Faith Vs. Science

[Rivers]

Walter,

There are a few more than just McConkie. Please see below.

Apostle Pratt is attributing the "whore of all the earth" language to Luther and Calvin. You would probably know if this is accurate or not.

However, if accurate, then with such a reference in the religious literature outside of the LDS Church and referenced as such by the LDS Church leaders, I would think that this "whore of all the earth" language, especially as it appears in LDS scripture, would always be taken to be in reference to the Catholic Church, unless specifically stated otherwise.

When I read the Book of Mormon description of the Great and Abominable church, it sure seems to me that its talking about the Catholic Church of the dark ages when eccliastical authority and political authority were connected. Ever since the great western enlightenment, the catholic church isn't quite as great and abominable. On the contrary, it does a lot of good for the world.

[Jaybear]

When I read the Book of Mormon description of the Great and Abominable church, it sure seems to me that its talking about the Catholic Church of the dark ages when eccliastical authority and political authority were connected. Ever since the great western enlightenment, the catholic church isn't quite as great and abominable. On the contrary, it does a lot of good for the world.

If its not the Catholic Church, then what other Church had such a broad global reach, that it could be considered "great"

[Nathair/|\]

It is just the polemical use of the term "magic" that is naive. Your use of the term is an attempt to make religion seem silly.

The problem is that you now have to define "magic."

Quinn ran into problems with defining it.

I've always found Dion Fortune's definition useful: Magic is the art and science of causing change in consiousness in accordance with will. John Michael Greer suggested that magic is to religion as engineering is to science. I tend to think of it as in magic you use your own abilities, with the priesthood, you are a channel for God's power.

[WalkerW]

When I read the Book of Mormon description of the Great and Abominable church, it sure seems to me that its talking about the Catholic Church of the dark ages when eccliastical authority and political authority were connected. Ever since the great western enlightenment, the catholic church isn't quite as great and abominable. On the contrary, it does a lot of good for the world.

Nonetheless, the BoM never declares the RCC to be the Great and Abominable church. Considering the fact that the majority of historians recognize the "Dark Ages" to be a propagandist myth, I see no reason to lay such an interpretation on top of the text.

[44Foxtrot]

Walker. I always think of this when I am mistakingly called "Walter."

Sorry about the misspelling. I do know your screen name and usually spell it correctly.

I know. McConkie is just the most well-known. I was skimming James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy and Jesus the Christ last night, taking note of the unnecessary hostility toward Catholicism. See this excellent article on Talmage's (and other GAs') sources.

You've provided work by Pratt. The Seer was officially denounced by the First Presidency in 1865. I think this barely counts as a "Church publication."

Seems a little Orwellian doesn't it?

The idea that contemporary divinely inspired Church leaders can just make null and void the principles, doctrines and revelations of their divinely inspired predecessors just seems a bit too convenient (as the "Church Lady" might say). This is something that really bothers a lot of people about the Church.

Brigham Young's revelations have been denounced. Bruce R. McConkie's work has been denounced. The idea of eternal progression was denied by GBH on national television. The Church is apparently even backpedalling from SWK's Miracle of Forgiveness (which they well should).

Why all of the denouncing and backpedalling if the LDS prophets are divinely inspired by an eternal and omniscient God? What doctrine will be the next to go?

To those outside the Church this constant need to "clarify" (read change) the past can create real credibility problems.

I noticed the same problem over on the Catholic apologetic site. They seemed very concerned that the actions of the Pope in the Galileo affair were not seen as a disconfirmation of (or evidence against) Papal infallibility.

Any others?

I see that Martin Luther did refer to the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, this passage apparently coming from Revelations. The Catholic Church is identified as the Whore of Babylon in a number of other writings from the Reformation. From Revelations 17.4-5:

"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH".

A lot of the imagery from Chapter 17 and 18 or Revelations and a lot from the writings of the Reformation identifying the whore of Babylon as the Catholic Church contains the same language and imagery as is in the BoM and D&C regarding some great and abominable Church, which is no longer supposed to be a reference to the Catholic Church. I think that one who considered Revelations, the writings of Martin Luther, of Orson Pratt and of Bruce R. McConkie, as well as John Taylor (see below) could reasonably conclude that Joseph Smith was referring to the Roman Catholic Church in the more than 20 BoM and D&D passages that I mentioned in an earlier post.

