The Concept Of Creation By "guided Evolution."

[BCSpace]

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.

Oh, it's much more than just for fun....D&C 130:18-19

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, it's much more than just for fun....D&C 130:18-19

Aye, but our focus should be based upon priorities, and some are greater than others; again, Moses 1:39 comes to mind.

Two talks of interest:

Elder Oaks, dealing with the abundance of knowledge available to us today.

The second, more dealing with gospel hobbies, extreme emphasis of rules over doctrine, philosophies of men, etc.

[BCSpace]

Oh, it's much more than just for fun....D&C 130:18-19

Aye, but our focus should be based upon priorities, and some are greater than others; again, Moses 1:39 comes to mind.

Two talks of interest:

Elder Oaks, dealing with the abundance of knowledge available to us today.

The second, more dealing with gospel hobbies, extreme emphasis of rules over doctrine, philosophies of men, etc.

Well, having no gospel hobbies myself, I shall continue on....

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the cnations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdomsâ??

That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to amagnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the bmission with which I have commissioned you. D&C 88:78-80

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, having no gospel hobbies myself, I shall continue on....

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the cnations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdomsâ??

That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to amagnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the bmission with which I have commissioned you. D&C 88:78-80

Aye, hence my "to each his own" statement. I think you'd agree, though, there are more important matters to learn in life than matters of scientific creation, though they carry their own merit, indeed. That is my main point. I don't mean to discourage looking at the issues, I mean to encourage keeping good priorities in our learning.

Elder Oaks:

"Seek not the things of this world but seek ye first to build up the kingdom of God, and to establish his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (JST, Matt. 6:38, in Matt. 6:33, footnote a). "Seek . . . first to build up the kingdom of God" means to assign first priority to God and to His work. The work of God is to bring to pass the eternal life of His children (see Moses 1:39), and all that this entails in the birth, nurturing, teaching, and sealing of our Heavenly Father's children. Everything else is lower in priority. Think about that reality as we consider some teachings and some examples on priorities. As someone has said, if we do not choose the kingdom of God first, it will make little difference in the long run what we have chosen instead of it.

[BCSpace]

Aye, hence my "to each his own" statement. I think you'd agree, though, there are more important matters to learn in life than matters of scientific creation, though they carry their own merit, indeed. That is my main point. I don't mean to discourage looking at the issues, I mean to encourage keeping good priorities in our learning.

I generally agree. But I see no reason to stop conversing on this subject as it is only a small one out of many.

Elder Oaks:

"Seek not the things of this world but seek ye first to build up the kingdom of God, and to establish his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (JST, Matt. 6:38, in Matt. 6:33, footnote a). "Seek . . . first to build up the kingdom of God" means to assign first priority to God and to His work. The work of God is to bring to pass the eternal life of His children (see Moses 1:39), and all that this entails in the birth, nurturing, teaching, and sealing of our Heavenly Father's children. Everything else is lower in priority. Think about that reality as we consider some teachings and some examples on priorities. As someone has said, if we do not choose the kingdom of God first, it will make little difference in the long run what we have chosen instead of it.

Judging by the context alone that you have provided, Elder Oaks is out of context as Matthew 6 (including the JST excerpts) is about physical necessities (and in other similar verses it's about riches) rather than knowledge. I agree with his conclusion, not his methodology for getting there.

However, a more careful reading of D&C 88:78-80 shows that this scientific subject among many others is likely key to building up the kingdom of God....."That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you."

How such might be a key isn't specified but I'd hazard it has to do with us not looking like complete nincompoops and being able to "be in the world" conversing intelligently with others which is indeed key to advancing the gospel.

On an individual level, there likely are scientific types who would be negatively enticed to the Church if we cannot square our doctrine with scientific truths.

etc. etc.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I generally agree. But I see no reason to stop conversing on this subject as it is only a small one out of many.

Judging by the context alone that you have provided, Elder Oaks is out of context as Matthew 6 (including the JST excerpts) is about physical necessities (and in other similar verses it's about riches) rather than knowledge. I agree with his conclusion, not his methodology for getting there.

However, a more careful reading of D&C 88:78-80 shows that this scientific subject among many others is likely key to building up the kingdom of God....."That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you."

