years, you have seen what it has become today. What it to say that God didn’t just create us all this way (with the similar DNA). What I guess I’m trying to say is there is even a little bit of faith in what you believe in. You can “prove” what you believe in a little better then I can.

(Alma 30:44.)

But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Its all a matter of what kind of proof we are looking for.

I also would have to agree with others, that your problem really isn’t about science vs religion (even though that’s in the mix). Its more about Faith, and belief in God.

Maybe we can at some day point that there was a man named Adam, but to try to explain how Jesus Christ (the Son of God) came down to Atone for Sins, that’s a whole other story. I’m sure you have read Alma 32. That’s the best chapter on faith that there is, and it teaches about “experimenting” upon the word. More that you test it out, you live the gospel and see where it gets you. I kind of lack in faith that well get you very far, mostly because you won’t have that foundation of God, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith and first vision.

My advice is to get a copy of Lectures on Faith. Its done pretty well, it does assume some belief in the bible. There are sites online that have it too. Start there, and see if you think Faith well ever come.

Last, I have only read parts of http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Joseph+Smith&sts=t&tn=Man+his+Origin+and+Destiny&x=60&y=15'>

Man, His Origin and Destiny. I would agree there probably are a lot of new arguments that this book doesn’t address. But considering how long the argument of evolution has been around it does approach some of them. If anything else it well give you a clearer view of how hard it well be to fit evolution and the gospel together.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635188399,00.html

I’ll have to check some of these others views.

[Misshalfway]

It sounds like you are very sincere. I am not a scientist and have always found science interesting but ever changing and ever evolving and so I can't put my faith in it fully. I use the scientific knowledge to the best of what we know and how it may improve my circumstances. But I don't put all my belief and trust into it. I believe in the principle of evolution. I can see it in nature.....on the Galapagos(sp?) Islands for example. But I don't necessarily believe that man evolved. I believe that man lived with God in a pre-earth existance in a spiritual realm and that we are spirit beings having a human/physical experience to prepare us for other things that will come to us after this life. The concept that man evolving over thousands of years doesn't serve in that view.

If God were going to help you gain a testimony of Him, I don't know that he would start with answering the question of evolution. I guess he might, but If you did get an answer, I am sure you would become very popular. You are not the first to want that answer and not the first to be told that there is much we don't know yet.

I think that if I were to recommend anything for you, it would be to start with the concept of God. Are you to the place where you can be really honest with yourself about what and if you believe even just a little? Are there parts of you that are afraid to believe in a God? The opposite of faith tends to be fear. Maybe you could look at the origin of those fears if you have them. What would it mean to you and the way you think if there were a God. etc. How would that change the way you live and act and feel about yourself? Does it feel like you might lose something if you were to believe or that perhaps you would look foolish if someone proved there wasn't a God. For me, I needed to know that there was a God before I could do anything else. Then I needed to find out if God was indeed good. And then get to know Him. Then I could exercise more faith and trust in Him and His will for me and the church and the world. For me this isn't even a mormon question. It is a child of God question.

And then I would concentrate on reading the scriptures and praying. It is very much like an experiment. But the components are spiritual ones instead of physical measurable ones. I measure my spiritual experiences much like I measure the taste of salt or the way I see and feel about a sunset. It is something only I can taste and feel and know. No matter how I try, I can't give that knowledge to anyone else. You perhaps have experiences in your physical existence that are like that.

And while you pray, work on believing that you will get an answer. For you, it sounds to me like you need to think outside the box. Pretend even or act "as if" you are a believer. Make that an essential part of the experiment, like adding the right chemical to a mixture. Like Alma 32 says, it will not be a sure knowledge. It will be more hope than knowing at first. It may make you feel a little silly or stupid even. But that is the walking into the dark in trust. The Indiana Jones closing his eyes and stepping off the canyon dropoff thing hoping to find the hidden path. (The third movie) That is faith. Taking the leap and hoping and believing you won't fall. I think, from my experience, that is where God will speak. In that very act of jumping and the moment where nothing can save you but Him. And I also know that God speaks to people in a way that their brain can understand. My friend gets answers that relate to basketball. Stuff I can't relate to at all. You will get something custom fit for you and your needs. Just believe and don't quit too early. I have learned that God doesn't always answer on the first couple of tries. He pushes me into the dark and requires that effort and sacrifice and a little sweat before He has given me His ever so sweet answers. At least, that is how it seems to work with me. But maybe I need a little more work than others. :)

And don't require all the knowledge first before you believe. That is faith also. Line upon line, precept upon precept. That is the order of things...... especially in the building of a testimony.

