The Concept Of Creation By "guided Evolution."

[Maidservant]

I personally find the theory of e to be ludicrous.

As far as cross-referencing it to LDS theology, here is at least one reason why I'm not convinced. If I accept the fact that my heavenly Father has a physical body (and other beings in the universe and on other planets), I find it to be an egregious violation of economy to insist on an evolutionary process to result in the technology of the human tabernacle, or in those bodies of the person(s) we call Adam(s) and Eve(s). In this sense, evolution IS a creation AND in my understanding of LDS theology, we don't believe in a creation, per say, meaning that Adam was born (from other humans somewhere).

However, I only offer that to give an insight to the OP. I really don't make (many, lol) decisions about the sense theory of e makes based on whether it meshes with LDS theology.

I think it is perfectly able to cave in on itself.

The phylogenic expression of a successful gene (or part thereof) -- permanent expression in an entire species (or sub thereof) does not take more than 100 years. One to three generations is all that is needed for a successful gene(s) to express as a new type. What theory of e is waiting for in all those other thousands of years is the APPEARANCE of a successful gene AT ALL.

Also -- what is biologically motivating the (creation of the) complexity of life, the complexity of specie? The biological motivation is NOT the survival instinct and/ or the survival of the fittest (where every new phylogenic feature is explained in terms of its ability to maintain the existence of the specie). I always hear that it is. If you are a virus and you want to survive, or if you are an amoeba, or a cockroach (getting quite complex here), how is the cosmological *cough* biological impetus to survive served by becoming more complex? Adaption actually CUTS DOWN on survival possibilities (not exapnds them).

And this -- this is actually a theory of e I could seriously go for -- ever read Andrew H. Knoll's "Life On a Young Planet"? [Full disclosure: I'm only on page 23 and I have no idea who Knoll is and if he should be the one writing a book like this, but - ]. Anyway -- talk about -centrism (anthro, ethno, specio, ego) -- all of us oxygen processing organisms are one big food farm for the anaerobic life forms on this planet. THEY are actually the ones that SURVIVED by adapting to the FOOD SUPPLY. Lol. Love it. (Obviously this isn't a "straightaway versus" to the present theory of e -- but talk about shifting paradigms!)

[Thama]

Our cells and organs contain fiendishly intricate mechanisms for staving off cancer and cardiovascular disease for a good 30-40 years, but now that we commonly live twice that, it is undeniable that the molecular machinery within our cells is not appropriate for such a long life span. Are molecular malfunctions part of god's plan for modern humans? Or are they the expected result of unguided evolution, which cannot directly select for survival mechanisms that function beyond an organism's normal reproductive age?

Hey, Dude. I don't see why imperfection in the evolutionary result has to exclude guidance in the process. Certainly if a group of scientists were to find a way to speed up the evolutionary process by many, many orders of magnitude and managed to manipulate the process into the formation of a target organism, that organism would have many, many imperfections. LDS doctrine (as I'm sure you remember) doesn't really have divinity as the sole creator, rather it places divinity in more of a directing role.

Abraham 3:22 -- Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

Abraham 3:24 -- And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

Should creation have been carried out by those who are imperfect, I see no reason why it wouldn't be chock-full of mistakes, and as long as none of those mistakes were of a nature that would interfere with God's plan, I also see no reason why he would choose to interfere with them.

As for our current difficulties with our basic biological makeup, I certainly understand where you're coming from -- the evolutionary scenario is really quite persuasive here. Yet if those problems were simply mistakes, then it certainly isn't unlike the God I know to allow us to deal with our own problems, particularly when we seem to be attacking the problem with such gusto and growing so much as a species through the effort. And if those problems were entirely intentional... then perhaps we just need to be reminded, after an incredible era of progress, of just how far we still have to go.

One final note: I don't think that a directed evolution towards Homo Sapiens is the best model purely for fitting the biological data at hand. However, what I try to illustrate is that, given other evidence (purely personal or otherwise) toward the presence of an involved God, that the idea of directed evolution is quite reasonable, and is also quite compatible with our theology.