How such might be a key isn't specified but I'd hazard it has to do with us not looking like complete nincompoops and being able to "be in the world" conversing intelligently with others which is indeed key to advancing the gospel.

On an individual level, there likely are scientific types who would be negatively enticed to the Church if we cannot square our doctrine with scientific truths.

etc. etc.

If you want to get technical about context I could point out that the sections in D&C were specific to the school of the prophets, which is no longer active, though we still agree with the sentiments expressed therein, right? I could be looking past the mark on that, I don't have time to check the context of either scripture.

I do generally agree with Elder Oaks's application of the scripture, though. I've seen a lot of folks wresting the scriptures when trying to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture. It all depends on how it is done, discussed, presented, etc. and again, I believe there are more important things to deal with. Like repentence.

[BCSpace]

If you want to get technical about context I could point out that the sections in D&C were specific to the school of the prophets, which is no longer active, though we still agree with the sentiments expressed therein, right? I could be looking past the mark on that, I don't have time to check the context of either scripture.

No need. We are to liken the scriptures unto ourselves so I don't think it matters if it was initially directed at the school of the prophets or not. D&C 88 doesn't appear to be so directed and vs 81 seems to broaden it out to all people anyway and not just the "first laborers in this last kingdom" as stated in vs 74.

I've seen a lot of folks wresting the scriptures when trying to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture.

There is a difference between that and taking areas where there is no doctrine, complete the picture, and trying to make sure what used to complete does not contradict existing doctrine.

Then there is also making sure that others understand that there are multiple possibilities and not just one in those areas where doctrine is not set forth.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No need. We are to liken the scriptures unto ourselves so I don't think it matters if it was initially directed at the school of the prophets or not. D&C 88 doesn't appear to be so directed and vs 81 seems to broaden it out to all people anyway and not just the "first laborers in this last kingdom" as stated in vs 74.

There is a difference between that and taking areas where there is no doctrine, complete the picture, and trying to make sure what used to complete does not contradict existing doctrine.

Then there is also making sure that others understand that there are multiple possibilities and not just one in those areas where doctrine is not set forth.

Again, the real issue, in my opinion, is priorities.

[Lightbearer]

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.

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).

I do not know if I have that much faith in science...there are pleanty of examples where science does dispute religious truth. The resurrection would be hard to explain with the so-called facts of science. We have been so conditioned to believe any theory or hypothesis of science that if you dispute it you are looked upon as a religious crackpot. The problem lies in what science is and what it is not. Science is a set of tools for measuring empirical evidence and taking such facts and formulating theories that are provable using these methods. But too often we treat science as if it is a religion in which any departure from is an excommunicateable offence. The problem is what was a "known scientific fact" 50 years ago is not necessary still believed to be a fact today.

Religion is based on faith and evidence that is not always observable by the "natural man" and so in many instances they are rejected by science as being unprovable. You can not find God in a laboratory and many concepts are not measurable so are just not "good science" so are more likely to be rejected. Jesus walking on the water, turning water into wine, raising the dead, healing the blind, even his own glorious resurrection are not "provable" by science.

As for "Creationism" as taught in most other churches, it usually involves creation ex nilo (created out of nothing) which is a false doctrine. I believe what Joseph Smith taught when he said that the Lord "organized" the matter which is eternal and organized this earth. I also believe that all plant and animal life was "transplanted" from other worlds in a spirtual or terrestrial state. So I do not believe in the simplistic notion that life was produced spontaniously out of nothing. But I do believe that there was no death before the fall and that included plant and animal life as well as man and that this earth itself is a living thing. As for the fossil record I have a theory that these things could have been "left over" from former creations, which pertained to another world of which we do not have an account of. How all this fits with the theories of men or science or whatever is for me not of any great importance. I tend to judge science by what the revelations of God teach instead of trying to reconcile the revelations to what science claims are facts. Until the Lord gives us further light and knowledge on this subject, I suppose we will not know the details on how he created this world, until then I guess we must just have faith in what the Lord has already revealed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Parenthetically, I find the scientists estimates on the age of earth materials to be far far short of their actual age.