I so wish you the very best. You sounds like you have the beginnings of a belief in God already.

[toddnsteph]

Digital Shadow,

Ok, this ended up really long, but bear with me...

Let me start off by saying I have never actually posted to this forum before, nor had I ever come across it until, by chance, a blog-search brought up your post. After reading what you had to say, and listening to the concerns that are obviously weighing very heavily on your mind, I hope that my personal point of view helps a little or at least maybe gives you a different point of view, although it may all be things you've heard before :)

I've been LDS all my life... during that time I've heard many points of view on the evolution of man, earth, animals etc. from different church members ranging from open-minded ideas to people practically crying blasphemy if you look at things from a scientific angle. From Adam & Eve to Noah's Ark, sometimes people have a solid notion set in their heads of how a biblical story must have happened, and will hear nothing otherwise. Take Noah's Ark, for an example... as we all know, the bible is not a perfect translation - aside from the missing pieces, what is already there is sometimes open to interpretation. A few years ago, the Discovery Channel had a few specials on the study of the story of Noah's Ark, setting out to prove or disprove that it actually could have happened. After various studies, many scientists came back with the statement that there is no evidence to support a world-wide flood, also siting that for Noah to have loaded two of every kind of animal, his Ark would have had to be impossible proportions - conclusion... it couldn't have happened. On the other hand, as presented on this same program, the biblical story refers to the flooding of the "earth" - well, (and this is very simplified) the Hebrew translation/language use of the word 'earth' was also used for the word "land". So, if you look at that from that perspective and superimpose "land" in that same story, the whole LAND was flooded - and there is scientific evidence of massive floods in the land they believe Noah inhabited at the time. What about the story of Moses and the signs he gave Pharoah - plagues, water to blood, etc. Scientists have gone back on many of those stories to show that the "water being as blood" could have been caused by red mud being washed down from other sources, changing the water to a dark red. Also, scientific explanations have been given for the presence of plagues and other "signs" that were given. So what? If we are to believe that there is a divine being that is responsible for all creation, it seems to make equal sense that God works through the laws of nature & science in many cases. Does that make Moses' presentation of these signs any less of a miracle?

So, what does this do for the story of Adam & Eve? I guess it all depends on your point of view - there are so many possibilities for explanations (I'm no church scholar, so please don't take these as anything more than my own attempts at examples)... Were Adam & Eve the only 2 people to begin life here, or could others have existed outside the garden? Is the fact that we share so much genetic code with chimps a reason to think of them as anything more than a close genetic creation on God's earth? Could their presence even be a test of our faith? Or could evolution have been part of how men were brought to the earth, and Adam & Eve were the first to receive the spirits of men? Missing links, cave men... there are so many possibilities that could support or disprove the story of Adam & Eve - and there are no truly conclusive arguments on either side. If all things we believe in could be scientifically proven, this life wouldn't be much of a test, would it? I personally do believe that life evolved on the planet, because I believe that God uses the rules of nature & science to accomplish His means. Does that include humans? I honestly don't know, and that IS where it becomes a matter of faith... the reason we pursue beliefs that there isn't much scientific medium for, but also not really against. The story of Adam & Eve, I do believe, is also full of symbolism, and while that could change the way we interpret parts of the story, I don't think it makes it any less important, or true. For me, if we did evolve from apes, it doesn't rule out Adam & Eve at all - maybe just change our perception of how it all lead up to that point.

You made a statement in your post suggesting that your pleas for an answer had not brought you results. I don't know you, and it can be easy to mis-interpret something when it is typed and not spoken, but it would seem that there IS something there prodding you on, even when your logic tells you it doesn't make sense. Only time will tell, but I don't believe that there is a scientific discovery anywhere that could disprove what we believe in. And, as I said, I think we would be missing the point if we based our faith on something that had to be completely conclusive.

Best of luck to you - I really do hope you find the answers you are looking for. (And I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at scientific angles - if it's all true, then it has nothing to hide from other truths - just be careful as, even with science, some things are presented as conclusive fact... only to be questioned again 10 years later when a new method comes up to disprove them :)

[Traveler]

Evolution is a theory and a changing one...for me it is hypothetical, a philosophy rather than fact because we don't have absolute knowledge on it. An evolutionist from a hundred years ago, an evolutionist from today as divergent as they are, an evolutionist a hundred years from now...?