Using the term Babylon again, President John Taylor apparently provided "equal opportunity" condemnation of other religions:

"Babylon, literally understood, is the gay world; spiritual wickedness, the golden city, and the glory of the world, The priests of Egypt, who received a portion gratis from Pharaoh; the priests of Baal, and the Pharisees, and Sadducees, with their "long robes," among the Jews, are equally included in their mother's family, with the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all that have not had the keys of the kingdom and power thereof, according to the ordinances of God." - Prophet John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.939

[Jeff K.]

I figured that facts taken from the narrative that Jeff seemed to be using for reference would be the most appropriate. When it is possible make a point in debate using the opponents data set, who would pass up the opportunity to do so?

I never linked a Catholic apologists website for my information. I used the same source you did, wikipedia. But I know the history and context whereas you do not.

[Jeff K.]

Walker. I always think of this when I am mistakingly called "Walter."

I know. McConkie is just the most well-known. I was skimming James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy and Jesus the Christ last night, taking note of the unnecessary hostility toward Catholicism. See this excellent article on Talmage's (and other GAs') sources.

You've provided work by Pratt. The Seer was officially denounced by the First Presidency in 1865. I think this barely counts as a "Church publication."

Any others?

Frankly, compared to seventh day adventists, McConkie is a lightweight. Again it goes to a context of history that once again foxtrott doesn't understand when he trots out statements as if they are glaring examples. Terms like "papist" and so on were in heavy use against the Catholic church because of their dominance in Europe. They were not welcome in the US (despite Cecelius Calvert's colonial ambition) and moreso rejected with the heavy Irish immigration. I would review the terms of Talmage and McConkie as a reflection of the times when the enmity of the Catholic church and other churches was much stronger than it is now. The speculation of the great abdominal church was influenced by a popular theory based on revelations and the idea that only the Catholic church could be such a large organization.

So if you have little more than the dogmatic eyes of presentism in which you place present mores and attitudes in the past as if there has been no societal change or understanding, you get the wrong headed naive, and somewhat arrogant view of history. The idea that everyone in the past "thinks like you" is simply ridiculous.

But when foxtrot posts, well there you have it. Naive, dogmatic, ridiculous and without anything more than a few quotes, and those taken out of context. It is a trolls dream. If no one ever bothered to look up the contextually accurate facts.

[Jeff K.]

Brigham Young's revelations have been denounced. Bruce R. McConkie's work has been denounced. The idea of eternal progression was denied by GBH on national television. The Church is apparently even backpedalling from SWK's Miracle of Forgiveness (which they well should).

Wasn't it Bruce R. McConkie that stated explicitly that his was speculation, didn't he denounce himself?

And President Hinckley's answer has been discussed and the issues answered ad nauseum. Do you ever do any of your own research or do you expect everyone else to do the work for you? Again, it speaks to your lack of scholarship, your lack of academic credentials and goes to your ability to know what science and rational thought really are. Sheesh

[WalkerW]

Sorry about the misspelling. I do know your screen name and usually spell it correctly.

I know. I just used it as an excuse to post the link.

Remember your claim:

Dr. Peterson's revision of Church history was his claim that the Mormon Church did not characterize the Catholic Church as the "great and abominable Church and the whore of the whole earth", even though such a characterization is found in Church scripture, made in Church publications, proclaimed in writings by Church leaders and (was) taught in Seminary and Institute. Of course the Church is now trying to backpedal on this characterization, but the written evidence for it remains.

You haven't shown where the Catholic Church is called the whore of the earth in Church scripture. You squeaked by with The Seer when it comes to Church publications (though I don't think really lives up to force of your statement). I'm aware of the writings of Church leaders, as are you. As for being "taught in Seminary and Institute," that would be a personal aspect of the teacher, not the curriculum.

The only one you've come up with is the third.

[WalkerW]

I would review the terms of Talmage and McConkie as a reflection of the times when the enmity of the Catholic church and other churches was much stronger than it is now.

I agree, which is why I linked to this article.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson's revision of Church history was his claim that the Mormon Church did not characterize the Catholic Church as the "great and abominable Church and the whore of the whole earth", even though such a characterization is found in Church scripture, made in Church publications, proclaimed in writings by Church leaders and (was) taught in Seminary and Institute. Of course the Church is now trying to backpedal on this characterization, but the written evidence for it remains.

I try to be careful in what I write. But that's sadly pointless if those who read what I write aren't careful, themselves.

I never said that "the Church" hasn't taught such things. Many in the Church have, including some leaders. I believe it was wrong -- a legacy of the anti-Catholicism that flourished in the Protestant churches from which many early leaders came (and that, by the way, seems to have been noticeably absent in Joseph Smith himself) -- and I deny that it was ever official Church doctrine. But was it taught and believed by many? Particularly a few generations back? Absolutely.