[herringbone]

Also -- what is biologically motivating the (creation of the) complexity of life, the complexity of specie? The biological motivation is NOT the survival instinct and/ or the survival of the fittest (where every new phylogenic feature is explained in terms of its ability to maintain the existence of the specie). I always hear that it is. If you are a virus and you want to survive, or if you are an amoeba, or a cockroach (getting quite complex here), how is the cosmological *cough* biological impetus to survive served by becoming more complex? Adaption actually CUTS DOWN on survival possibilities (not exapnds them).

I will have to disagree with you here, the simple arms race explanation explains why complexity can aid survival.

Yes we do supply food for simple life but this gets into more philosophy of what you want to achieve by living, EG if I knew my genes were going to continue by changing into an amoeba I would not make that choice because I like this quality of life better. So mere surviving is not what we humans are about anymore - but only in the good times, when everything is taken from you this comes back into play. We are not discussing philosophy, only evolution vs adam and eve.

[John D the First]

If you ask John A. Widstoe he will tell you that natural law reigns and God must follow them to do his work. If that results in imperfect organisms resulting from evolution, so what! I just think this is so irrelavent to LDS theology because this life is just a speck of an Eternal existence. A speck of existence Divinely ordained to be a rough, tough learning experience. The perfect, flawless body; the Divinely micro-managed world you suggest should result from God's handi-work is anti-thetical to the purpose of life according to LDS revelations.

[Maidservant]

herringbone: curious -- what is the "simple arms race explanation"?

I did use the term "survival instinct" but actually that was an error on my part as "the survival instinct" is a property of individual organisms' psychosomatic (completely biological) makeup. Even though humans, as you say, don't (seem to) experience the survival instinct on a daily basis, this has nothing to do with the "survival of the fittest" imperative as to the success of a gene/phylogenic trait or feature.

The "survival of the fittest" is a property of a species. A 'species' as a collective, as far as we know, has no mind or consciousness, so the "survival of the fittest" mechanism is actually lodged in -- well, nowhere if you ask me -- but it is some underlying *cough* cosmological motivation giving instruction (there is no right hand nor left hand to this instruction) to the unfolding complexity of natural life (until we come to this ecological moment we are in at the present eon).

Is the trait of brain/mind philosophizing a survival adaption for the human specie? lol. Probably, eh.

[BCSpace]

<devil's advocate> Can you explain how 2Ne2:22 does not preclude it?

I already have in a previous post on this thread.

[buraianto]

Also -- what is biologically motivating the (creation of the) complexity of life, the complexity of specie? The biological motivation is NOT the survival instinct and/ or the survival of the fittest (where every new phylogenic feature is explained in terms of its ability to maintain the existence of the specie). I always hear that it is. If you are a virus and you want to survive, or if you are an amoeba, or a cockroach (getting quite complex here), how is the cosmological *cough* biological impetus to survive served by becoming more complex? Adaption actually CUTS DOWN on survival possibilities (not exapnds them).

As soon as humans live off this earth without being dependent on it I think it is reasonable to say that complexity can improve the survival of a species.

[Thama]

herringbone: curious -- what is the "simple arms race explanation"?

I did use the term "survival instinct" but actually that was an error on my part as "the survival instinct" is a property of individual organisms' psychosomatic (completely biological) makeup. Even though humans, as you say, don't (seem to) experience the survival instinct on a daily basis, this has nothing to do with the "survival of the fittest" imperative as to the success of a gene/phylogenic trait or feature.

The "survival of the fittest" is a property of a species. A 'species' as a collective, as far as we know, has no mind or consciousness, so the "survival of the fittest" mechanism is actually lodged in -- well, nowhere if you ask me -- but it is some underlying *cough* cosmological motivation giving instruction (there is no right hand nor left hand to this instruction) to the unfolding complexity of natural life (until we come to this ecological moment we are in at the present eon).

Is the trait of brain/mind philosophizing a survival adaption for the human specie? lol. Probably, eh.

A species has no collective consciousness. Natural selection is like diffusion: it works based on the normal behavior of each member. You might think that the gas molecules in a container would have to be intelligent to know that they are supposed to fill every corner of the room evenly, but they aren't. They just do it.

That's not to say that something couldn't command them to do so in a very special way, however.

[buraianto]

The "survival of the fittest" is a property of a species.

It is both within and between species. One species can out-compete another for resources, or prey on the other.

