The implications of evolution for key LDS Doctrines: My SMPT paper part III

Continuing . . .

Below are the points seem to cause some confusion and may need the most work in framing a detailed reconciliation. Here I sketch of where I think these pivot points lie. I’ll start where I feel there is little tension between science and our religion and that the hermeneutics of each seems not to pose any major difficulties in providing narratives that are comfortable lying side by side.

These are things about which science as little relevant to add

* The Fall (although some tension might be exerted by claims to the Fall’s effects on Creation)
* The Atonement
* Grace
* Resurrection
* Preexistence

Things which religion has little relevant to add to Science

* Design
* Anthropic Principles
* Natural Theology

Possible pivot points exerting some tension

* Embodiment of God
* Material nature of the spirit world

Pivot Points that may need reconciliation to bring about a compatible stance between science and LDS thought

* Creation as a physical event (including teleology)
* Design in the Universe
* Problem of evil
* No death before the fall
* Adam and Eve as historical figures
* Consciousness

Of Course all these can be quibbled with and repositions may be adjusted according to your inclination. But these are mine.

I would like now to look at three of these pivot points and explore some tentative ways I think we can explore a fully Darwin compatible version of LDS Theology. Briefly I would like to consider the design question in light of teleology, consciousness, and embodiment.

Pivot Point I: Creation: Design and Teleology

When we talk of God as creator, we mean something about the physical universe presumably. However, within Mormonism there is a slight problem here that needs to be clarified a bit. There seems to be a tension between the idea of God creating the laws of the universe and the very Mormon idea that God is subject to certain laws that exist prior (whatever that might mean) to God. This plays out in wild dancing about the notion of what it means to exist from eternity to eternity, like: that God is progressing; that ‘God once was as we are now;’ the idea that God could do something that would end his tenure as God; the notion that God used certain laws to bring about His ends; etc. This is being debated and discussed in this very forum and the discussions and disagreements in this area of theological exploration are healthy and continuing. I want to acknowledge this point of uncertainty but not be drawn into it much. My simple claim is that ‘God Created the Universe’ means that in some sense he brought about the physical universe we see around us. Whether he created the laws that structure it, or used existing laws and materials to frame it, doesn’t matter much to my current project.

We also believe that God has certain ends in mind for the temporal evolution of His creation–that he has purposes, goals, and aims for Creation. One of the assumptions made in classic Natural Theology, such as made by William Paley and similar derivative theologies is that we should be able to see what these goals, aims and ends are.

This is an assumption that we need to challenge. That we should be able to read off God’s purposes, goals and aims from the physical world seems wrong headed. Let me repeat that. Natural theology suggests that we should be able to read off God’s purposes, goals and aims from the physical world and that these purposes should be apparent in the way that the processes of the physical world unfold. I think this assumption is flawed. To see why, and just to make sure we are on the same page let me give a quick description of evolution by natural selection.

One of the most common criticisms of embracing evolution in our doctrine is that evolution is random. This is why things like Intelligent Design keep trying to claim that God must dip his finger into the pool and stir things up. They are too lacking in imagination to see any solution other than mechanical manipulation to account for God’s action in the world. Before we look at how a seemingly random process can achieve God’s purposes, we need to understand evolution’s randomness a little more clearly, unpack natural selection a bit, and then untangle purpose and teleology. Often those last two ideas are conflated and used interchangeably, which is a point of confusion on seeing that evolution and theology can be reconciled.

Evolution by natural is an a priori principle. As given, it requires no empirical content and is not just a law in a given universe. Philosopher Daniel Dennett calls it a sorting algorithm, but it always holds under the following conditions:

(1) Variation in traits
(2) Selection on trait differences
(3) Trait attributes are to some extent inherited by ‘offspring’ from ‘parents’

This works whether these are chemicals, digital computer programs, or beans in a jar—anything. This a priori description of evolution by natural selection is not really in dispute (try it at home with playing cards if you like). It is obviously just a sorting algorithm that sorts things based on some selection criteria, usually determined by some environment where the traits vary on how well they reproduce in that environment. However, a particular claim to evolution by natural selection is a claim that the sort of system that you are working with is one that these conditions hold. Life on Earth seems just the sort of thing where these conditions are met. The claims that some group is a Darwinian population, is the claim that it meets these criteria. In application, however, it can be complex and messy as philosopher of biology Peter Godfrey-Smith writes, “Darwinian populations are collections of things that vary, reproduce at different rates, and inherit some of this variation. The basic features of these collections are startlingly routine–births, lives, and deaths, with variation and inheritance. But Darwin saw that this set-up, this arrangement of ordinary features, is an extraordinarily important element of the world. Darwin’s description was empirical and concrete. The last century’s work has included a series of moves towards abstraction, attempting to say what is essential about the Darwinian machine–which features are not dependent on the contingent particularities of life on earth.”

