Post-Flood Return To Normalcy

[Franktalk]

But yet there is nothing out of the ordinary to be seen in any of the light coming to us from across the galaxy or universe that would hint that those laws have been toyed with.

You are assuming that these very basic laws are changed on a whim for no necessary or apparent reason other than the fact that you don't like the conclusions that they point to.

What you see as nature I view with different eyes. I see the hand of God everywhere. God compared Himself with Job. We can gain insight by reading His Words.

God has set boundary conditions on waves.

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

God has commanded the morning to be on time.

Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

God has control of death.

Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

God controls light and darkness.

Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

Job 38:20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

God controls the weather

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Job 38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

God controls the placement of mountains and the path of lightning.

Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

God controls the rain so that plants bud as directed.

Job 38:26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

Job 38:27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

Job 38:28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

Job 38:29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath engendered it?

God has placed the stars in heaven and set the relationships between them.

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

Job 38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

Job 38:33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

God controls and watches over the animals

Job 38:39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

Job 38:40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?

Job 38:41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

God has set the mating season and gestation period

Job 39:1 Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?

Job 39:2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfill? or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?

Job 39:3 They bow themselves, they bring forth their young ones, they cast out their sorrows.

Job 39:4 Their young ones are in good liking, they grow up with corn; they go forth, and return not unto them.

God controls and sets up the "natural ways" of the birds

Job 39:13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?

Job 39:14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,

Job 39:15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.

Job 39:16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labor is in vain without fear;

Job 39:17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

It is important to keep the right vision of the world. It should include God everywhere. And should include God in all time, past, present, and future.

Yet where is the evidence that God does this? Is not the evidence the witness that He gave in writing?

Edited September 24, 2011 by Franktalk

[shalamabobbi]

#147

I'll just say that I agree with most of your post but I admit it is just my opinion. Here is where we part company:

Man is also fallible; how he perceives what he is observing is subject to his own interpretation.

Counting tree rings leaves little room for interpretation. Counting varves likewise leaves little room for multiple interpretations.

Radioactivity is a behavior well understood. The decay rates are constant due to the fact that quantum mechanics (again God's law of QM) governs this behavior. As such it is probabilistic in nature and like atoms of a particular element are indistinguishable one from another (the same isotopes that is) and have the same probability of decay at any time. These laws are not assumed they are proven with experimental testing. Again there are no multiple interpretations in these matters.

Oklo or any reactor depends upon a ratio of different isotopes of Uranium to function. That ratio no longer exists in nature and at present naturally occurring reactors are not possible. To create one we have to enrich that ratio artificially. These isotopes decay at different rates and so as we look back in time the ratio changes. To achieve the ratio for a natural reactor to occur we need to go back in time 1.7 billion years.

All of this because of the laws God has established by which this mortal physical universe functions. If you would like to debate this result you will need to postulate some motive for God to ordain conflicting governing laws by which matter is governed. Or if He has taken exception to the laws with respect to nuclear decay rates why did He do so? What reason is there to change the very laws that govern this mortal realm to get the decay rates to change?

If when you refer to scientists you mean the 9 people at ICR you may be interested to note that to get a job with ICR one must declare a literal belief in the time-line of genesis as 24 hour days and one's work must seek to establish interpretations of data to support that stance. Hardly a scientific unbiased approach. Which means BY DEFINITION it is not science.

You will have to be more specific about how broadly you were viewing evolution when you prayed about it. Do you also include the evolution of man from a common ancestry with apes? Or is your view on evolution more limited???

Why does it matter? If God prepares bodies through evolution that's fine with me. They are not man until they arrive at a certain point of perfection and receive the spirit offspring of God.

Again ERV evidence is pretty strong in this case.

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

If we shared even one ERV with an ape that would be quite extraordinary but we share seven that are known at this time. The odds of that happening by chance are about the same as selecting the same water molecule by chance from the oceans of the world after randomly replacing it.

[shalamabobbi]

Job..

How did you perceive that I disagreed that God is in control?

I personally don't think that He has to constantly stay on top of everything. That He can take exception, fine.

What does this have to do with His law of radioactive decay?

He set the rates and we have measured them. Why countermand His own laws? Why take exception to His own laws to change decay rates? To what end and for what purpose?

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

That's because God, or at least our human understandings of him, are always messing with the experiments.

Which God do I envoke to substatiate my claim? The Christian God? Not even all Christians believe the same things about God. How about a Jewish one? Would that satisfy a Christian? A Muslim, a Hindu, or Zoroastrian, or no God at all of the Buddhist?