If we consider the changes in religion during the last 500 years and the changes in science in the last 500 years and make an attempt to understand - who has been more resistant to truth? The scientist or the religious? I have yet to find in history where a nation has marched off to war to kill thousands in the name of science. I have yet to read of a war in history where someone did not march into that war in the name of their G-d. I have found no law to protect a person's life and property that disagreed with the predominate Christian religion prior to 1649 and I have found no evidence of a person's life and property actually being protected if they did not believe in the Trinity prior to 1829. The inquisition and the Salem witch trials were the norm not the exceptions of history. Even the life of Christ was sought by his fellow Jews for not conforming to the religious norms of the times.

Many, like myself or more skeptical of religions being open to truth than of the members of science. If a principle is true should not a religion dedicated to truth be the first to accept it? It appears to me that science exercises more faith in the pursuit of truth than does the religious community.

The Traveler

[HomeAgain]

Hi Digital Shadow ... I think you are sincerely wanting to reconcile two competing notions of reality, and I was in the same boat a few years back. I was raised Mormon, but I started having all these doubts after my husband left the Church. I even began to question the existence of God. I read Richard Dawkins, and other books that made evolution seem like the ONLY answer, and came to think that believing in God was foolish.

I'm sure that evolution is real.

But I am now also equally sure that God is real.

And the two aren't competing in my mind any more.

This might not work for you, but if you want a different spin on why it's valuable to believe in God, try reading G.K. Chesterton's book called Orthodoxy.

He was a British journalist and philosopher in the early 20th Century who influenced the likes of J.RR. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Like his more luminary proteges, he struggled with believing in God, and also, like them, he came to believe in God implicitly.

To crudely summarize Chesterton's argument for God: Life is an adventure. The atheist misses a lot of that adventure because he is not free to believe. The believer, on the other hand, can believe and disbelieve, according to evidence.

And there is spiritual evidence. It's just different than natural law, but it operates according to principles. When I pay my tithing, and sacrifice what I earn for "God" it makes me more humble, more appreciative, and more generous. That is a spiritual principle that cannot be explained by the laws of nature.

Anyway, good luck on your quest. And remember: Life is an adventure!!

[WANDERER]

But traveller, the history of science : naturalists or natural philosophers. Natural philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

quote: Modern notions of science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before then, the word "science" simply meant knowledge and the label of scientist did not exist.

[grannysue]

I don't know what kind of answers I'm looking for here or even if anyone will understand where I'm coming from. Maybe I just needed to get this all out in the open even if it is anonymously through a forum, but I do appreciate that many people of this forum have welcomed me and put up with my ramblings in a civil manner, I think it says a lot about the church.

I happen to be reading a book called "Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring." Henry Eyring was President Eyring's father, and one of the preeminent scientists of his time. He won the National Medal of Science, the Joseph Priestley Medal, the Wolf Foundation Prize in Chemistry and many other awards. He published 600 papers on various scientific topics. Clearly, he was of a scientific turn of mind, like yourself. Therefore, I thought you might be interested to read what he (the scientist father of Pres. Eyring) said about evolution:

"As a devout Latter-day Saint the important fact for me is that the Lord is directing the affairs in His universe, not exactly how He does it. Whether or not some organic evolution was used or is operating seems to me to be beside the point. He is infinitely wise. I just work here. If He told me in detail how He works I'm sure I wouldn't understand much of it."

Here is something Henry Eyring's son (Pres. Eyring) said about him: "He would often disappoint scientifically minded people. Some of them, for instance, loved his willingness to explore the mechanisms of organic evolution. But they were disappointed if they expected him to declare evolution to be the definitive means by which God prepared Adam's body to receive a spirit. He enthusiastically studied the possibilities and even the probabilities of evolution. He even published a paper saying that, given the chemistry involved, it would have taken about one billion years for the first life to form from nonliving elements. Yet, notwithstanding this scientifically rigorous speculation, in the end he wouldn't take a stand on how God did it. One of Henry's scientific colleagues, a member of the Church, wrote once to thank him for his unequivocally equivocal position on evolution. This is what he wrote:

'When I was in Salt Lake one time, I was discussing some problems of early man with you in your office. I then asked 'How do you believe it was?' You replied, 'I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been.' "

Finally here is a quote from Henry Eyring (the scientist, not Pres. Eyring) about evolution:

"If God did or did not use organize evolution to prepare the bodies to house His spirit children I remain unconcerned. I think the scientific evidence on organic evolution, like everything else, should stand or fall on its own merits. Being trained as a geologist, it answer many otherwise difficult problems for me, and I find no conflict with it and the Gospel."

You would probably get a lot more insight reading the entire book, but what strikes me is his total comfort with ambiguity, despite being a scientist among scientists, based on his faith and trust in God.

[HomeAgain]

I read Faith of a Scientist, and need to check out the larger volume recommended by Grandma Sue.

