Satan And Science

[cinepro]

The Church hasn't had much to say about the issue, but here is an interesting article from the Ensign that speaks to some of the things we've been talking about:

The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be

What is the “scientific” view of our early world that so dominates our age? How did it come to be? Where does it seem to cause challenges for someone who loves and believes the sacred texts that recount events of that same early world? In order to better orient ourselves and assist us in helping others and our children, it may be helpful to examine certain aspects of the development of scientific thought, including the differences between the purely naturalistic explanations and those which involve the actions of God as part of the picture. Also, we will look at the further understanding available to us through modern-day revelation and the gospel context.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

That species go extinct is nothing new. It is the rate at which it is happening.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html

"I thought survival of the fittest was supposed to be in play?".

Charles Darwin never used this phrase, except to complain about it. A true statement is that "Those that reproduce win".

If we analogize the planet earth to an airplane. You are waiting in the terminal to board that plane. You notice someone pulling rivets out of the wings. Now a plane can fly perfectly well missing a few rivets, but a what point do you get nervous?

[ERayR]

Franktalk:

That species go extinct is nothing new. It is the rate at which it is happening.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html

"I thought survival of the fittest was supposed to be in play?".

Charles Darwin never used this phrase, except to complain about it. A true statement is that "Those that reproduce win".

If we analogize the planet earth to an airplane. You are waiting in the terminal to board that plane. You notice someone pulling rivets out of the wings. Now a plane can fly perfectly well missing a few rivets, but a what point do you get nervous?

This analogy only works if you believe that planet earth has finite resources. With the sun sitting out there for energy and the ingenuity of God's children that is not the case.

NOTE: Nowhere have I advocated being unwise stewards.

[Stargazer]

Such has been the excuse for the destruction of thousands of our fellow creatures. They have every right to live as we do.

Do they? So, when are they going to go out and buy SUVs?

[Franktalk]

NOTE: Nowhere have I advocated being unwise stewards.

Where in the Bible does it say we are to be stewards of nature?

I always thought that this verse applies:

Luke 12:24-28

King James Version (KJV)

24Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?

25And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?

26If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?

27Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

28If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

If God is taking care of the little fish then if they go away then that is in the plan. If God is the one feeding the ravens why would we try and push God aside and say we need to be the stewards? Once you raise the creation above God bad things happen.

Genesis 1:26

King James Version (KJV)

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Where does it say steward? We are to be good shepherds. Why? Because we are to take our duties seriously. And what do we do with the sheep after we have protected them? We eat them. We are to tend the garden. Why? So we can eat the fruit.

and

Luke 12:16-23

King James Version (KJV)

16And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

17And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?

18And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

19And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

20But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

21So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

22And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.

23The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.

If we hold back while people are hungry we are fools in God's eyes. If I had the last ten delta smelt I would make a fish soup and feed the hungry. What say you?

[Franktalk]

We are to be stewards of God's Word. We are to share it and not hide it. We are to be stewards of each other, looking after each other and taking care of the sick or hungry. If we treat beast with the same rights as people how can we be stewards of man? If beasts have equal rights then man suffers. Now some will say that we need to conserve for the future. I say we do not. Have faith that God will provide if we do the things He has told us to do. Where in scripture does it say save the whales while millions die from hunger?

http://savethewhalesagain.com/

while

http://nazret.com/blog/index.php/2009/10/23/millions_starved_in_ethiopia_270_000_chi

I say can the whale meat and send it to Ethiopia. What say you science types?

Edited June 6, 2011 by Franktalk

[ERayR]

Where in the Bible does it say we are to be stewards of nature?

Try Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth".

But then again being LDS I am not limited to the Bible alone.

Moses 5:1 And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him.

A quick search will find several other references both biblical and in other LDS scripture.

Lest you want to quibble having dominion over is stewardship.

Edited June 6, 2011 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Where in scripture does it say save the whales while millions die from hunger?

Much hyperbole

[ERayR]

Lest you misunderstand I do not have an environmentalist bone in my body but I do believe in God's charge to take care of what he has given us. I do not think he will hold us responsible for a snail darter fish going extinct if we irrigate farms with the water. I do, however, think he will hold us responsible for the wise use of what he has given us and it's wanton waste. Until I got so I couldn't tramp the hills I was an avid hunter but have never believed in trophy hunting. Hunt what you eat, eat what you hunt.