If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. Would you find it acceptable if I claimed it was God that did it, if a miniture flying pink elephant popped out, instead of water?

[Rob Osborn]

You make several points which need to be addressed independently. First,

While not specifically addressing LDS doctrine, which I accept as historical, I can easily find instances that are merely legendary, e.g. the Three Nephites, etc. Because of the relatively contemporary nature of the historical evidence and corroborating eyewitness recorded in situ to the time it is easy to discern the historical nature of the events. However, as I previously stated there are various instances of legendary elements which will no doubt lead to near mythological status in the future.

Secondly, you state,...

While it is good that your family member was an English major I have taught English for the last 30 years and am very aware of the semantics of the word. Legendary, for example, argues a narrative between hearer and teller that takes place within history and contains elements of truth and possibility. Myth, on the other hand, is a

The ironic thing is that given the above definitions the story of flood should be considered mythical because 1. it violates natural science, and 2. it involves a de facto creation story.

While mythological it should not be necessarily considered false, but simply a means of conveying ideas and concepts that were beyond the reason and explanation of the initial teller. In their book, " When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth by Barber and Weyland state,

Third, you state,

I think my last point answers this. Mythological doesn't mean fiction only that it presents facts as being different than the way that moderns process cognitive information.

Let's cut all the mumbo jumbo bull-pucky talk here. If you want to call the flood a "myth" that is fine with me- think whatever you want. In your mind you do not see the global flood as a historically correct doctrine and thus why you refer to it as "myth". We need to stop beating around the dang bush with how one defines "myth". All of us know how it is used and in what context it is used in. We all know that which we dtermine toi be "myth" holds some inaccuracy or falsehood about it. You don't believe the flood and thus why you call it a myth. I on the other hand believe in the flood and so for me it's "historical".

Why don't you call Jesus "mythical"? By your standards his works defy natural science. Why don't you go around and tell everyone about the mythical god of Nazareth- even Jesus Christ?

[jo1952]

Is evolution going to take care of shortening the days in the end times?

Matthew 24:22

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Revelation 8:12

And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

I take this as meaning that instead of 24 hours in a day, the days will be shortened to 16 hours. Thus, a third of the night and a third of the day as we now reckon it will be taken away.

So, will evolution cause this to happen? Or will an intervention of God need to take place? Or, perhaps, is this just a myth about what will happen in the future?

Regards,

jo

[Rob Osborn]

I wonder what everyone thinks of this article?

http://lds.org/ensig...eng&query=flood

I have read that talk several times and it actually does represent the offiical stance of the church regarding the flood. Now, some may say it is just an "opinion", but one must do it in light of stating it is the "opinion" of the church. There is no doubt that the church stands firm in it's doctrine regarding the flood as a global event and not a local event. All scienitific querry aside,the scriptures assure the reality that it's pages relate nothing other than a world-wide flood. The dagger here is that God promised to Enoch that after the flood he would never again cover all the earth to destroy all flesh. There have been a myriad of localized floods in every generation of the earth thoughout all times. Even recently when the floods came and killed a lot of people in Indonesia. So, if one wants to believe the flood was localized, then God is a liar- he breaks promises.

There is actually no case other than a distant challenge about how Hebrew was used in describing where the flood was to be. Some debate that in Hebrew it can mean only a localized area while othesr maintain a global event. And then, you have a modern day prophet- a man of God, Donald Parry with more of a knowledge about Hebrew than any 10 of us combined on this board and he affirms the reality of the global flood. At this point, being LDS, I have to state that the case for it being localized is not something that can be debated within LDS circles as opinion or not! We as LDS believe the flood to be global- that is our official stance- there is no debateing that issue- Mormon doctrine officially states a firm decree that the flood was indeed global. Those who don;t believe this to be the official stance of the church do so only because they wish it weren't so.

[Flyonthewall]

Perry is stating his opinion as to what Latter-day Saints believe. He's probably correct as to the majority of Latter-day Saints, but to rebut the claim that something is true "For Latter-day Saints," all you need is one counter-example. I volunteer to be that counter-example.

Or...he could be stating the position of the church on the subject, with the consent of the church - seeing as it is published in the church's magazine, and there is no disclaimer that the views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of management or their affiliates.