I also read To Draw Closer to God by Elder Eyring, and it was instrumental in leading me back to the Church.

Two of the more humble people I've ever encountered, the two Eyrings.

That's what I loved about G.K. Chesteron's book, too. Believing in God doesn't make us foolish, it makes us humble. It allows us to experience the full majesty of life, with all its mystery. And as believers, we only have to believe what is true. So, as Henry Eyring says: I believe in however it turns out to actually have happened.

That's good enough for me!

[Traveler]

But traveller, the history of science : naturalists or natural philosophers. Natural philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

quote: Modern notions of science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before then, the word "science" simply meant knowledge and the label of scientist did not exist.

I would not expect Wikipedia to be expert on science. But I would draw your attention to the ancient scientist of Egypt (2200 BC) that developed mathematics that was not matched until the 19th century. For example they understood pi, the natural log, the golden mean and the square root of 2 to be simple but irrational ratios. They used some rather interesting means to calculate their values and I would say that these ancient scientists understood such ratios better than most college students of our era. They also understood the ratios of sounds in wavelengths as well as the ratios of colors. They had a most interesting theory about creation that would surprise many with a dedication to math.

The ancient Mayan built a temple of the sun in Chinhen Itza with 3 precisely square sides but the north side has a slight curve that must be measured by lasers to determine that the slight curve is remarkably similar to the radial curve of the earth. Find me a modern construction company that could do that. Most that post on this forum would not know how to go about calculating the radial curve of the earth.

Man has not always been resistant to knowledge but for some reason we of the modern industrial era are very resistant to new ideas - unless, of course it is a video game.

The Traveler

[skalenfehl]

Do you think there's some part of my brain that isn't functioning properly since most people don't seem to have problems with this? (not being sarcastic, I really wonder this)

I don't think anything is wrong with your brain. I do think, though, that your heart is in the right place and it's time to listen to your heart. That is how the Lord speaks to us. But it is our brains that allow us to discern the whisperings of the Lord. Forget all the science for now. You could have all the scientific data to prove or disprove the bible or anything relating to the gospel, but this is not how the Lord intended for us to become converted to Him. Religion aside, there is no way I can prove the existence of God to you empirically. We can, however, receive proof or witness of ourselves from God, whether or not He exists and whether or not there is a true church and whether or not the LDS church is His.

So in a sense there is a way to prove it, but only to yourself. I believe the first step is for one to humble himself to the point where he is ready to prove the Lord; he is ready to follow the Lord; to set his feet on the path that the Lord has prepared. He said, "Come follow me". A person has to be convinced of the Lord's existence/divinity before he can tread the same path to eternity. The Lord's path isn't easy but it is worth it.

So let's begin with faith or let's back up a little more. Let's begin with hope. You seem to have hope that there is something better. Allow me to share a chapter in the Book of Mormon that you might be able to relate to:

Alma 22

Note verse 18, but read on through 22, 23 and more if you wish.

For now, let's focus on the message and not the characters or the story or the setting, etc (although the story and it's background is very fascinating if you ever decide to read more).

Aaron was a messenger who shared with the king of the Land a message of the existence of God. The king, not knowing God or of an existence of God, after hearing the message was ready to give away all his sins to know God. He was ready to leave his old life and begin a new life to follow the Lord. That is all God ever asks of us. Once He has "tested" our faith, He will grant what we want to know because He knows we are ready to "commit" to Him. That is the big leap of faith. That is when the Lord sees fit to answer you.

Only you will know when you are completely ready to commit to your answer and only then is when the Lord will see fit to answer you. Else what would the purpose of answering your prayer be except toward your condemnation? If you received that answer but didn't act upon it, you would be throwing it away and the Lord would not do that to you. He wants a committed people; a dedicated people. He wants us to return home to Him. That begins with faith. Once you prove that faith to yourself and to Him, you will receive your answer and it will be more sweet than anything else you have ever tasted. I promise you.

One more little reference for you to chew on. This is something that will help you toward your goal. It should only take a few minutes to read the chapter:

Alma 32

Best wishes.

[Elphaba]

Einstein was a creationist.

Einstein was not a creationist.

However, even if he was, why would his belief in Christianity's God, or any god, make Him real? Because Einstein was admired? Because he was a genius? Why would Einstein know more about God than, say, Carl Sagan?

Einstein: “I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of 'humility.'"

He also said "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves."

Elphaba

[WANDERER]

Einstein explained his view of the relationship between science and religion at a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The realm of science, he said, was to ascertain what was the case, but not evaluate human thoughts and actions about what should be the case. Religion had the reverse mandate. Yet the endeavors worked together at times. "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I concede to your viewpoint Elphie and stand corrected. He was not a creationist. Nor does it matter what he thought.