Edited June 6, 2011 by ERayR

[Franktalk]

Lest you misunderstand I do not have an environmentalist bone in my body but I do believe in God's charge to take care of what he has given us. I do not think he will hold us responsible for a snail darter fish going extinct if we irrigate farms with the water. I do, however, think he will hold us responsible for the wise use of what he has given us and it's wanton waste. Until I got so I couldn't tramp the hills I was an avid hunter but have never believed in trophy hunting. Hunt what you eat, eat what you hunt.

Don't take anything I say personal. I use your posts to make general statements.

Dominion from Hebrew radah (raw-daw') To tread down, crumble off, prevail against, reign

Is this how you define dominion and steward? Just asking.

[Nathair/|\]

We are to be stewards of God's Word. We are to share it and not hide it. We are to be stewards of each other, looking after each other and taking care of the sick or hungry. If we treat beast with the same rights as people how can we be stewards of man? If beasts have equal rights then man suffers. Now some will say that we need to conserve for the future. I say we do not. Have faith that God will provide if we do the things He has told us to do. Where in scripture does it say save the whales while millions die from hunger?

http://savethewhalesagain.com/

while

http://nazret.com/bl...pia_270_000_chi

I say can the whale meat and send it to Ethiopia. What say you science types?

]...This restored work not only involves the things of eternity but is also drenched in daily significance. True disciples, for instance, would be consistent environmentalists--caring both about maintaining the spiritual health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the nurturing capacity of a family as well as providing the nurturing capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and water; caring for both the prevention and the treatment of the miseries caused by the diseases of transgression.

Adam and Eve were to "dress the garden," not exploit it. Like them, we are to keep the commandments, so that we can enjoy all the resources God has given us, resources described as "enough and to spare" (D&C 104:17), if we use and husband them wisely. (A wonderful Flood of Light, p 103)

Neal A Maxwell

Quoted in Stratton, Richard D. compiled: Kindness to Animals and Caring for the Earth.

I also recommend Approaching Zion.

Yours under the Druidic oaks,

Nathair /|\

Btw, it's not the scientists you need to worry about...

Edited June 6, 2011 by Nathair

[Franktalk]

Btw, it's not the scientists you need to worry about...

The only one I fear is God. You are confusing waste with sharing. I believe we should supply the needs of man and leave it up to God to replenish what is needed. Once we hold onto stores and let people go hungry we are doing Satan's work. There is nothing wrong with not being wasteful in how we use our resources. If we burn down a forest we are wasteful. If we cut down a forest and make shelters we do God's work. Both of these result in a forest being taken. If we saved some trees and let some freeze to death we do the work of Satan. Have faith in God to provide. Have faith that the manna will be there tomorrow. Don't be so attached to the world that you won't let God do what He has promised to do. Have faith.

[shalamabobbi]

The only one I fear is God. You are confusing waste with sharing. I believe we should supply the needs of man and leave it up to God to replenish what is needed. Once we hold onto stores and let people go hungry we are doing Satan's work. There is nothing wrong with not being wasteful in how we use our resources. If we burn down a forest we are wasteful. If we cut down a forest and make shelters we do God's work. Both of these result in a forest being taken. If we saved some trees and let some freeze to death we do the work of Satan. Have faith in God to provide. Have faith that the manna will be there tomorrow. Don't be so attached to the world that you won't let God do what He has promised to do. Have faith.

There's a spot in the BOM where they had used up all the trees to build houses and suddenly they weren't available any longer for that purpose. So they ended up leaving any tree that sprang up alone so that in time they would have forests again.

If feeding a family means eating the last few survivors of a species what will that do for the welfare of their children after them?

That would be like the saints arriving in the Salt Lake valley and eating all their seed grain so they felt full and warm and contented with no regard for tomorrow.

If you are really concerned about having enough food to go around give "The Food Revolution" by Robbins a read, then get back to me..

Edited June 6, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Nathair/|\]

The only one I fear is God. You are confusing waste with sharing. I believe we should supply the needs of man and leave it up to God to replenish what is needed. Once we hold onto stores and let people go hungry we are doing Satan's work. There is nothing wrong with not being wasteful in how we use our resources. If we burn down a forest we are wasteful. If we cut down a forest and make shelters we do God's work. Both of these result in a forest being taken. If we saved some trees and let some freeze to death we do the work of Satan. Have faith in God to provide. Have faith that the manna will be there tomorrow. Don't be so attached to the world that you won't let God do what He has promised to do. Have faith.