What I did and do deny is that such a view is explicitly taught in the scriptures. It simply isn't. (I don't think it's implicitly contained in the scriptures, either.) Moreover, I don't believe that it can even be reconciled with a careful reading of the scriptures.

I like Stephen Robinson's take on the matter:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=168

[Jeff K.]

I agree, which is why I linked to this article.

Good article

[LeSellers]

If its not the Catholic Church, then what other Church had such a broad global reach, that it could be considered "great"

This question rests on the unwarranted assumption that the "great and abominable church" that Nephi described is a formal, religious church.

The Hebrew words translated as "church" are two: ??? (qa?ha?l) and ??? (?e?da?h) They mean "assembly" and "congregation". There is no reason to assume that either of these was a religious organization. In the book of Exodus, we read both words, and they refer to the whole of Israel.

In Greek (which has nothing directly to do with the Book of Mormon, Nephi, et al., wrote in Hebrew) the LXX often translates both of these Hebrew words as ecclesia or synagogue which mean nothing more than a group of people, especially a group called out in public. At least one English translator, Brenton, gives ??? as "conspiracy", and another, the English Standard Version, uses "company". In the Italian gives convegno and raunanza, which are "meeting" and "congregation". Notice, none of them is "church" [per se.

In fact,, "conspiracy" is the best of these options, in my mind, because is fits the rest of Nephi's description. It has dominion over the waters, it sits on hills. I lean toward the concept of a global, political (and financial) cabal. One possible candidate is the United Nations, another, political entities connected with Islam (e.g., Iranian ships, carrying armaments have recently been allowed through the Suez Canal). We still have the "evangelical" Communist bloc out there, now resurgent in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

The passage tells us that those who support Christ form one group, and that those who oppose Him and His church form the other. We will leave it as an exercise for the motivated student to discover exactly what constitutes the Church of the Lamb of God.

After describing the destruction of his own people (c. ad 400, after the establishment of the Catholic church by Constantine) in chapter 12, Nephi shows us the next scene, which includes the formation of the G&A. Since the Catholic Church had already been formed before the event he relates in chapter 13, it is not reasonable to assume that the G&A is the RCC.

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it. 7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church. 9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

It's a bit difficult to see nuns and monks as being emblemized by fine-twined linens, etc.

We might see the "Holy [sic] Roman [sic] Empire", or Britain, or France, or Spain, or Portugal as good candidates for the G&A, but they did not slay the Saints (since the Saint were not even in the world for centuries after these kingdoms/empires were built up). However, the future gives us many options for seeing the final fulfillment of this vision. (I believe that there are already many manifestations of the beginnings.)

Notice in verse 4, Nephi tells us that it was among the nations of the Gentiles that this church was formed. I see this, noted above, as being the formation of the United Nations, or the international totalitarian socialist and other conspiracies to destroy religious freedom, especially that of Christians and Latter-day Saints in particular. Others may see alternatives. We may all be partially right and partially wrong. But I can see no justification for reading the Roman Catholic Church as the G&A.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

It's a bit difficult to see nuns and monks as being emblemized by fine-twined linens, etc.

Even nuns though can be caught up using facebook too much.

[nicolasconnault]

I grew up in the Church in France, where Catholicism is the default religion. I was always taught that the "Great and abominable Church" described in the Book of Mormon was not a specific Church, but was the pride and wickedness of the world, and had its members in all religious denominations including the LDS Church.

[UNKNOWN1001010010]

Can the two really co-exist or is it one or the other? I am interested in everyones opionion. There is a cool video of a scientist who explains that I found. Check it out and I would love to hear all the responses

click on the link to view the video: http://elderbevan.bl...ist-mormon.html

The purpose of Science, its tries to explain HOW STUFF WORKS, and purpose of our religion, it focuses on the WHY, and its to help us return to God the Father, and have success in this life.

[44Foxtrot]

The purpose of Science, its tries to explain HOW STUFF WORKS, and purpose of our religion, it focuses on the WHY, and its to help us return to God the Father, and have success in this life.

UNKNOWN,

I see that this is your first post. Welcome to the Board and to the discussion.

This kind of belief, as you expressed it here, is seen often from the faithful on this Board, especially in the science vs religion threads. It is a convenient and easily remembered little expression, but I often wonder how much thought is really given to it by those who seem to see it as a deep insight.

Have you ever wondered why it is that (according to this paradigm) the how of science can be pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of credible scientists and thoughtful lay people, regardless of their background and culture, while the why of religion has thousands of often contradictory or opposing versions?