[Elphaba]

Hi Wanderer,

"Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

It’s true, Einstein did say this. He also went on to say that science could not accept a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation.

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.“

Wanderer, I am not trying to argue for or against God. I just want to keep Einstein's words in perspective, as they are often misquoted to appear supportive of religion, and specifically Christianity, when they are not.

However, that is not to suggest Einstein was annoyed by Christianity. He was not. He was actually more annoyed by atheists as he felt they did not give enough credit to the miraculous nature of the mechanics of the universe, particularly the miracle of life. As an atheist myself I couldn't agree more.

Elphaba

[the Ogre]

Okay-my thoughts (ignore if you like):

1. Evolution and the Adam & Eve doctrine/mythology (Adam and Eve as actual people v. the concept of men with one fewer ribs--doctrine or myth) are red-herrings and I have said so here before.

1a. Red-herrings are interesting and fun distractions, but only that and as such given as little attention as possible.

2. G-d will one day let us know what happened (goodness, H- gave us the BoM and toothpaste), but right now I doubt we could handle it. Evolutionary theory, I believe, is closer to actuality than current creationist-science, but who cares? Evolutionary theory is itself an evolving creature little past the single-cell stage (and only a speck of the total cosmological picture). When are we going to get to the vertebrates!?!

3. Religious-agnosticism is for wimps.

4. Atheism is a cop-out, but at least a smidge better than agnosticism (rather then a religious-agnostic, I am a philosophical-agnostic thinking philosophy is possible, but will only believe it when I see it--though, now, there is a lot of smell in philosophy, I still need something more practically applicable but I have faith that one day philosophy will more then stink).

Aaron the Ogre

[Maya]

I never really had difficulties with thie question, I more like look around with my big eyes and enjoy all new knowledge our scientists come up with. If it is fighting my belief, then I just dont believe the scientista have yet found out all about it.

Any way I teach kids in school about how the earth and everything on it came to be. I do not dare to talk about God as I would get at least severly talked to if I did... anyway I start with teh earth how that was formed after a big BANG by peaces pulling together making ever beigger peaces finalyy planets.... I often do say that can you imagine how wise our Hevenly Father is.. can you seehis hands in all this... I tell them about the fiorst life on eath, hoe little by little life "got out ofthe water" How wise our Hevenlu Father was to create first the plants so teh animals had sonmething to eat.... (ok I know I do step over a line ther as I wonder how wise God is... but so far so good!)

The point for me is that I think of our Hevenly Father and Jesus like scientista... and scientists do make experiments. They make a life ni order to develope it to something better.... so maybe we humans DO have a long eveolution behind us.... but I never doubt about Adam and Eva they are real for me the first people, made by God with a process of evolutionary work. His work and glory!

When Adam and Eve becoame Adam and eve... God put Adams spirit in him, that is when he become a man.

The best element for an embyro for eksempel is salty water.. that He for sure noticed when developing life..if not before... and he has made sure that is the surroundiongs of a man unbder development...what else ... sand?? even a small seed of a plant is inside a chell that protects it.

Anyway this si around what i think of evelution and creation... I may be wrong... but I am sure HF and I can laugh at that together one day when I learn the truth...

The frend of mine whos husband just passed away just called so I am sorry I have no time to chek my mistakes---- we laugh at then togheter, I hope....

[anim82r]

You are actually experiencing a classic manifestation of someone who is thirsty and hungry for truth. I've been through all that myself 11 years ago, but maybe not as strictly scientific as you are. But I think no one has the right to compare his or her experiences with others and say theirs is better or worse. But I can sympathize with you a great deal. I was once a believer of evolution like you. But when I was investigating the Church, I understood that the mysteries of God is only unfolded to those who are prepared. No LDS so faithful and well versed could ever convince you of the truthfulness of the Church. Not even the Prophet himself. Our testimonies would not even be enough, the result of which will only be realized after this life. No matter how much scientific or archeological or historical proof we feed you it would all be to no avail unless the Lord Himself tells you. Now that is the thing that requires great faith and spiritual preparation. If you've already read the Book of Mormon, I'm sure you've come across Alma's advise where he "compared the word unto a seed" Alma 32: 28 - 43. This I think would come close to your requirement of knowing the truth. Then, yes, do as you are advised by your Bishop and by those whom you spoke with, which is ask of God.

I would like to bear you my testimony that, yes, God also ordained science and technology for man's benefit. All these modernization happening around us is not in contradiction to the Lord's plan. If so, then Isaiah's prophecies will all be in vain because he surely has seen our day.