If you can show me one example of any church leader in an official venue such as General Conference or in one of the church published magazines, that uses language that the flood was anything but global, I may agree with you. But as it is, I have neither seen nor heard anything but affirmation that it was global.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Flyonthewall

[William Schryver]

I don't doubt that there were periods of heavy flooding down the Grand Canyon, and probably the breaching of natural dams upstream on the Colorado. Those occurrences are qualitatively different from a worldwide flood, though. Plus, there is no geographical reason why a world-wide flood would form a canyon in Arizona and not elsewhere. The scientific reason that the Grand Canyon formed in that location is that the land there was slow enough, as a result of millions of years of tectonic forces, that the Colorado river was able to slowly eat away at the rock and did not have to be diverted around the uprising in the crust to find a less impeded route to Baja California.

You obviously didn't read the paper to which I linked. Or even scan through it. And yet, strangely enough, I notice that you are once again making sweeping assertions that are ... well ... let's just say they aren't based in the facts.

You also responded to me as though I were defending the notion of a global flood, despite my having explicitly said I was not doing that. How odd.

Finally, you seem unaware of the fact that the Grand Canyon is a chasm cut through the Kaibab plateau, which rises above 8000 ft. in altitude, much higher than the Colorado River system upstream from it.

In any event, the entire premise of the study I cited is that the bulk of the Grand Canyon was formed all during one event: a massive flood triggered by the breaching of ancient Lake Bidahochi. The research has been led by scientists from Arizona State University. It is a solid body of work and deserves the attention it is getting.

[Franktalk]

How did you perceive that I disagreed that God is in control?

I personally don't think that He has to constantly stay on top of everything. That He can take exception, fine.

What does this have to do with His law of radioactive decay?

He set the rates and we have measured them. Why countermand His own laws? Why take exception to His own laws to change decay rates? To what end and for what purpose?

Where you appear not to accept events unless you have proof suitable for your eyes I do not. I accept that many changes took place and the reasons for them may or may not be known to me.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

So the ground does not produce like it once did.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Clearly the flood came from God's will. But He promises not to flood the whole world again.

We have evidence of major planation of large areas of land several times in the past. The "Gondwana" planation of Jurassic age. The "Kretacic" planation of early to mid-Cretaceous age. The "Moorland" planation late Cretaceous till mid-Cenozoic.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

If indeed God changed the fabric of space then many things changed during that time. Light would just be one of many.

[shalamabobbi]

Is evolution going to take care of shortening the days in the end times?

Matthew 24:22

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Revelation 8:12

And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

I take this as meaning that instead of 24 hours in a day, the days will be shortened to 16 hours. Thus, a third of the night and a third of the day as we now reckon it will be taken away.

So, will evolution cause this to happen? Or will an intervention of God need to take place? Or, perhaps, is this just a myth about what will happen in the future?

Regards,

jo

Thousands of endogenous retroviruses exist in human DNA. HERVs make up 98,000 elements and fragments—nearly 8%—of the human genome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Sticking only with this fact (nothing subject to multiple interpretations, unlike the passages of scripture you quoted) take 98,000 and divide that by 6,000 years we get over 16 ERVs being inserted into the human genome per year on average since creation. Would you care to explain how that occurs with or without divine intervention??

[shalamabobbi]

If indeed God changed the fabric of space then many things changed during that time. Light would just be one of many.

Yes and if this occurred we would see some evidence of that change looking out into the cosmos at ancient light unless of course those very significant changes in His laws have absolutely no effect on anything in which case your argument falls apart anyhow..

Edited September 24, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Franktalk]

Yes and if this occurred we would see some evidence of that change looking out into the cosmos at ancient light unless of course those very significant changes in His laws have absolutely no effect on anything in which case your argument falls apart anyhow..

We have not observed a change to the fabric of space. Well, maybe a little. But not enough to know what happens. We may guess but we don't know. Now you can tell me you know all day long but that is just a belief you hold onto and call it truth.

[shalamabobbi]

We have not observed a change to the fabric of space. Well, maybe a little. But not enough to know what happens. We may guess but we don't know. Now you can tell me you know all day long but that is just a belief you hold onto and call it truth.

Said the pot to the kettle..

[Deborah]

GA's who have addressed this have always spoken of a global flood but saying that we don't understood how it happened as God has not revealed that. So whether happened as one cataclysmic event or areas one at a time is speculation.

I've always thought that if one wants to assume all the animals getting on the Ark you could go with the Doctor Who TARDIS theory.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Nono, it was early quantum-state phenomenon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkcK2toExY

[jo1952]

http://en.wikipedia....nous_retrovirus

Sticking only with this fact (nothing subject to multiple interpretations, unlike the passages of scripture you quoted) take 98,000 and divide that by 6,000 years we get over 16 ERVs being inserted into the human genome per year on average since creation. Would you care to explain how that occurs with or without divine intervention??