Insane troll logic

[Franktalk]

That would be like the saints arriving in the Salt Lake valley and eating all their seed grain so they felt full and warm and contented with no regard for tomorrow.

So tell me how many people starved to death because they did not eat the seed?

[Franktalk]

Insane troll logic

I am sure faith in God appears to be foolish. There was a man once who suffered greatly for no reason. He said that if we accept good times we must also accept bad times. His name was Job and he was a type for Christ. A servant of God and one who remained faithful even in the face of hardship. Then another some 2500 years later also suffered for no fault of His own. He allowed Himself to be taken and punished for others. A sacrifice so others may have life.

When I speak about using resources I am trying to draw a line so that one of the results of science is exposed. This is moral relativism which is not in keeping with God's Word. But I have presented a simple case with few variables, maybe too simple for the message to be gotten.

Some time ago a group of people received additional revelation of the Word of God. Most of that Word was just a restatement and confirmation of earlier scripture. These people received the confirmation from the Holy Ghost that what they read was indeed from God and that they should establish a Church so that others may live a good life. A good life does not mean an easy life. It means a life in which one stays on the path that God has chosen for us. The world has a hold of many people and when that hold gets extreme we can assume that Satan has manipulated man for his own purposes. In this case the groups leader was killed, he was their prophet and was guided by God to find and translate the additional revelation. Many others were killed and property was destroyed by people acting under worldly desires. In their eyes they were saving there families from Satan. It is interesting how Satan appears on both sides of an argument at times. Curious don't you think?

Now this group of people after they were persecuted decided to move. They had done this before and knew in their hearts that God would save the Church. God may not save all of them. They accepted this. If warmth was what they wanted they could have renounced their faith and stayed. But faith is what drove them. They gathered what they could and left for the west. Along the way some died from the hardship. Knowing that supplies were low how many did not eat so others would? I suspect some. If one has their sights set on God's goal but not your own then they walk with God and walk in faith. And if some died so others could live then they sit with God today. For there is no greater love than the laying down of one's life for another.

In the examples I have written about faith and in some cases we are faced with a simple choice. We are to trust God and do what we should. We should not place hardships on others if we can avoid it. With moral relativism man's importance is diminished but what is even more diminished is the plan of God. Once the world's logic enters then faith and God's plan leaves. It is not logical to do two years of missionary work in the prime of life. It is not logical to give 10% to the church. It is not logical to give up time and resources for a calling from the Church. Yet people do all of the time.

[ERayR]

Don't take anything I say personal. I use your posts to make general statements.

Dominion from Hebrew radah (raw-daw') To tread down, crumble off, prevail against, reign

Is this how you define dominion and steward? Just asking.

No, the definition I use is to rule over and protect.

[Nathair/|\]

I am sure faith in God appears to be foolish. There was a man once who suffered greatly for no reason. He said that if we accept good times we must also accept bad times. His name was Job and he was a type for Christ. A servant of God and one who remained faithful even in the face of hardship. Then another some 2500 years later also suffered for no fault of His own. He allowed Himself to be taken and punished for others. A sacrifice so others may have life.

When I speak about using resources I am trying to draw a line so that one of the results of science is exposed. This is moral relativism which is not in keeping with God's Word. But I have presented a simple case with few variables, maybe too simple for the message to be gotten.

Some time ago a group of people received additional revelation of the Word of God. Most of that Word was just a restatement and confirmation of earlier scripture. These people received the confirmation from the Holy Ghost that what they read was indeed from God and that they should establish a Church so that others may live a good life. A good life does not mean an easy life. It means a life in which one stays on the path that God has chosen for us. The world has a hold of many people and when that hold gets extreme we can assume that Satan has manipulated man for his own purposes. In this case the groups leader was killed, he was their prophet and was guided by God to find and translate the additional revelation. Many others were killed and property was destroyed by people acting under worldly desires. In their eyes they were saving there families from Satan. It is interesting how Satan appears on both sides of an argument at times. Curious don't you think?

Now this group of people after they were persecuted decided to move. They had done this before and knew in their hearts that God would save the Church. God may not save all of them. They accepted this. If warmth was what they wanted they could have renounced their faith and stayed. But faith is what drove them. They gathered what they could and left for the west. Along the way some died from the hardship. Knowing that supplies were low how many did not eat so others would? I suspect some. If one has their sights set on God's goal but not your own then they walk with God and walk in faith. And if some died so others could live then they sit with God today. For there is no greater love than the laying down of one's life for another.