[The Dude]

Thama,

Hey, Dude. I don't see why imperfection in the evolutionary result has to exclude guidance in the process.

Heh, no it doesn't exclude guidance. Ultimately no observation can exclude guidance, because this concept is perfectly unfalsifiable and unscientific. Despite your adherence to this boundless concept, I'm pleased we at least agree that imperfections do exist, at least for practical human purposes. Some folks in this thread seemed to be resisting the concept. Like this:

"It's not a good design" is a value judgment, not an statement that is objective or quantifiable or falsifiable.

I can just as easily say that the human body is a "good design," and this statement would have just as much weight as yours. Why? Because as those crazy Romans put it, De gustibus non est disputandum.

-Smac

Is there any limit to "the idea of directed evolution is quite reasonable, and is also quite compatible with our theology"? If it is truly boundless, then don't you get the sneaking feeling that it's also kind of trivial?

[Maidservant]

My point (one of them) is, from the point of view of single celled, or few celled organisms, that first populated the planet -- how does complexity increase survival? All biological imperatives are met being a single celled organism. How could any random mutation accomplish biological imperatives when they are already fully met? How could any random mutation occur that even has a shot at being successful? What specie is there that needs to survive in competition with another if everyone is one celled? I actually could use some enlightenment on this portion of it; I don't know enough.

[herringbone]

My point (one of them) is, from the point of view of single celled, or few celled organisms, that first populated the planet -- how does complexity increase survival? All biological imperatives are met being a single celled organism. How could any random mutation accomplish biological imperatives when they are already fully met? How could any random mutation occur that even has a shot at being successful? What specie is there that needs to survive in competition with another if everyone is one celled? I actually could use some enlightenment on this portion of it; I don't know enough.

if you are one cell, you could find the cells are so successful that they eat all the food left in a certain area, so if a mutation accidentally happens which makes two cells (i am out of my depth in how exactly this all works) and the two cell creature is larger and perhaps is able to eat/process larger particles of food that all the other cells cant use, then the new 2 cell has all the food to itself forever.....until another 2 cell pops up, or more likely it reproduces itself and then becomes a new species which is also very successful, until of course a 3 cell comes along. Follow this and we get triceratops.

[Lightbearer]

Since 'created' implies a finished process, I submit to you that, according to 2 Nephi 2:22, this state of no death was the state into which they were created and that it implies a previous state, the state of creation wherein a host of theories, such a evolution, can swim without comming into conflict with LDS doctrine.

Indeed. Evolution could very well be the process by which bodies in the image and likeness of God were brought into readiness to receive our spirits.

No problem here. Our spirits were ready before the earth was created.

Says nothing about the state before the paradisical. Evolution occured until Adam and Eve who were then placed into that paradisical state to await the Fall.

Evolution, guided or not, is quite viable according to my understanding of the scriptures, both ancient and modern.

So let me see if I follow, you believe that this earth was undergoing the various stages of evolution (including death and birth) and that the garden of eden was the state into which Adam and Eve were created into a paradisacal state (no death) and that outside the garden things were living and dying as the theories of men state? So are you saying that those creatures or bodies or whatever (outside the garden) were subject to death and that they have no spirits? If so will they be resurrected? And after the fall are the evolutionary creations involved in the atonement? I find it difficult to reconcile the theories of men with what is in the revelations. The following statement of the first Presidency throws doubt on what you have said:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the _beginning_ after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam's raceâ??God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.

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. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows, and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporallyâ??"that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual." He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with Godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its "distinct order or sphere," and will enjoy "eternal felicity." That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (Doctrine and Covenants 77:3).

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 the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Joseph F. Smith,

John R. Winder,

Anthon H. Lund,

First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Source: Improvement Era 13 (Nov 1909)

[The Dude]

Maidservant,

Good questions:

My point (one of them) is, from the point of view of single celled, or few celled organisms, that first populated the planet -- how does complexity increase survival? All biological imperatives are met being a single celled organism. How could any random mutation accomplish biological imperatives when they are already fully met? How could any random mutation occur that even has a shot at being successful? What specie is there that needs to survive in competition with another if everyone is one celled? I actually could use some enlightenment on this portion of it; I don't know enough.