Does the fact that scientists, in general (regardless of whether they are physicists, biologists, geologists, chemists, astronomers, etc), can agree on the how while religionists cannot agree on the why ever give you cause for concern?

Do you ever think about the fact that large groups of people have gone, and continue to go to war and kill one another, largely because of their opposing versions of the why of religion?

Does the fact that your version of why is only believed by about 0.02% of the world's population ever give you cause to really think about the validity of your version of why?

Given the above, how can you confident that your version of why is the correct version?

If your version of why is valid, can you think of a reason why the vast majority of people who have ever been introduced to your version of why reject it out of hand?

[Kevin Christensen]

And then, of course, we have Nibley's classic essay on the Sophic and Mantic, which bring very useful perspectives.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=76&chapid=956

Proposition 2. The foundation of Sophic thinking was the elimination of the supernatural or superhuman, i.e., anything that could not be weighed, measured, or sensed objectively, from a description of the real world.

Proposition 3. Having dismissed the Mantic, the Sophic becomes impatient of its lingering survival, which it views with uncompromising hostility.

A. Superimposed on ancient tradition, the Sophic teaching claims to bring emancipation to the human mind from hoary superstition, and in so doing creates its own facile evolutionary pattern of history.

B. Arising as a protest to the Mantic, the Sophic always depends on polemic for its appeal; it feeds on the Mantic and is negative and dependent in nature.

Proposition 4. Claiming magisterial authority, the Sophic acknowledges no possibility of defeat or rivalry. In principle it can never be wrong. Its confidence is absolute.

D. To remain invulnerable to all attack, the Sophic has provided itself with certain useful escape hatches, which it denies to the Mantic.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=76&chapid=957

Proposition 5. The Sophic claims (A) all knowledge for its province, to the exclusion of all other claimants and the (B) rejection of all other approaches. © It is as aggressive as it is negative, and (D) is filled with a crusading and reforming zeal.

B. At the same time it claims to be the only door to knowledge, all or partial.

C. Those whom the Sophic claims for its greatest representatives lean strongly toward the Mantic, though the Sophic proposition condemns any such concessions.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=76&chapid=958

B. The Sophic attempts to take over the religious prestige and prerogatives of the Mantic, both as being (1) a religion in its own right, and (2) as a countermeasure to fight fire with fire and deprive the Mantic of its unique advantages.

C. In the end, the Sophic produces an army of Fakirs that surpasses the best efforts of the corrupted Mantic in its antics and its arrogance.

Proposition 8. There are certain inescapable limitations to the Sophic that, while they do not destroy its sway fatally, vitiate its power for good and disqualify its claims to rule.

B. The Sophic attempts to take over the religious prestige and prerogatives of the Mantic, both as being (1) a religion in its own right, and (2) as a countermeasure to fight fire with fire and deprive the Mantic of its unique advantages.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=76&chapid=959

Proposition 9. The world without the Mantic offers the best test of the Sophic. It is marked by (A) piteous disappointment, (B) a puzzling deadness of spirit, and © a world plagued by doubt, insecurity, cynicism, and despair.

B. The result is nihilism, societal breakdown, and a puzzling deadness of spirit.

C. It is the moral condition of life in a world without Mantic that most strongly proclaims the bankruptcy of the Sophic.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[skenderbeg]

As a scientist (for lack of a better term - is a Computer Scientist a real scientist? lol), and a Mormon, let me just throw in my 2 cents (this is not meant to be a thesis on this, just an observation):

Science is the 'search' for truth. You throw spaghetti against the wall, say, "huh, it stuck that time", and you publish a paper. Then rinse and repeat as necessary. There are very few absolutes in science, because things we "know" to be true, end up being assumptions that people made, they threw it against the wall, and at the time, it stuck - but later, we find out that it didn't hold up as more and more facts came to light. For example, evolution - the basic tenants prove out, but arguments of which species we evolved from change (Evolution), or when did Mammals first show up? 50 Million years ago? 100 Million years ago? or was it 150 millino years ago? (Mammals).

So, science is, in short, running experiments, or viewing the natural world, stating hypothesise, recording observations, and then seeing if the observed results back up the initial hypothesis. sometimes you're right, but most of the time, nope, nada, nothing.

True, revealed religion, on the other hand, comes from God, so when science and religion (again, bounded by the words 'true' and 'revealed') appear to be in conflict, it's not God that's wrong, it's that the spaghetti which, at the time, appeared to stick, actually fell from the wall when our backs were turned.