In the examples I have written about faith and in some cases we are faced with a simple choice. We are to trust God and do what we should. We should not place hardships on others if we can avoid it. With moral relativism man's importance is diminished but what is even more diminished is the plan of God. Once the world's logic enters then faith and God's plan leaves. It is not logical to do two years of missionary work in the prime of life. It is not logical to give 10% to the church. It is not logical to give up time and resources for a calling from the Church. Yet people do all of the time.

You have created many false binaries. Can you find the third factor in each to resolve them? You may want to go back and read the quote I provided from Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve.

False binary one: Using resources in a sustainable manner vs. providing for human needs.

False binary two. Faith vs. logic

False binary three: science vs. revelation

I'll leave the rest to you to figure out.

Yours under the oaks of discipleship.

Nathair /|\

[cinepro]

Interestingly, the current issue of Dialogue magazine is focused entirely on the LDS relationship to the environment.

Why Nature Matters: A Special Issue of Dialogue on Mormonism and the Environment

6 George B. Handley Faith and the Ethics of Climate Change

36 Craig D. Galli Enoch's Vision and Gaia: An LDS Perspective on Environmental Stewardship

57 Bryan V. Wallis Flexibility in the Ecology of Ideas: Revelatory Religion and the Environment

67 Jason M. Brown Whither Environmental Theology

87 Bart H. Welling "The Blood of Every Beast": Mormonism and the Question of the Animal

118 Mary Toscano A Perch, A Foothold, A Float

119 Patricia Gunter Karamesines Why Joseph Went to the Woods: Rootstock for LDS Literary Nature Writers

[Nathair/|\]

Interestingly, the current issue of Dialogue magazine is focused entirely on the LDS relationship to the environment.

Why Nature Matters: A Special Issue of Dialogue on Mormonism and the Environment

6 George B. Handley Faith and the Ethics of Climate Change

36 Craig D. Galli Enoch's Vision and Gaia: An LDS Perspective on Environmental Stewardship

57 Bryan V. Wallis Flexibility in the Ecology of Ideas: Revelatory Religion and the Environment

67 Jason M. Brown Whither Environmental Theology

87 Bart H. Welling "The Blood of Every Beast": Mormonism and the Question of the Animal

118 Mary Toscano A Perch, A Foothold, A Float

119 Patricia Gunter Karamesines Why Joseph Went to the Woods: Rootstock for LDS Literary Nature Writers

I'd really like to read those, but I can't afford the $25 right now.

[Franktalk]

You have created many false binaries. Can you find the third factor in each to resolve them? You may want to go back and read the quote I provided from Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Do not place your views on other people. Do you think that any leader of the church would let any person starve in order to save a fish? It does boil down to this question. When there is plenty then we have the luxury of thinking about conservation but when we have a starving person in front of us we do not. If our options are limited to what I have described do you think that any member would let someone die to save a fish? All of the arm waving and quotes that deal in times of plenty do not answer the question that I have posted. Given one of two options do you let someone starve or do you eat the last in a line for a species? It is a simple question but in answering it you tell me how you value human life. If times were lean do you tell people to abort their babies? Where does the relative morality stop, where do you draw the line and say I will respect human life above the beast? So far I see no answer to the questions I have posted. I have been very clear as to my position. What is yours? If you have to even think about it for a moment then you are lost.

You act like you will always have options. I hope you do because I would not want to be that starving person and have to rely on your morals to save me. By the time you make up your mind and decide what to do I would be dead. Once we start to go down the relative morality road we start to think that all problems can be fixed if we just think about them hard enough. But sometimes we have no options and we have no time. Then you must rest on your core beliefs. This is where I rest. I see everything in black and white terms. The grey area between yes and no is the devil's playground. Let your answers be yes or no. Seems to me I heard that some place.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

God is the master scientist. Science is nothing more than observation and attempts to explain what that observation means. Science includes truth, and all true science falls within the Gospel circle of truth.

The problem, is man's arrogance, in thinking he knows so much from science when he really knows so little. Arrogance, pride, desire for power and recognition...these things are the things that are dangerous to faith. Not science. IMO.

I have always enjoyed the concept behind the movie The Matrix. To me it is a reminder of the fluid nature of reality. Conspiricy Theories exist because we know human limitations and our abilities to be manipulated.

Other examples of interesting mind concepts are The Truman Show (tricking someone through extreme manipulation into believing a false world), Total Recall (was it all part of his "memory vacation" or not), and many Twilight Zone eposides.