One more thing, I'm sure your wife does have that LDS editon of the Bible. Please find time to look up in the Bible Dictionary the word Prayer, and see how it will work.

Lastly, I would like to tell you that I'm probably the happiest person here to ever knowing your concerns. Because if you keep that kind of attitude, the next step would be where we faithful LDS are, no matter how long it takes. I can only be excited!

Watermark (from the Philippines)

ps. I'm new in this site so please be easy on me:)

[tubaloth]

The predecessor of this statement on the "Mormon View of Evolution" is the statement of the First Presidency on "The Origin of Man" published November, 1909. (See MFP 4:199-206.) In fact, the present statement in paragraphs 1 through 5 constitutes extracts from paragraphs 3, 13, 14, 30, 34 and 35, respectively, of the 1909 statement. It therefore constitutes a shortened or condensed form of the statement issued by the former First Presidency-Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund.

The occasion prompting the issuance of this later condensed version by President Heber J. Grant and his counselors is not given in the Improvement Era where it was published.

However, in July, 1925, Darwinism had attracted international attention when John T. Scopes, a young high school teacher, had disobeyed law of the State of Tennessee by teaching Darwinism or evolution. He was convicted and the results of the trial had national and international repercussions. Discussion was widespread in L.D.S. circles. Under these circumstances, the title of the message itself is not without significance.

"MORMON" VIEW OF EVOLUTION

September, 1925

A statement by the First Presidency of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning the origin of the human family. Moses, the prophet-historian, who was "learned" we are told, "in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," when making this important announcement, was not voicing a mere opinion. He was speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and his solemn declaration was for all time and for all people. No subsequent revelator of the truth has contradicted the great leader and law-giver of Israel. All who have since spoken by divine authority upon this theme have confirmed his simple and sublime proclamation. Nor could it be otherwise. Truth has but once source, and all revelations from heaven are harmonious one with the other.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is "the express image" of his Father's person (Hebrews 1:3). He walked the earth as a human being, as a perfect man, and said, in answer to a question put to him: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). This alone ought to solve the problem to the satisfaction of every thoughtful, reverent mind. It was in this form that the Father and the Son, as two distinct personages, appeared to Joseph Smith, when, as a boy of fourteen years, he received his first vision.

The Father of Jesus Christ is our Father also. Jesus himself taught this truth, when he instructed his disciples how to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven," etc. Jesus, however, is the first born among all the sons of God-the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally sons and daughters of Deity.

Adam, our great progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and, like Christ, he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of pre-existence pours wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself.

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so that undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God. HEBER J. GRANT, ANTHONY W. IVINS, CHARLES W. NIBLEY, First Presidency.

(James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 5: 243.)

[litsassy]

DS, I so understand your state. I too have questions about the church. I have so many questions I would like to have answered, but I have learned that God has a time and place for everything and maybe even though I have the feel for the need of the answer, God may know that I really am not able to except the answer that is correct. The viel was put on us for a reason and God wants us to have the agency to accept the gospel on our own and not have it forced upon us by anyone, no matter what they think or how hard they try to cram it down our throats. I say ask questions, but go to church and read the scriptures over and over again because God is slow in answering some questions that we do not realize the completity of nor the impact it will have on us and our faith. I can say that you should attend the classes as if you had already joined and that you will most likely not find the answer in which you seek, because it sounds like you and God are really going to have alot of fun reviewing his plan for us and why he allow Satan so much to put so many obstacles out there to try and stop us from going in the right direction. I hope you find peace in your quest. May God Bless you always.

[Shade]

I just want things to make sense before I dive head first

hey DS.

i had the same approach to figuring out how to overcome some serious problems i had in my life some years ago. ultimately i discovered that i did not really need to understand my problem in order to overcome it. a dash of humility, a pinch of open-mindedness and an ounce or so of willingness made the difference.

before undergoing any form of surgery, i prefer my surgeon to explain to the best of his ability and to the best of my ability i try to understand, the procedure he is about to perform. but i'd be kidding myself i claimed to really make any sense whatsoever of the complicated medical procedures.

similarly, i have only a fundamental understanding of the operation of the mechanics and electrics inside my motor car and my motor cycle. yet i trust they will take me safely home each day. i know little, if anything of the laws which govern aerodynamics, yet i travel occasionally in aircraft. hell, i even ride roller coasters and yet have no understanding of the complex hydraulic systems involved.

evolutionary evidence is exactly that. it is evidence. it is not proof. scientists often claim to have discovered truths about our universe, yet the current scientific models are in and of themselves continually evolving. each day new evidence is uncovered.

and yet this is easier to "make sense" of?