Single celled organisms aren't always free floating individuals. In nature, they often stick together as colonies, or coat surfaces as biofilms that make them harder to remove and destroy. You can imagine that organisms in this state would be protected from being gobbled up by other single celled organisms. Random gene mutations can certainly affect the cell's properties like stickyness to surfaces and to each other.

What is the difference between a colony or biofilm, and a multicellular organism? There are differences, but the transition may not be such a huge leap after all. Rather than see them as black and white, maybe the beginning of the answer to your questions is to see them as shades of gray.

[krose]

So let me see if I follow, you believe that this earth was undergoing the various stages of evolution (including death and birth) and that the garden of eden was the state into which Adam and Eve were created into a paradisacal state (no death) and that outside the garden things were living and dying as the theories of men state? So are you saying that those creatures or bodies or whatever (outside the garden) were subject to death and that they have no spirits? If so will they be resurrected? And after the fall are the evolutionary creations involved in the atonement? I find it difficult to reconcile the theories of men with what is in the revelations. The following statement of the first Presidency throws doubt on what you have said:This is what I base my position on, I am not saying I fully understand how the creation or organization of this earth occurred I am just saying that I agree with the above quote and that it does not matter to me one bit what so-called scientific theories claim.

Exactly. Trying to make scientific evidence and discoveries fit in with contradictory "revealed" doctrine creates some very awkward contortions, which is evident from these questions. The only two positions that make sense to me are rejecting the revelations or rejecting the science.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Exactly. Trying to make scientific evidence and discoveries fit in with contradictory "revealed" doctrine creates some very awkward contortions, which is evident from these questions. The only two positions that make sense to me are rejecting the revelations or rejecting the science.

Disregarding a premise based on a lack of understanding is the fundamental flaw of your logic in this thread. You want the revelation to be completely accurate and reflect the "truth" about creation and evolution. We've been given only an allegorical account of it, and some people have tried reconsiling science with religion, some making larger leaps of logic than others. However, the mistaken interpretation of some does not mean it is impossible to reconsile the two, and the jury is not out yet. I feel you are jumping the gun, insisting that we must reject one or the other; mainly because I believe ultimate revealed truth entails everything. We just don't have it all yet. See my blog post on the subject here.

First, from Brigham Young:

Nothing short of the power of the Almighty, nothing short of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, can prove to you that this is the work of God. Men uninspired of God cannot by their worldly wisdom disprove it, or prevail against it; neither can they by wisdom alone prove it to be true, neither to themselves or to others. Their not being able to prevail against it does not prove it to be the kingdom of God, for there are many theories and systems on the earth, incontrovertible by the wisdom of the world, which are nevertheless false. Nothing less than the power of the Almighty, enlightening the understanding of men, can demonstrate this glorious truth to the human mind. (JoD, 1:309)

Parley P. Pratt:

I do not know it all yet. I have been twenty three years learning "Mormonism." and I know but little of it. If any one expects to learn all the doctrines of "Mormonism," he must learn more than twenty-three years. For be it known unto you all, that "Mormonism," instead of being confined to a few dogmas of general truths, opens the flood gates of all truth and knowledge, and teaches mankind to retain all the truth they can already comprehend, and comprehend as much more as they can all the time.(This discourse is found in the JoD, 1:297-309)

Finally, Brigham young again:

The whole mortal existence of man is neither more nor less than a preparatory state given to finite beings, a space wherein they may improve themselves for a higher state of beingâ?¦Mankind, in general, do not stop to reflect, they are pressing headlong to grasp the whole world if possibleâ?¦

â??It matters not what the subject be, if it tends to improve the mind, exalt the feelings, and enlarge the capacity. The truth that is in all the arts and sciences forms a part of our religion.â? (JoD 1:334)

Do we know it all now? Absolutely not. Are we supposed to? Not yet. Is that ok? For some; not for others.

[Thama]

Thama,

Heh, no it doesn't exclude guidance. Ultimately no observation can exclude guidance, because this concept is perfectly unfalsifiable and unscientific. Despite your adherence to this boundless concept, I'm pleased we at least agree that imperfections do exist, at least for practical human purposes. Some folks in this thread seemed to be resisting the concept. Like this:

Is there any limit to "the idea of directed evolution is quite reasonable, and is also quite compatible with our theology"? If it is truly boundless, then don't you get the sneaking feeling that it's also kind of trivial?