Variation on earth, the first requirement for evolution by natural selection, arises through a random process in which mutations in the lowest level of information marking occur at random. These random mutations are expressed in a particular environment and survive differentially based on how they do in that particular environment. So at the level of local environment there is a kind of matching between those things that do better than their neighbors in passing on offspring. However, it is only in that local environment that any sort of direction can be observed. There is no goal or aim to which evolutionary change is moving. Only local adaptation in the given the context of mutational changes. This is much more complex than I have time to outline, but in broad brush you should be able to see how randomness plays out with life on earth. These are empirical observations.

How could God’s purposes be obtained using such a random process? We will ignore unscientific solutions such as ID as My purpose is to explore a scientifically informed theology. John Haught proposes that God works at a ‘deeper’ level than the physical reality to which science has access. God is the ground of existence not the prime mover of one of the causes of the universe. Like Augustine, he takes to task those who try and insert God as having to act as a cause in the world:

“Trying to figure out exactly how God influences the natural world, and especially life’s evolution, too easily ends up in shallow theological speculation. Inserting divine action into a series of natural causes not only sounds silly to scientifically educated people; it also in effect reduces God to being part of nature rather than nature’s abyss and ground. Thinking of God, for example, as acting in the observationally hidden domain of quantum events or in random genetic mutations ends up shrinking God’s creativity down to the size of a natural cause: .. Instead of seeking a crisp point of intersection between God on the one hand and a cause-and-effect series of natural events on the other, I believe the notion of nature’s depth allows theology to focus instead on the more serious question of “What is really going on in nature?” If nature has an inexhaustible depth, we can respond to this question by differentiating reading levels, such as those of science and theology, without having to resort to fruitless speculation about how divine influence somehow “hooks itself’ into natural processes.” [Haught, John F. Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 2010, pp. 96-97]

John Haught is a process theologian, and by deeper he is arguing that God as the ground of being, can influence the universe to aims that do not really strictly on physical processes. However, a process approach is not the only way to look at disentangling purpose from teleology and randomness also does not need to threaten aims of God or purpose. A simple example from genetic theory can illustrate this. Mathematically we can describe a purely random process of genetic mutation and its movement through time. Picture a mutation in one of the base-pairs in a DNA. If you follow this mutation’s presence in a population through time you get something like this:

In this picture, each line represents a different population and the proportion on individuals that have the mutant allele through time. This picture assume we are picking up the time when the mutation as reached a level of 50% of the population has the allele.

This random function can be written by this equation :

Notice that u(p,t) this is not generating random numbers using some random generator but is a priori random by assumption. Or to put it more simply: it is truly random. What I want to point out is that even though this is a strictly random process the mean time that the alleles will reach fixation (either it becomes part of every member of the population or it is had by none) can be estimated with near certainty with known error in the estimate. If you were to look at this process in time you could conclude only that you are looking at a completely random process. Yet aspects of it, including the time until it reaches a given state are completely known.

This sort of thinking shows that certain aims could be embedded in the universe that would never look anything but random, but toward which there are certain inevitabilities. Biologist, Conway Morris, points out that humans may be inevitable given enough time and space (of which the universe apparently has no lack). We see this often in the evolutionary history of life on earth. For example, life in water has evolved three times in the history of our planet and all three times similarities of shape and function appear. In fish, marine mammals such as dolphins, and in ichthyosaurs, the same basic body shape converged to evolve a well designed aquatic animal. All three evolutionary experiments had to solve the problem of moving through water effectively and efficiently. Evolution solves local engineering problems. We see several of these convergences: placental and marsupial saber-tooth predators. Tasmanian wolves and dogs etc. The point here is that a universe of a certain type will yield evolutionary products of a certain type. There is no need to shepherd the process toward given ends. The ends are already embedded in that type of universe, just as the random function of genetic drift above, mean times to certain ends can be known with some degree of certainty.