Personally, I've read several books on evolution, one of my favorite topics is the Burgess Shale. One exhibit is found here, and the idea that God used evolution to get the world to a state ready for my parents, myself, and my children to live on, in no way bothers me or my faith. Some people say that evolution proves that God didn't create/form the earth, or anything on it, etc., etc. Some people do have issues with not knowing everything about everything, but until the Lord reveals what's what, honestly, it's unimportant for my salvation right now - hence one reason for continuing revelation.

In short, if religion and science seem at odds, either science is wrong, or else God simply hasn't revealed anything (or very much) on the matter. Or maybe it was presented as an allegory, so it's hard to understand, etc.

I guess, for my two cents, I love science, I love learning new and interesting things, but if anyone stands up on this forum, and says that 'science is God' or that Theory/Law A disproves the existence of God, well, you can take it to the bank that they're either ignorant of the history of science or else they're purposefully misleading people.

[44Foxtrot]

I guess, for my two cents, I love science, I love learning new and interesting things, but if anyone stands up on this forum, and says that 'science is God' or that Theory/Law A disproves the existence of God, well, you can take it to the bank that they're either ignorant of the history of science or else they're purposefully misleading people.

It seems a fair assumption that you are referring to me or other individuals who come on this board with a rational, science-based worldview. For the record, I do not believe I have ever claimed on this board that God does not exist.

As a scientist, I certainly recognize that one cannot prove there is no God. However, one can make some good estimates of the probability that the Christian God (or the Mormon God) actually does exist.

When one looks at the physical evidence and considers the most likely explanations for all of the phenomena that religionists claim as evidence for God, considers the science based alternative scenarios to the myths of religious scripture and religion itself, and considers that religion and religious narratives cannot be reflective of any single or objective "truth" by the simple fact that there are so many diverse and opposing and mutually exclusive versions of these "truths" in the world, one realizes that the actual probability that the Christian God exists is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration whatsoever.

[Bruce Schaalje]

It seems a fair assumption that you are referring to me or other individuals who come on this board with a rational, science-based worldview. For the record, I do not believe I have ever claimed on this board that God does not exist.

As a scientist, I certainly recognize that one cannot prove there is no God. However, one can make some good estimates of the probability that the Christian God (or the Mormon God) actually does exist.

When one looks at the physical evidence and considers the most likely explanations for all of the phenomena that religionists claim as evidence for God, considers the science based alternative scenarios to the myths of religious scripture and religion itself, and considers that religion and religious narratives cannot be reflective of any single or objective "truth" by the simple fact that there are so many diverse and opposing and mutually exclusive versions of these "truths" in the world, one realizes that the actual probability that the Christian God exists is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration whatsoever.

Foxtrot,

As a scientist who often speaks about probabilities and Bayes theorem, consider this. One way to get a handle on conditional probabilities is to reverse them using Bayes theorem. One form of Bayes theorem is

O(A|E) = O(A) x [P(E|A)/P(E|Not A)].

That is, the (posterior odds of event A given evidence E) is equal to the (prior odds of A) times the [ratio of (the probability of evidence E given event A) to (the probability of evidence E given the opposite of event A). For two pieces of evidence, the theorem can be expanded to

O(A|E1, E2) = O(A) x [P(E1|A)/P(E1|Not A)] x [P(E2|A)/P(E2|Not A)].

Let

[44Foxtrot]

Foxtrot,

As a scientist who often speaks about probabilities and Bayes theorem, consider this. One way to get a handle on conditional probabilities is to reverse them using Bayes theorem. One form of Bayes theorem is

O(A|E) = O(A) x [P(E|A)/P(E|Not A)].

That is, the (posterior odds of event A given evidence E) is equal to the (prior odds of A) times the [ratio of (the probability of evidence E given event A) to (the probability of evidence E given the opposite of event A). For two pieces of evidence, the theorem can be expanded to

O(A|E1, E2) = O(A) x [P(E1|A)/P(E1|Not A)] x [P(E2|A)/P(E2|Not A)].

Let

[Bruce Schaalje]

Foxtrot,

[quote name=

[44Foxtrot]

Odds = 1 (not .5) if the probability is 50%.

Bruce,

You are right on this, of course.

Looked back at OR, RR and Rc and saw that I had OR confused with Rc. Sorry.

Been a while since I did this stuff.

Hope to see you later on the Probability of God thread.

We can discuss why the probability estimates by qualified academics (that I have seen, anyway) range all the way from 95% (for an avowed Christian) to 1 in 10 exp 80 (for an agnostic), and what assumptions were used to get these numbers.