Well, I do think that observations as to the imperfection of our bodies, while perhaps not excluding a perfect form of guidance, at least make it very unlikely.

And, trivial... how? I'm not sure I follow. The idea of directed evolution being reasonable is perhaps boundless for all intents and purposes, but the compatibility with our theology is quite a razor's edge. While many of the Brethren who were personally opposed to the idea have tried to push it into the realm of apostasy, the question remains up in the air, with evolutionists sitting on the Quorum of the Twelve for over a hundred years now, and no revelation to the contrary.

[BCSpace]

So let me see if I follow, you believe that this earth was undergoing the various stages of evolution (including death and birth) and that the garden of eden was the state into which Adam and Eve were created into a paradisacal state (no death) and that outside the garden things were living and dying as the theories of men state? So are you saying that those creatures or bodies or whatever (outside the garden) were subject to death and that they have no spirits?

Except for dying going on outside the garden, that is correct. I haven't decided if there was dying going on or not outside the garden. Certainly before the garden (the finished creation) there was dying. But during? I tend not to think so.

(Edit) And except for them having no spirits. I believe they have spirits, just not the ones intended for human usage.

If so will they be resurrected? And after the fall are the evolutionary creations involved in the atonement?

Good question. Since these are part of the creative process and not the finished product, I can accept a scenario in which they are not, however, I think it more likely they are involved in such. Notice that prior to Christ's advent, people were to look forward to the Atonment as if it already had happened. I don't see anything preventing that type of thing also predating the Fall especially if you believe that the Atonement is universal in that it affects all creatures of all worlds past, present, and future.

Of course preFall there were no humans (no bodies with human spirits) to think on such things which leads me to your next objection.....

I find it difficult to reconcile the theories of men with what is in the revelations. The following statement of the first Presidency throws doubt on what you have said:

There is nothing in that statement, or any official LDS statement comming into conflict with my opinion/theory on this matter. I'm pretty sure I've assessed and compared my opinion with all such statements.

In order to make my view conflict, you have to assume that those predating Adam were actual humans (with human spirits). I don't not make such a claim, therefore, I am within LDS doctrine on the subject.

I believe that man is created literally in the image of God, that he was the first flesh (the context is created as in the finsished product) on the earth which is pretty much all that LDS doctrine says on the subject.

This is what I base my position on, I am not saying I fully understand how the creation or organization of this earth occurred I am just saying that I agree with the above quote and that it does not matter to me one bit what so-called scientific theories claim.

That's fine, I do not teach my opinion for doctrine and I do not teach that your opinion is contrary to doctrine. However, I believe that science and religion are inextricably connected and friendly to each other, and that the one never contradicts the other. Therefore, I am constantly reviewing my opinion to make sure it does not conflict with either science or (LDS) religion. And I am often speaking up in Church about how other theories can fit within LDS doctrine besides creationism (which is not LDS doctrine).

[BCSpace]

Do we know it all now? Absolutely not. Are we supposed to? Not yet. Is that ok? For some; not for others.

Can we know it all if we want to and do the required work (which may include spiritual work)? Absolutely!

[HiJolly]

So let me see if I follow, you believe that this earth was undergoing the various stages of evolution (including death and birth) and that the garden of eden was the state into which Adam and Eve were created into a paradisacal state (no death) and that outside the garden things were living and dying as the theories of men state?

If you will pardon the interjection of my thoughts, I do.

So are you saying that those creatures or bodies or whatever (outside the garden) were subject to death and that they have no spirits?

I don't know that; Do you suppose it is possible that intelligence can be present where spirits are not? I think so.

If so will they be resurrected?

I don't believe so in the sense of Alma's discourse found in Alma 40; but one might be profited in contemplating resurrection in context of David O. McKay's views, as found in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Chapter 1, p. 27

And after the fall are the evolutionary creations involved in the atonement?

Only so far as in that intelligence has developed to the point of requiring an atonement... Again, great topic for much prayer and contemplation.

I find it difficult to reconcile the theories of men with what is in the revelations.

Me too. OTOH, one MUST accept truth as it 'springs forth from the earth'. One cannot reject the evidence of all things, since they testify of God Himself, as the scriptures say.