Why are you avoiding my question? Instead you are purposely diverting attention from it. This is a common tactic used by anti-LDS. Why do you find it necessary to resort to such action? If you are unwilling or unable to address my question, then there is no need for you to reply to it.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

Why are you avoiding my question? Instead you are purposely diverting attention from it. This is a common tactic used by anti-LDS.

It is a common tactic used by everyone (though I don't think he is doing that), so is using guilt by association (which I think you are using).

[Franktalk]

Said the pot to the kettle..

I have faith but not proof for many things. I have proof from the Holy Ghost on many things. I hold opinions on many things in which I study and use logic. When the ideas of man come in conflict with my beliefs I reject the ideas of man. So far I have never had to toss an idea of man that was proven correct although many people have told me I have done so. That is a matter of opinion for man but I rest in the more sure knowledge of the spirit.

My faith is built line upon line and rest on a solid foundation. Where man lies God does not. Where man guesses God knows. Where man projects an outcome God knows the end from the beginning. I am on a team where my quarterback owns the ball, owns the football field, makes the rules, and designed the players. I sure don't know how He does it all but I accept what He says. I think that is a better position than being on the opposing team and doomed to lose.

God has freely admitted that some things are stumbling blocks to man.

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

And some things are difficult to understand.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Here Paul writes that the invisible things of God are clearly seen by the observation of the things made. If you believe that life self generated from dust then you will not see the invisible things of God. If you believe that the big bang made the universe then you will not see the invisible things of God. If you change scripture to accommodate a view of the past made by man then you will not see the invisible things of God in the Word. Scripture tells us that if we start with observation and end with God then we do well. But if we start with observation and end somewhere else then we do badly.

[jo1952]

It is a common tactic used by everyone (though I don't think he is doing that), so is using guilt by association (which I think you are using).

So, as I see it, I now have two posts which are avoiding answering my question.

Regards,

jo

Stop the board nannying and get back to the topic if you want to stay in the thread.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Minos

[jo1952]

Jo1952:

I too joined 40 years ago. My experence has been its a mixed bag, some do and some don't.

Thank you, Sometimesaint.

jo

[shalamabobbi]

So, as I see it, I now have two posts which are avoiding answering my question.

Regards,

jo

Please see the thread you started about this as I agree with the first two answers posted there.

What on earth does this have to do with evolution?? How would that factor into it one way or the other? Evolution exists, it is measurable therefore since God is at the helm as you agreed, God is behind evolution.

Anti LDS? lol.. the inquisition is over dear..

Please ignore insults, report and do not respond in kind, it derails the thread.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Minos

[shalamabobbi]

Here Paul writes that the invisible things of God are clearly seen by the observation of the things made. If you believe that life self generated from dust then you will not see the invisible things of God.

It is not known how life is generated from the dust. If you accept the D&C as revelation you know that these things will be revealed after the return of the Christ to reign on earth. So your second sentence here holds absolutely no weight of argument.

There is nothing in the gospel that denies us the freedom to speculate and ponder and believe what we will about how this process may occur. The sheep and the goats will not be separated based upon the opinions held by men as to the details of the creative process.

Joseph Smith claimed the right to think freely without fear and so do I.

If you believe that the big bang made the universe then you will not see the invisible things of God.

And if God created the big bang?? Everything in mortality winds down and without a big bang to initiate it all there could be no existence. Once the universe cools sufficiently it will be dead. Google "heat death of the universe."

Who are you to make this sweeping judgement? Who appointed you to judge those who believe the plain facts observed repeatedly over the past century as being out of harmony with God?

If you change scripture to accommodate a view of the past made by man then you will not see the invisible things of God in the Word.

I think if I do not learn the things that God has revealed through the scientific process that I'll be stuck in that tiny little box with you.

Scripture tells us that if we start with observation and end with God then we do well. But if we start with observation and end somewhere else then we do badly.

Feces of Bos Primigenius..

If this is too blunt Minos you may ban me. I can always engage a homeless person on the street if I miss the conversation..

[thesometimesaint]

shalamabobbi:

Life as we know it is closer to a dirty water drop.

Of course God could have done it like Franktalk says. I seriously doubt it, and I see no point in it, but he could have. When I finally go to meet him, I'm reasonably confident that Evolution is how it was done. However if God tells me differently I'll accept it, but it will make for a lot of other questions of mine to be answered.