To be continued . . .

This entry was posted in Evolution, Faith, Philosophy of Science, Religion, theology. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The implications of evolution for key LDS Doctrines: My SMPT paper part III

  1. ricke says:

    Thank you for making this available.

  2. Rob Osborn says:

    I am intrigued by the notion that in evolutionary terms all that is needed is enough time and space. Given that, I wish I could apply this same function to that of my job. If I allow enough time to pass by will the classic jaguar I am restoring assemble itself and lay a new coat of fresh paint on it?

    Its a classic ID argument we have all seen. The problem however is that time and space mean nothing in the equation if there is not first chance and actual probability worked into it. I can guarentee that even given a billion years, if all I ever let work on the jaguar i am working on were a bunch of 3 year olds it would never progress into anything useful. Lets apply this in nature-

    We assume too much- we give actual probability to things in which we only “wish” to see, not necesarrily what we actually see or witness. The classic story of wolves, or doglike animals evolving into whales is a very good example. We see similarities in the bone fragments and the like and begin to assemble a process that we would like to see happen and thus give it an actual probability, only it is really only up to our own imaginations. How should we apply actual probability in science? Only when we see direct evidence of similar witnessed events. Of course no scientists or man for that matter has ever witnessed any life form evolving into another species of life. Sure, we have documented variations within species from one generation to the next, but never across actual boundaries of taxa. Evolution to explain our origins is thus not a “time and space” equation. If that were true then my jag would self assemble.

    The one fundamental principle that needs applied to this discussion is to fully aknowledge where and how a creator fits into the picture- whether he really is the brains behind “design” in nature or if he is just part of that “design”. If he is just part of that design in nature then the quest truly becomes philisophical and we should really be debating who we really should answer to for the sins we commit! If it is nature that has produced the design in nature- and this is all just random, then God is nothing, we shouldn’t answer to him, but just blame nature for our perceived lack of obedience to a God that is controlled by the laws he has no control over.

    What we really see is the problem of replacing purpose and design by God in the universe by stating he is just a product himself of that very universe and that culpableness in society is nothing merely more than nature,

    Lest settle it then, if we decide it is God that is the actual designer in the universe, then truly nothing in nature is random. But, if we ultimately decide the other way- that God is just a product of universal laws already in place before him, then we are also merely nothing more than “its” in a purposeless universe in the which God cannot interfare with.

    Think about it, if we dismiss God from the origins of life- how it comes about, then we can easily place the fault of our sinfulness on nature and thus accuse God of trying to control that which he cannot control.

  3. Rob Osborn says:


    Isnt that what Dawkins argues for- that culpability in society is just the natural process of evolution?

  4. larryco_ says:

    “I’ll start where I feel there is little tension between science and our religion…”
    “These are things about which science (h)as little relevant to add:
    * The Atonement”

    I’ve loved your series and support nearly everything you’ve said so far, but here is where we part company. I think there is great tension between Christianity/Mormonism and Science/Evolution over the atonement. If you are unable to find a singular moment when “Adam fell…”, then you are at a loss how it follows “that men might be”. Without the above two, “the Messiah cometh…that he may redeem…men from the fall”, loses it’s “If This – Then That” logic. I see it as a potential deal-braker in your compatibility scenario.

  5. steveP says:

    Larryco, I don’t think you need to find a singular moment you just have to accept that there was one.

    Rob, yes your Jag will turn into a porche. Rob since I address every one of your points in this and my other paper, including the idea of culpability. Since you don’t want to engage with what I’m actually saying, are raising points about randomness I’ve dealt with again and again, please go read some science books. This blog is for people trying to find their way, not people trying to dig a trench. Start your own blog, or deal with what’s given here.

  6. Rob Osborn says:


    I am just trying to understand what you are saying. Hum…no Jag has ever turned into a porsche without some intelligent entity who sets out to make that happen through a careful set of predesigned ideas.

    Do you think it is possible for life to start on a planet without a God who makes it happen?

  7. Jeff G says:

    Now I am anything but well informed when it comes to process theology, but every time it is brought up I can’t help but think it’s a bit of a smoke screen. Almost like saying that if you cross your eyes when you look at the world around you, the problems that you usually see will simply disappear.