[ztodd]

...

If God were going to help you gain a testimony of Him, I don't know that he would start with answering the question of evolution...

I think that if I were to recommend anything for you, it would be to start with the concept of God. Are you to the place where you can be really honest with yourself about what and if you believe even just a little? Are there parts of you that are afraid to believe in a God? The opposite of faith tends to be fear. Maybe you could look at the origin of those fears if you have them. What would it mean to you and the way you think if there were a God. etc. How would that change the way you live and act and feel about yourself? Does it feel like you might lose something if you were to believe or that perhaps you would look foolish if someone proved there wasn't a God. For me, I needed to know that there was a God before I could do anything else. Then I needed to find out if God was indeed good. And then get to know Him. Then I could exercise more faith and trust in Him and His will for me and the church and the world. For me this isn't even a mormon question. It is a child of God question.

I agree with Misshalfway, ya gotta start with your belief in God and get that worked out before you can go on to the Adam and Eve story and what it means. Misshalfway listed some really good things to think about above.

And then I would concentrate on reading the scriptures and praying. It is very much like an experiment. But the components are spiritual ones instead of physical measurable ones. I measure my spiritual experiences much like I measure the taste of salt or the way I see and feel about a sunset. It is something only I can taste and feel and know. No matter how I try, I can't give that knowledge to anyone else. You perhaps have experiences in your physical existence that are like that.

Exactly. I totally understand what Misshalfway is saying here. Can anyone else back us up on this?

And while you pray, work on believing that you will get an answer. For you, it sounds to me like you need to think outside the box. Pretend even or act "as if" you are a believer. Make that an essential part of the experiment, like adding the right chemical to a mixture. Like Alma 32 says, it will not be a sure knowledge. It will be more hope than knowing at first. It may make you feel a little silly or stupid even. But that is the walking into the dark in trust. The Indiana Jones closing his eyes and stepping off the canyon dropoff thing hoping to find the hidden path. (The third movie) That is faith. Taking the leap and hoping and believing you won't fall. I think, from my experience, that is where God will speak. In that very act of jumping and the moment where nothing can save you but Him. And I also know that God speaks to people in a way that their brain can understand. My friend gets answers that relate to basketball. Stuff I can't relate to at all. You will get something custom fit for you and your needs. Just believe and don't quit too early. I have learned that God doesn't always answer on the first couple of tries. He pushes me into the dark and requires that effort and sacrifice and a little sweat before He has given me His ever so sweet answers. At least, that is how it seems to work with me. But maybe I need a little more work than others. :)

I really like that. Building a spiritual testimony is really the same process as gaining scientific knowledge- through an experiment.

And don't require all the knowledge first before you believe. That is faith also. Line upon line, precept upon precept. That is the order of things...... especially in the building of a testimony.

I so wish you the very best. You sounds like you have the beginnings of a belief in God already.

That's how it is working for me also- line upon line. I also add my prayers for you that spiritual faith and knowledge will come line upon line.

[rameumptom]

First a let me give people who may not have seen my other threads a quick summary of my situation: I am agnostic, my wife (of just over a year) is LDS, I usually go to church with her, and I've been curious about the church.

Next, I would like to apologize for brining this up again, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, it's just that this subject is a strong barrier in my acceptance of the gospel and so I figured it would be best to talk to members of the church about it. I've already talked to our Bishop about it, I have a lot of respect for him and enjoy talking with him, but he admittedly has little understanding of scientific principles.

Now I would like to present what is troubling me about joining the church:

-There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species.

-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.

-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.

The usual answer I get is that God does not reveal everything to us and that I should pray about the matter and it will be resolved. But this has yet to work for me, and I don't know if I could disregard a large amount of scientific evidence to believe something with no evidence. People tell me to have faith, but how can it be anything other the blind faith to believe in something that you've seen evidence to the contrary but never seen or felt evidence for?

I also worry that maybe I am just not cut out for religion in general, as other people don't seem to have problems with faith. I never gave my wife the expectation that I would convert, but I know she has the hope that I will and I feel like I'm letting her down since my brain can't seem to accept the church. It's getting to the point where I don't want to go to church with her anymore because I feel hypocritical since she teaches some of the primary kids and I usually sit in with her. I don't think the kids know that I'm not a member, I've never lied to them and said I'm a member but I've never told them I'm not a member as I think it might confuse them and bring up a lot of questions.

