The
Biblical miracles have been the subject of controversy among students of
theology. Nature study, in the opinion of many, has seemed to justify the
conclusion that the so-called laws of nature are absolutely unchangeable, and
that a miracle in defiance of any such law is an impossibility.
The
obvious reply to this view is that no one knows all the laws of nature, and
that a miracle may be as much in accordance with some law of nature as the most
common occurrence. In other words, healing by faith, or by the power of the
priesthood, may be as scientifically possible as cure by any of the remedies
known to materia medica. Leibnitz, for one, is an exponent of this view.
The
laws of nature are unchangeable. That is to say, as far as we know, a given
cause always has the same effect. If it were not so, rational beings would have
no incentive to effort, since effects could not be calculated from cause. You
might sow, but there would be no reason to expect a harvest. You might build,
but would your building stand the next day? Possibly. Possibly not, if there is
no link between cause and effect. The world would then be chaos.
But,
if God sees fit, in any particular case, to deviate from the uniformity which
we call natural law, he certainly has the power to do so, whether with or
without any human instrumentality, and then we have a miracle. "Whatsoever
the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all
deep places." (Ps. 135:6) "But our God is in the heavens: he hath
done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Ps. 115:3) That is the only rational
explanation of the miracles, ever offered. (George Reynolds and Janne M.
Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 7 vols. [Salt Lake City:
Deseret Press, 1976], 1:88)