    For example, did God create the world around us, separate the land from waters, create crawling things and humans or not? The appeal to process theology seems to be a fancy way of say “not”. The only way we seem able to say that God created these things is in the same way that we say that butterfly who flapped its wings in Peking created that subsequent rain storm in New York. It just seems like praising God for the beauty of creation is like blaming Adam and Eve for the birth of Hitler.

  8. larryco_ says:

    “I don’t think you need to find a singular moment you just have to accept that there was one.”

    Agreed. “Find” was the wrong word. “accept that there was one” (i.e. an actual fall) was the main idea.

  9. Jack says:


    So far as we can tell there seems to be an enormous amount of excess time and space in the universe — as it relates to our purpose here on this dusty little planet. Why is that we can accept the apparent disproportionate “bigness” of the cosmos with respect to man’s little jaunt and yet have such a hard time with the time and space allotted for life to evolve?

  10. raedyohed says:

    First of all, HOORAY for allele frequency charts. I could goof off with those things all day, and basically I do, more or less…

    Second of all… leading off with teleology? Gutsy.

    Third of all, I can’t pass up the opportunity to butt into an argument about randomness and teleology!

    Where you lost me was your statement that mutational frequency “is a priori random by assumption. Or to put it more simply: it is truly random.” You were on the right track, but then… eh. And by the end I couldn’t really tell what you meant by ‘truly random’.

    There isn’t really any such thing as truly random, because there is no such thing as a random event. Randomness is an invention of human reason, like the number i, to solve quandaries which arise either due to our limited capacity to know things definitely, and/or out of the necessity of hand waving to solve intractable problems. Randomness is, when you get down to it a purely imaginary construct, which was invented to facilitate the necessary inclusion of limiting assumptions in statistical models.

    To be more plain: we can’t and don’t really even want to know all causes of an observed event, or pattern of events, so we will introduce the notion of error into our model. We will say that error in the model follows a random normal distribution with mean zero and small variance, and so our model is good if that error is small, in which case whatever ‘random’ effects we have ignored are simply the effects of unimportant causes.

    Why the boring diatribe? Take for example the single spontaneous genetic mutation which causes a disease in an individual. Such causative events which we call rare alleles, or polygenes sometimes, cannot be modeled statistically, precisely because there is no random probability distribution we can use to model the effect of a single event. A pattern must be established, random error associated with a model from which distributional parameters will be estimated, and with a certain level of confidence a prediction may be made in terms of disease risk given a genotype.

    You know all this, but my point is that God really knows, without statistics, with out the hand waving notions of randomness which are critical to our finite reasoning.

    There really is no such thing as random, because everything has a cause. In the end, I think this actually squares with your bottom line, which I took to be: “certain aims could be embedded in the universe that would never look anything but random, but toward which there are certain inevitabilities.” Yet, I am still unclear where that leave’s God’s impact on the Universe. Is he hiding behind the appearance of randomness? So man invents randomness because he’s mentally handicapped (by God no less), and then God hides himself in plain sight, right where we can’t find him, from which position he directs the universe?

    But my real question is what do you mean by ‘embedded’ and ‘inevitable’? Did God program the universe to make our genome turn out the way it did? Keep chipping away!

  11. Mrs.Andy says:

    I’m with Jack on the concept of time and space – we just cannot comprehend how little we comprehend!
    A comment on the Jag assembling itself with or without 3 yr. olds assisting: The heap of parts don’t fit the criteria Steve outlined about variation, heritability, and time/change being necessary for the whole process to work so it really seems like Rob is purposefully arguing outside this particular box.
    What I’m still working over is how the reconciliation of theories that will be compatible with Mormonism will differ from two old theories. First, the watch analogy where just seeing the “watch” and recognizing its purpose reveals the intent behind it. Second, the Deist concept that God just lined up all the dominoes, started the chain reaction and then sat back to watch without ever having to intervene again. Is there something in between that I’m not grasping yet?
    I will be looking forward to the next section!
    PS. If God did spend 4-5 Billion years preparing this planet for about 10,000 years of humans working out their salvations, doesn’t that speak to the amount of worth He places on our ability to progress?! It sure makes a case for the importance of mortality and how amazing it is that we even get to live and walk on a planet that took Eons to prepare when all of recorded human history is essentially a blink of the eye in comparison.