I don't know what kind of answers I'm looking for here or even if anyone will understand where I'm coming from. Maybe I just needed to get this all out in the open even if it is anonymously through a forum, but I do appreciate that many people of this forum have welcomed me and put up with my ramblings in a civil manner, I think it says a lot about the church.

You have a good question on this. The issue is, does it matter? There are many LDS that believe in evolution and are still well-heeled LDS. Few LDS that I know believe in a 6000 year old earth/universe.

In fact, Joseph Smith believed in the Jewish idea that the world was 3.555 billion years old.

Brigham Young believed in Pre-Adamites. The official First Presidency statement is that there is not enough info. All they state is that there was an Adam, and he is considered the first man.

My personal belief is that God is continually creating and destroying worlds. I can easily see him creating a world with just some plankton in the oceans. Later, after a destruction, he is able to introduce new species, fish and perhaps some land animals (up to him if he chooses to use evolution). Then 250 million years ago there's a huge destruction, wiping out 90% of all animal life, and we get the dinosaurs in a new creation cycle. 60 million years ago, the dinosaurs are wiped out, opening room for mammals in a new cycle. Finally, a destruction about 10,000 years ago (Ice Age) that wiped out mammoths, saber toothed tigers, and many early men. It opens the door for a new creation.

Was Adam the ONLY man on earth? Figuratively, yes. Actually, maybe. But he was culturally and spiritually the first man. I see it as the book of Moses sees it. Adam was kicked out of the Garden, and for decades worked without a full knowledge of the gospel. One day while making a sacrifice, an angel comes and asks Adam why he is sacrificing. Adam states, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." The angel then explains the Plan of Salvation and Christ's atonement in that plan. At this point, both Adam and Eve rejoice in understanding the purpose of their life, and the redemption they can look forward to. They begin to teach this to their grown children and grandchildren. However, when Cain is born AFTER the fulness of the gospel is restored to them, Eve states she has begotten a man after the Lord. IOW, she had a child born that she could raise in the fulness of the gospel, making Cain very different from all the children that came before him: a first-born, if you will.

Now, having explained all of this as I understand it, let me suggest a different direction for you. Instead of finding the reasons for all these things and trying to get them to fully correlate, I ask you to consider the test that God has placed before us.

In the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5, God does not ask us to answer all the questions before believing. What he does is ask us to study the Book of Mormon, meditate on it, and then sincerely ask God if it is not true. The answer will come via the Holy Ghost. Spiritual answers can only come in spiritual ways, and this is God's main method and pattern. Man's logic can only take us so far. Beyond that, especially when considering the super-natural, we must seek our answers from God himself.

This is what I've done. while I see many evidences of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is the spiritual witness that I've received that fully ties me to this work.

[DigitalShadow]

Thank you to everyone for your responses. However, after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is not in my nature to accept anything with unquestioning certainty. If God has a problem with that, he should not have created me this way. It does not make sense to me that God would endow me with strong logical reasoning, then expect me to throw it away and blindly give my devotion to Him. No matter how it is phrased, accepting the Gospel for me requires a irrational leap of blind faith which I am not capable of. I realize that other people have had strong personal experiences to reinforce their belief and I'm very happy for everyone who simply "knows" the truth, but it's simply not for me.

Many people may see me as denying the obvious truths of the Gospel, but from my perspective, there is just as much emperical evidence for Thor or Zeus, yet no one accuses me of denying them. There is a big difference between denying and failing to see any evidence for something. I have not seen or felt anything in support of any God, and until I do, I don't see how any entity could reasonably expect to have my faith.

As always, I will remain open to evidence on either side in any form, but I will no longer actively be trying to rationalize and incorporate my own belief in the church. I have heard from a few people that fear is the opposite of faith, but I don't think that is entirely true. Uncertainty is the opposite of faith, and what becomes of that is up to you. I am perfectly content with not knowing, and even if I "knew" God to exist, I don't believe I would live my life any differently. I do what I feel is right because I have been fortunate enough to be allowed to do so.

Thank you again to everyone, I've enjoyed our discussions. Nothing here is meant to offend, I just wanted to offer some parting words before agreeing to disagree and going our seperate ways.

[skalenfehl]

Before you leave here's some food for thought and I've asked a friend once many years ago who thought as you do. This may seem silly and it probably is, but think about it objectively:

Do you have a brain? How do you know? Have you seen it? What evidence is there that you have one? How can this evidence be compared to evidences of Deity?

[Maya]

To believe is in fact an irrational leap off to the darkness believing there is someone to catch you....

Maybe that is the only thing that is missing from you to be perfect, that is why you were created the way you are. God reqiuers from us faith, he gets faith we get proof...there is no other way for a man.

However it may happen when you least expect....