Comments on: Creation

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:46:02 +0000

Allen, I understand that you're using humor in comment 24. But it raises an issue about the words of Lehi that has caught my attention over the past few years. I first thought about it while in Afghanistan. I think Lehi's comment isn't "about it being necessary to have opposition in all things." He never says, "There must needs be opposition in all things." He says, "...it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things. The best way I can think of to interpret this is as follows:

It must needs be that = It is the an inescapable conclusion or truth that

There is an oppostion in all things = There exists a division of the universe into opposing forces or sides.

In other words, he's not commenting on the necessity or usefulness of adversity (even though that's a gospel lesson we should learn). Rather, he's expressing the truth that the universe isn't just a moral neutral: There really is good versus evil, light versus darkness. There really is a right and a wrong, not just shades of gray. The universe isn't just a "compound in one" in which neither righteousness nor wickedness, neither good or bad, really exist.

My two cents on 2 Nephi 2.

By: Allen

Allen — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:46:37 +0000

Here is the real purpose of mosquitoes. To fulfill Lehi’s statement about it being necessary to have opposition in all things :)

BTW, in my earlier post I gave a link to my essay about the reconciliation of evolution and the Fall of Adam. I just discovered that link was broken, and I’ve fixed it.

http://www.leigh.org/sciencereligion/evolutionadam.html

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:10:12 +0000

All interesting ideas, to think about, but let's not go too far in interpreting each phrase literally. For example, Genesis also describes the heavens as a "firmament" or a vault---as if a great arch were stretched over the surface of the earth. There's such a mix of literal and figurative in these passages that I have great difficulty telling what is which.

By: JM

JM — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:30:38 +0000

That’s an interesting point of view Allen. I like it.

I’ve developed an explanation that seems to work for me that looks at things in a similar light.

I like to think that the account of the creation happened in a celestial sphere where celestial laws of time and physics were in effect.

After the fall, the world and natural universe as we experience it moved into a telestial sphere where telestial laws of time and physics are in effect.

If that’s the case, then we are trying to interpret events (the creation) that happened under a different set of natural laws than what we see now. No wonder we can’t get the two to corrilate to each other.

By: Allen Leigh

Allen Leigh — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:25:37 +0000

I think that a lot of the problem people have with evolution is the timing. They try to place evolution before the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and that doesn’t fit well with LDS doctrine. There is, however, another time where evolution could have occurred that fits well with LDS doctrine.

According to LDS doctrine, the earth and Adam and Eve were created as immortal objects — there was no death. Evolution couldn’t have occurred at that point. So, when could evolution have been used by God? When the mortal world, not the immortal world, was created. When was that? After Adam and Eve made their choice to become mortal and the earth was “changed” or created with mortal elements.

I’ve written an essay to discuss this “hypothesis” in more detail. The essay can be downloaded by going to

http://www.leigh.org/sciencereligion/evolutionadam.html

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:39:03 +0000

I think bats probably think they are a divine creation.

By: Winterlynx

Winterlynx — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:37:27 +0000

I’ve been both a Church member and a biologist for most of my life, and I’m quite at peace believing in both creation and evolution – although I must admit that after 50 years of earth-life I’ve accumulated more questions than answers. To my mind, the theory of evolution is certainly the most elegant theory in biology – perhaps all of science. And they still haven’t taken away my temple recommend – Bruce R. notwithstanding.

Think about it – if old-style creationism is true, then mosquitoes are a divine creation. Do you really believe that?!

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is how I feel, Heather, too. I think the Lord used scientific means and used evolutionary laws to a degree. How? I don't know. And I sure don't expect to for a long time. :)

And I concur about the mosquitoes!!!!

By: Sally

Sally — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

at the rate of me thinking “what does this mean” at every verse I will never get President Hinkley’s challenge done by the end of the year lol

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t read the scriptures to just read them. I read them to learn something. I’m not participating in President Hinckley’s challenge.