The following statement of the first Presidency throws doubt on what you have said:This is what I base my position on, I am not saying I fully understand how the creation or organization of this earth occurred I am just saying that I agree with the above quote and that it does not matter to me one bit what so-called scientific theories claim.

Hmm... Yes, I agree. Learning of astronomy (the generations of stars, in particular); geology, biology, etc. greatly informs and deepens my faith in God. There is no benefit to fear; it is the opposite of faith. Truth WILL prevail. Seeking is required for truth to be taught.

HiJolly

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can we know it all if we want to and do the required work (which may include spiritual work)? Absolutely!

Even Jesus died apparently lacking a FULL knowledge of all things.[Which he received after death. See my blog post regarding this issue.]

So can we know it ALL? No way. Can you, mortal man, fathom eternity right now? Can you find it out? I have yet to see it done by any living mortal, prophet, scientist, etc. In theory I suppose it is possible, but our mortal lives are far to short, the veil far too pervasive, and the knowledge far too vast for us to grasp in its fulness in this life, though we may cvatch a glimpse.

[Talking about whether we can comprehend the concept of 'eternity' in its full sense right now:] When we have lived long enough by following out the principles that are durable, that are tangible, that are calculated in their nature to produce endless life-I say, when we have lived long enough in them to see the least Saint, that can be possibly called a Saint, in possession of more solar systems like this, than it is possible for mortals to number, or than there are stars in the firmament of heaven visible, or sands on the sea shore, we shall then have a faint idea of eternity, and begin to realize that we are in the midst of it. - Brigham Young (JoD 1:349-354.)

Truly, this shouldn't discourage us from learning, we ought to be focused on that our entire lives. HiJolly mentiones his love of learning. The mysteries are pretty deep and interesting, and even Brother Brigham spent some time thinking about it. However, he also knew where the priority was: namely, learning how to improve the self, not learning every mystery of the Kingdom here and now; any other way we may find ourselves wandering in "strange roads."

“Suppose I ask the learned when was the beginning of eternity? Can they think of it? No! … These are principles and ideas I scarcely ever meddle with. The practical part of our religion is that which more particularly interests me. Still my mind reflects upon life, death, eternity, knowledge, wisdom, the expansion of the soul, and the knowledge of the Gods that are, that have been, and that are to be. What shall we say? We are lost in the depth of our own thoughts." [ibid.]

[thesometimesaint]

Hi Jolly:

I have to smile at people who denigrate scientific theory while they use a machine(computer) that operates on a scientific theory.

[BCSpace]

Can we know it all if we want to and do the required work (which may include spiritual work)? Absolutely!

Even Jesus died apparently lacking a FULL knowledge of all things.[Which he received after death. See my blog post regarding this issue.]

So can we know it ALL? No way. Can you, mortal man, fathom eternity right now? Can you find it out? I have yet to see it done by any living mortal, prophet, scientist, etc. In theory I suppose it is possible, but our mortal lives are far to short, the veil far too pervasive, and the knowledge far too vast for us to grasp in its fulness in this life, though we may cvatch a glimpse.

I never said when and I did say spiritual work didn't I? However, regarding the subject of creation, I think we can come pretty close in mortality. Whether this generation or a future one, I can't say.

[HiJolly]

Hi Jolly:

I have to smile at people who denigrate scientific theory while they use a machine(computer) that operates on a scientific theory.

Who's denigrating scientific theory? My thought is that there is scientific theory, and then there are folks using scientific theory as a springboard into pure baloney...

HiJolly

[LifeOnaPlate]

I never said when and I did say spiritual work didn't I? However, regarding the subject of creation, I think we can come pretty close in mortality. Whether this generation or a future one, I can't say.

To each his own. I find myself much more interested in the improvement of people, rather than the creation of this particular earth; a mortal world as a speck on the map of God's eternal pluriverse. His work and glory is about bringing the improvement of man, and earths tend to provide a footstool, but don't seem to be the crux of it. Why not investigate the nature of the atonement, the work of repentance, the nature of faith, hope, and seeking the greatest gift of all, which is charity? You likely do search these things.

It's fun to learn, and spend some time playing celstial pursuit around the table on evolution, and other controversial issues, but I think you agree that there are much more important concerns right now.