  12. raedyohed says:

    Rob –

    Except Porsche’s and Jag’s and MG’s etc are all really just modified Duryea’s. Furthermore, one could trace from the Duryea back down to the proverbial (accidental) invention of the wheel. This is the logical pivot of evolution; if it works forwards it works backwards. And for that matter, along the way there was essentially no intentional foreknowing innovation, not to mention the fact that 99.9% of this trial and error process ended up on the junk heap. Yep, cars are a great metaphor to show how evolution works.

    The flaw in your reasoning is that you start from a tacit assumption, that novel species are specially created in a de novo sense, and then when that reasoning doesn’t hold up to biological reality you reject biological reality, rather than your initial assumption. The appearance of novel species is in no way like the spontaneous assembly of a car from spare parts. It is more like the iterative process of the development of novel car models over time.

  13. SteveP says:

    Wow, fun discussion. And thank you all! It’s late so I’ll have to come back to this, but I just want to respond to raedyohed’s comment on randomness. The randomness in the equation is not from an empirical distribution (not drawn on any fact from the real universe), but is a mathematical analytic function which means its just a theoretical construct defined mathematically and so is conceptually ‘truly’ random by definition and has nothing to with ‘reality.’ That’s all for now. Thanks again.

  14. Last Lemming says:

    There isn’t really any such thing as truly random, because there is no such thing as a random event.

    My understanding of quantum mechanics is that most interpretations recognize quantum events as “objectively random.” I suspect that the truth of those interpretations (and of the alternative “hidden variables” interpretation) may be unresolvable by scientific means, making the ultimate religious question “Does objective randomness exist?”

  15. raedyohed says:

    Understood, re analytic random functions. Still, its a construct, not reality. Is it the case that such a construct is necessary because God’s acts are materially undiscoverable? I get the uneasy feeling that this approach is painting God into the corner of observed randomness. By robing Him in the unobservable details of empirical truth I worry that this may devolve into a God of the Gaps. But you’re the one driving so I will eagerly watch as the scenery rolls by. It’s been nice so far!

    Last Lemming
    Don’t jump off the cliff! There is no ‘objective randomness’, not even at the quantum level. Apparent randomness is still just a product of finite observation. Extrapolating from Heisenberg, if one could completely observe all particles with absolute certainty, wouldn’t one have exerted complete control over them? Does omniscience at a given point in time yield omnipotence at that point in time, and provide omniscience relative to the next point in time? If every point in time is dependent on the previous point in time absolutely how can anything like ‘chance’ enter into the equation except by admittedly invalid assumption?

    I admit to not having read Prigogine et al., and I admit that irreversibility and uncertainty and time-limited calculability are all issues to be dealt with, but still… ‘objective randomness’? What does that even mean, in the absolute sense? That there are things that follow no laws? Wait a sec… fer-crap. Maybe THAT’S why ‘he’ is The Enemy. Yeah, it’s a pretty big, theologically loaded question.

  16. raedyohed says:

    Ditto and ditto. I plead ignorance to theological history. Is the ‘domino model’ essentially a Deist view?

  17. CEF says:

    Finally, at long last Steve, you have said something that I can kind of follow and makes sense. And yes, I have read your Dialogue article also.

    If that article went into the things as you do here, I guess I simply missed it. Not too hard for me to do. 🙂

  18. witeguy says:

    I was wondering if you have ever read Dr. Eric Skousen’s book, “Earth, In the Beginning”? After being interested in this subject for many years, this book finally answered all of my questions about the creation of the earth and all of the life forms that have ever lived upon it (turns out, according to Brigham Young and other prophets and apostles, that they were transplanted here from other planets.) This makes perfect sense to me since why would God go through all of the trouble of reinventing the wheel (i.e. evolution) for each earth that he creates when he can just ship it over from another earth. Anyway, I was wondering what your opinion is of this very interesting book?