It poses an interesting question. If someone creates virtual reality so realistic, you can't tell the difference, once you go into the system, would you ever know from that point forward if you ever escaped? (IE: you being removed from the machine never happens, rather its simulated).

What this brings me to is the deep dark question. Can science itself be manipulated by the Devil and would be know if it was?

Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic. The followers of the religion of Science believe it replaces the need for a God. It seems conveniently moving people away from spiritual dependence and giving people an independence from "childish concepts" like God, etc.

Abandonment of a dependence on Heavenly Father is a common theme in many religious texts, expecially the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It seems we are warned against it and have been before Science was even a concern as a threat toward spirituality (removing the idea those passages were added as a safety value for people to say what I am about to say to protect "religion").

It just seems science is conveniently a powerful mechanism that appears to be turning people from God and toward secularism and immortality. Everything the Bible warned us against.

Worse, if Science WAS being driven by the Devil and his influence, would we know? Are we not possibly being lead away from God like lambs to slaughter?

Something to consider.

JMS

Edited June 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[DH]

I just don't view science as a major threat to religion, or vice versa. In my opinion, Stephen Jay Gould's concept of the "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) of science and religion is useful: "The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." It is simply not the role of science to explain the ultimate meaning of things, nor do I expect to go to Sunday School and learn how photosynthesis works.

The way I see it, if someone pins their testimony on the young earth theory and claims the Devil is deceiving scientists into believing the earth is billions of years old, they're just being silly, and don't understand what religion is all about.

Edited June 6, 2011 by DH

[HeatherAnn]

... Do you think that any leader of the church would let any person starve in order to save a fish? It does boil down to this question. When there is plenty then we have the luxury of thinking about conservation but when we have a starving person in front of us we do not. If our options are limited to what I have described do you think that any member would let someone die to save a fish? ...

Good questions. It made me think about how we seem to express care only when "a starving person is in front of us" - out of sight, out of mind & heart.

Unfortunately, many do prioritize animals above humans. "Every cow in the European Union is subsidized by $2.50 a day. That's more than what 75% of Africans have to live on."

God is the master scientist. Science is nothing more than observation and attempts to explain what that observation means. Science includes truth' date=' and all true science falls within the Gospel circle of truth.

The problem, is man's arrogance, in thinking he knows so much from science when he really knows so little. Arrogance, pride, desire for power and recognition...these things are the things that are dangerous to faith. Not science. IMO.[/quote']Well put!

[Franktalk]

Good questions. It made me think about how we seem to express care only when "a starving person is in front of us" - out of sight, out of mind & heart.

Unfortunately, many do prioritize animals above humans. "Every cow in the European Union is subsidized by $2.50 a day. That's more than what 75% of Africans have to live on."

Well put!

Many think of science as pure intellectual pursuit of truth. It is not. Ever since the 1700's it has become a club for naturalist that seek to destroy the belief in God. Of course to declare this goal would be counterproductive. So a few people in science will slowly guide us off the moral cliff. The reasoning is that if we go over the cliff slow enough that no one will notice. It used to be that science was the study of God's creation. Now it is the study of nature, God is not mentioned. So how did science take this turn?

The other day some police and firemen in Oakland stood by as someone drowned them self in a suicide. It took an hour. They said it was their policy not to attempt water rescues. They said the budget was cut so they were not trained and did not have the right equipment. If I was there I would have gone in and tried to bring back the person. I may have died trying. I could not sit there and watch another human being who is suffering drown them self for an hour. I could not do it. When we separate out events and don't take them personally this is what we become. We study instead of doing. We weight the options instead of reacting. We call some one else because it is not our job. When morals become a matter of discussion and not something to live by this is what we get. When we debate if an abortion should be mandated after two children we have left the land of universal morality and entered into the land of moral relativism. The same relativism that is taught in science. The same that our government uses because it can't use anything from religion. We must be able to show a logical sequence to our thoughts. And if we come across a new moral question we do nothing until the collective has had a chance to examine the relative merits of risk and reward, examine the budget, or even check our watch to see if our shift is over soon so the problem becomes somebody else's problem. You see moral relativism does not belong to us. It belongs to the collective. If someone drowns while we watch it is due to the collective and not me. It is a way to sidestep responsibility, it is a way to be safe. It is the exact opposite of what we are to learn while in the flesh.

When we believe with all of our might that we are just an animal then we place that low worth on all others. This is what science teaches.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_18177424