[jo1952]

Please see the thread you started about this as I agree with the first two answers posted there.

What on earth does this have to do with evolution?? How would that factor into it one way or the other? Evolution exists, it is measurable therefore since God is at the helm as you agreed, God is behind evolution.

Anti LDS? lol.. the inquisition is over dear..

Please ignore insults, report and do not respond in kind, it derails the thread.

I agree that God is at the helm; but I do not agree in complete evolution as it is most commonly defined; certainly not the way that you define it.

My question has everything to do with evolution. You see evolution as God's law. You use evolution to explain away what the scriptures teach us about a global flood. Since you have used evolution to explain something recorded in scripture which has already taken place, I am trying to establish how far you think evolution will be able to explain how future events which are also recorded in scripture, will effect those events. For instance, in my example, the hours in a day are shortened from 24 hours to 16 hours. Since I think that 24 hours in a day has been the normal number of hours in a day since man has been on the earth, and YOUR theory of evolution involves billions of years, how do you see the progression of evolution continuing as a law of God to accomplish a shortening number of hours in a day within a much shorter time frame? You see, I believe that we are getting very close to the Book of Revelation prophecies being fulfilled. So I cannot imagine that in order for the earth to have its days shortened UNLESS God DOES intervene. I don't believe we still have even thousands of years for this to be accomplished.

As I see it, God's law would be an unchanging law - otherwise, as even Sometimesaint has pointed out (due to his interpretation of evolution which seems to be similar, if not the same, as yours), God would not do something and then change all of the evidence in order to fool us. Thus, for evolution to remain a functioning law, it seems reasonable to project evolution into the future in order for God to continue using His law with respect to what has been revealed in scripture.

So, if evolution (which, according to you is God's law) has been used by you to change what you feel needs to be changed in the past history of the events which have already taken place, I would expect that you have some way of applying evolution to future events based on the fact you see that God is using evolution to help operate what He wants to have take place here. Thus, how do you see evolution's participation in the events of the end times?

If you do NOT see evolution as having an effect on future events recorded in scripture, then tell me so. But then, I will ask you WHY you are not being consistant in applying a law of God to further carry out His recorded purposes. I do not know if you just cherry pick events in scripture and apply God's law of evolution to them. If you do, then I want to understand why. If you have never thought about it, then my question is being asked to encourage you to do so. As I understand science, isn't it a rule to be consistant in how you apply your interpretations unless something happens which causes you to reconsider your conclusions?

I am NOT trying to be cheeky or snotty in my question. I am seriously curious as to how you see your own beliefs effecting the future. You have already resisted the idea that God needs to intervene with the laws He has already established. Therefore, you lead me to believe that the same laws will continue to operate in more of the history of this Creation - including the end times. So much so, that from all you have learned about evolution so far which allows you to re-write events in the OT by using evolution to adjust what you believe really took place, that I would think you would be able continue to use God's law of evolution to explain how future events will take place by using those same laws.

This could include the amount of time in years that may be necessary to accomplish something already in process which CAN change the length of days in the future. Is there something already being studied and observed which could effect the hours in a day??? For instance, Is there something evolving right now which could shift the earth on its axis and cause us to spin faster; thereby shortening the time it takes for the earth to complete a day/night revolution?

If just seems to me that if the law of evolution is truly God's law, then it should be applicable for past, present, and future events. Otherwise, there would need to be some type of time limit built into the process of evolution. In fact, since evolution would have been something which existed in the spirit world before God created it as a physical law, I would then expect to see evolution taking place in the spirit world throughout the eternities. I have no idea what that looks like, because I do not believe that evolution (in its strictist definition) IS a law of God. Therefore, I have not spent time using it to try to see how it is effecting the present; or how it may effect the future. I WOULD expect that you HAVE.

If I cannot go to a member of the Church who DOES believe in evolution to answer these types of questions, then where should I go to get the answers? Should I rather go to an non-LDS website and try to ascertain their perspective when I already know that their theology does not agree with mine, and we will never be able to see eye to eye or understand what the effect of various scientific beliefs have on my core understanding and beliefs about God?

Please help me out here. I have no secret agenda. I want to understand what your beliefs look like in whole scheme of things. I am NOT trying to play games with you, and would appreciate it if you would not try to play games with me especially since I have been this specific in explaining why I have asked you this question. If you thought that this is what I was trying to do, then please accept my apologies. I am quite serious in trying to understand.

Thank you,

jo