  19. Mrs.Andy says:

    For the record, I’m pretty new to this kind of discussion but I found the book “Skeptics and True Believers” by Chet Reymo pretty helpful in setting up the arguments. (Steve liked the book, too – I’m sure he’d recommend it!) I’m leaning on Reymo’s explanation of Deist views. The domino idea is mine but my impression of the Deist view is that God prepared everything and then set in motion and then does not keep checking back in and making adjustments as necessary. He just lets it run its course the way he set it up.
    Changing the subject to pick up on the Skousen/Brigham Young idea about JUST shipping all varieties of life across the universe to save the trouble of having to evolve a fresh batch of creatures – exactly how is that easier. We haven’t figured out how to get out of our solar system and by now we should have figured out that God didn’t just point his finger at a cloud of cosmic dust and “poof” the world showed up a week later. I’m not saying that it couldn’t have happened – Brigham was not shy about sharing his opinion and I can respect that. However, that concept could conceivably be more complicated than evolution if you take a different perspective. I think that the quotes Steve already included about clinging to simplistic explanations when discussing complex ideas with educated people is not a constructive way to persuade them to listen to anything you have to say.

  20. raedyohed says:


    I’d echo Mrs.Andy’s echo of SteveP’s position that overly simplistic solutions usually end up being deeply flawed. Re the wholesale transplantation of the diversity of life… so phylogenetic reconstruction of the tree of life is actually peering back into evolution, just on another planet? I don’t get it.

    Besides, the fact that we have recovered protein and DNA sequence data from fossils including T. rex, neanderthals, mammoths, etc and cladistically placed them precisely where we would have expected them to be with respect to living species pretty well negates the idea, as does the faunal succession in fossil layers.

    My impression was Skousen’s book is pretty much stabbing in the dark. Sometimes you hit something, just not in this specific case.

  21. Kreed says:

    The problem with reconciling evolution with theology is that one is a science and the other is speculation. Since nobody could possibly understand the mind of God, including prophets, it can only follow that theology is by definition speculative.

    We have no understanding of what God does when he goes to work each “day”. We can only speculate on either side of the Anthropic Principle. Do the laws exist as eternal principles? Do the laws and constants have to be “set” by God before the big bang in order to bring forth life?

    Who knows and who can know? Nobody. Theology is merely a struggle to understand the unknowable.

    However, as an active Mormon, I’m quite comfortable with the knowledge that has been revealed. This much we can understand. I can accept that God is embodied because the life and works of Joseph Smith have convinced me that he saw what he says he saw. So God is embodied. Or did he just assume the appearance of a human? Don’t know. Don’t really care.

    But what do we see in science? A huge finite universe with a beginning and an end. Potentially billions of habitable planets. worlds without number. Not just our little world, billions. Not just our universe but potentially an infinity of universes. Plenty of time and space for eternal progression. All neatly encompassed in Mormon doctrine, and neatly supported by science.

    What are the mechanisms of science? the Great Theories explain a lot, but only within our scope of understanding. We don’t know what God must have known.

    SO: Theology is inherently incompatible with science. And science is incomplete. But the great theories are certainly true within our experience.

    THEREFORE: I accept all aspects of science as truth with uncertainty. I accept direct revelation as truth with constraints – it is not meet that we understand all things.

    I reject all theological arguments applied against science. You cannot falsify truth with speculation. Period.

    Therefore, I have arrived at a simple point of view. Where religion touches our lives for the better, explains our relationship with God, gives us hope for a better world and eternal progression, that is “true” within the context of our faith.

    Where religion or more commonly, a literal interpretation of an ancient creation myth is used as an argument against science, well, sorry, don’t buy it.

    Here’s my simple viewpoint, sans theology:

    Eden represents a state not a place. The state of innocence. Early man, prior to the first prophet, was living in a state of innocence. Therefore Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens were llving in an Edenic state of innocence at least until there was a prophet – a law giver.

    “Death” means spiritual death, not mortal death. Primitive Homo could not experience spiritual death because they knew no law. They were in the same state of innocence a small child is in today. The could not sin, therefore they could not suffer spiritual death.

    The fruit symbolizes the law. Adam, representing men, and Eve representing women, partook of the fruit (the law) and were then subject to sin and spiritual death. It is interesting to me that the basic tenets of the law appeared quickly after the invention of writing by the Sumerians and the subsequent adaptation of the principle of writing across the old world. Probably priests and shamans have existed for thousands of years, but until revealed law is upon the earth (I hereby speculate), there could be no sin.

    The atonement is necessary for salvation because nobody can keep the law perfectly. Else we would all be condemned to spiritual death.

    This works for me. The literal story works for other people. Some combination of science mixed with theological speculation works for others.

    That is the beauty of the LDS temple experience. This story can be adapted to any level of experience and intellect.

    Hence, I’m content with my faith and my science.

  22. ;:- I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information -;*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *