The Most Unscientific Things Currently Published By The Church

[cinepro]

These issues often get discussed in different threads, but I think it would be good to bring them all together just so we're clear.

What are the most "unscientific" things that are currently taught by the Church, including articles or talks on the Church website, or in Church or CES curriculum?

To be clear, I'm not talking about angels, resurrection, miracles and such things. I'm referring those things that appear to clearly and directly contradict current science (including archaeology). Or, if proven correct, would re-write current scientific theories and probably earn the prover a Nobel prize.

This can include articles by non-GAs. If any of these teachings have been corrected, updated or otherwise improved in subsequent Church publications, it would be very helpful for those references to be provided.

But please provide direct links and citations from LDS.org for all references. If it's not there, it doesn't count.

Here are a few that come to mind for me.

1. Obviously, the literal global flood is first and foremost:

The Flood and the Tower of Babel

(and literal Tower of Babel, see above)

2. The Earth was created near Kolob, and fell to its current location in the cosmos at Adam's fall:

The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book

3. The continents were separated after the flood, and the Jaredites were the first inhabitants of the new world.

A Promised Land

Edited October 7, 2011 by cinepro

[William Schryver]

What are the most "unscientific" things that are currently taught by the Church ...

First and foremost, in my judgment, the most "unscientific" thing taught by the Church is the literal resurrection: that Jesus Christ was put to death, placed in a tomb, and on the third day He rose from the dead; that each and every person who has ever lived upon the earth will eventually be raised from the dead, their spirits housed in an immortal body of flesh and bone.

ETA: Yes, I intentionally ignored Cinepro's attempt to exclude the resurrection from discussion. He wants to limit the discussion in that manner in order to focus on his pet topics, and thereby focus his derision on what he considers ridicule-worthy LDS beliefs. But I submit that belief in a global flood or a Tower of Babel is NOT substantially less "scientific" than belief in a literal resurrection. I believe in miracles, and in the power of God to bring them to pass, be they manifest in one way or another. I am loath to limit the power of God in any fashion.

Edited October 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3. The continents were separated after the flood, and the Jaredites were the first inhabitants of the new world.

A Promised Land

I don't see what the issue here is. What scientific evidence is there that there were people living were the Olmec's lived before the Olmecs?

Let's just assume that Olmec =Jaredite.

[Loran Blood]

First and foremost, in my judgment, the most "unscientific" thing taught by the Church is the literal resurrection: that Jesus Christ was put to death, placed in a tomb, and on the third day He rose from the dead; that each and every person who has ever lived upon the earth will eventually be raised from the dead, their spirits housed in an immortal body of flesh and bone.

Good, as we might as well just cut to the chase.

[Ariarates]

But I submit that belief in a global flood or a Tower of Babel is substantially less "scientific" than belief in a literal resurrection.

I'm with Will (except for the small font).

[KevinG]

Popcorn Trees and Talking Streams.

[Verum]

All of this could be argued that the church has no "official" stance, but I think its pretty well implied:

-No death / procreation before the Fall

-Earth is 7,000 years old (see Bible dictionary)

-Dinosaurs never existed on Earth, and the bones found are actually from other planets that ended up here when the earth was created from material previously used to create other planets. (This is probably more of a CES trend then something GA's taught, but I heard it all the time...)

-Proclaiming the gospel to the four corners of the Earth (Flat planet)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

-Dinosaurs never existed on Earth, and the bones found are actually from other planets that ended up here when the earth was created from material previously used to create other planets. (This is probably more of a CES trend then something GA's taught, but I heard it all the time...)

I have heard this, but never I have heard it from any one speaking in an official capacity. I wonder where it originated from.

This is classic folk doctrine.

[Duncan]

I have heard this, but never I have heard it from any one speaking in an official capacity. I wonder where it originated from.

This is classic folk doctrine.

I seem to recall a statement from Joseph Smith about the earth being put together from other past earths or something to that effect, I don't know what to make of it or if he actually said it or someone else heard him say it and wrote it down 50 years later or what

[William Schryver]

I'm with Will (except for the small font).

Whoops! I meant to say that belief in a global flood and the Tower of Babel is NOT substantially less scientific than belief in a physical resurrection.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I seem to recall a statement from Joseph Smith about the earth being put together from other past earths or something to that effect, I don't know what to make of it or if he actually said it or someone else heard him say it and wrote it down 50 years later or what

Right, I just know of no official quote about the dinosaurs. I believe that JS said something about this earth being created from other material. I don't even know if he used the words "parts from other worlds". I would be curious to know were it all came from.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[cinepro]

Whoops! I meant to say that belief in a global flood and the Tower of Babel is NOT substantially less scientific than belief in a physical resurrection.

It would seem to be less scientific to the degree that there is good evidence arguing against a global flood and a Tower of Babel event, whereas there isn't much to argue against the miraculous resurrection of a single person who subsequently left the planet 2000 years ago.

[cinepro]

Right, I just know of no official quote about the dinosaurs. I believe that JS said something about this earth being created from other material. I don't even know if he used the words "parts from other worlds". I would be curious to know were it all came from.

From the September 1987 Ensign:

The different roles science and religion play is illustrated in a study of the dinosaurs. From the fossil record we learn that the dinosaurs were the dominant animals on earth between 225 and 67 million years ago. Some were carnivorous, others herbivorous. Some were small, while others were gigantic, weighing up to eighty tons and growing to lengths of more than ninety feet.

The existence of these animals is indisputable, for their remains have been found in rocks all over the earth. What eternal purpose they played in the creation and early history of the earth is unknown. The scriptures do not address the question, and it is not the realm of science to explore the issue of why they were here. We can only conclude, as Elder Talmage did, that “the whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (“The Earth and Man.”)

Of course, the findings of science and the statements made in the scriptures are not entirely exclusive of each other. Often, the one augments knowledge supplied by the other. A case in point is an event in Church history when a prominent paleontologist, through his study of fossils found on the American continent, supported statements made in the Book of Mormon that were disputed by some nonmembers. A story published by the New York Tribune on 17 November 1873 relates a meeting in Salt Lake City between President Brigham Young and Professor O. C. Marsh of Yale University. Professor Marsh was one of the leading paleontologists of his time in America. His specialty, fossil horses, was the subject of the two men’s conversation.

Brigham Young sought information concerning the occurrence of horse fossils, especially in America. His purpose was to answer critics who challenged the mention of horses on this continent in the Book of Mormon. Everybody knew, said the critics, that there were no horses in America until the Spaniards introduced them. Professor Marsh’s research of horse fossils, however, clearly established the presence of modern horses in America long before the appearance of Spanish people in America.

The Tribune article concludes with the following: “So, while most theologians are regarding the developments of the natural sciences with fear and trembling, the chiefs of the Mormon religion are prepared to hail the discoveries of paleontology as an aid in establishing their peculiar beliefs.”

Edited October 7, 2011 by cinepro

[William Schryver]

It would seem to be less scientific to the degree that there is good evidence arguing against a global flood and a Tower of Babel event, whereas there isn't much to argue against the miraculous resurrection of a single person who subsequently left the planet 2000 years ago.

So I've heard.

I'm not too concerned about it either way, but I, personally, am not entirely persuaded by what is characterized as "indisputable" evidence to that effect. I have some reason to believe all is not as it may appear to be, and certainly not as it is "indisputably" claimed to be.

I am convinced that God can bring to pass things that are "scientifically" impossible--like, for example, moving mountains.

[J Green]

I'm with Will on this one. And I don't understand why Cinepro wants to remove resurrection, angels, and other core beliefs from the discussion. I second Will's motion on resurrection and insist that this is not just a case of one individual thousands of years ago. It's every single person who ever lived, is living, and will live. What is the answer from science on that and why shouldn't it be the very first topic of discussion?

Merely from previous conversatons with him,I suspect that the reason Cinepro wants to sweep these other topics under the rug is that the other issues he outlines are (for many who engage in a discussion of them) not reallly an issue of science versus faith but rather an issue of textual criticism first. I'm the first to believe in the types of miracles and faith-based events that are clearly spelled out and free from textual corruption and ambiguity. But to the degree I engage in speculation about the subjects he does list, it's about understanding what the text does or doesn't say aside from my assumptions. If I feel I can glean the mind and the will of the Lord from what is there, then I would embrace it regardless of what science says.

[frankenstein]

Popcorn Trees and Talking Streams.

Best post

[Glenn101]

We need to throw in faster than light travel into the mix also. How else could angels hie from Kolob and back so quickly?

The point being that we are in less than an infant stage as to our knowledge of the earth and the universe. My five year old granddaughter firmly believes that she knows more than I and my wife put together. (So did her father until he attained the age of about twenty-five, then all of a sudden we got a whole lot smarter.) There is an analogy here.

Glenn

[Mudcat]

These issues often get discussed in different threads, but I think it would be good to bring them all together just so we're clear.

What are the most "unscientific" things that are currently taught by the Church, including articles or talks on the Church website, or in Church or CES curriculum?

To be clear, I'm not talking about angels, resurrection, miracles and such things. I'm referring those things that appear to clearly and directly contradict current science (including archaeology). Or, if proven correct, would re-write current scientific theories and probably earn the prover a Nobel prize.

This can include articles by non-GAs. If any of these teachings have been corrected, updated or otherwise improved in subsequent Church publications, it would be very helpful for those references to be provided.

But please provide direct links and citations from LDS.org for all references. If it's not there, it doesn't count.

Here are a few that come to mind for me.

1. Obviously, the literal global flood is first and foremost:

The Flood and the Tower of Babel

(and literal Tower of Babel, see above)

2. The Earth was created near Kolob, and fell to its current location in the cosmos at Adam's fall:

The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book

3. The continents were separated after the flood, and the Jaredites were the first inhabitants of the new world.

A Promised Land

Cinepro,

You challenge this notion of science vs. the CoJCoLDS quite a bit. I can't think of anyone else who has more OP's on the Flood than yourself, for example. This isn't an accusation on my part.. just an observation. I haven't delved into these particular threads though.

Do you think the CoJCoLDS is wrong for not embracing current scientific data and adjusting their statements accordingly?

Do you think the CoJCoLDS is right in their assertions about the points you have brought up?

..or some other possible permutation from the conflict of LDS teachings vs. science?

To me the biggest problem for LDS is that they hold to a lot of claims, some you have noted, that don't have good grounds in Science. But so do other religions and sects of Christianity. What compiles the issue for LDS is all these current sources that promote what is written, over what there is proof for.

An LDS person who believes there was not a global flood in the days of Noah would be wrong according to LDS doctrine, for example, and consequently out of step with their religion. I don't see much way around that.

[Flyonthewall]

I have heard this, but never I have heard it from any one speaking in an official capacity. I wonder where it originated from.

This is classic folk doctrine.

My mother used to say this...it seems like the older generation heard it from somewhere. It would be interesting to know where they heard it from.

[mfbukowski]

Popcorn Trees and Talking Streams.

[mfbukowski]

An LDS person who believes there was not a global flood in the days of Noah would be wrong according to LDS doctrine, for example, and consequently out of step with their religion. I don't see much way around that.

Not necessarily true. I don't know if you are familiar with the notion of LDS "orthopraxis", which I suppose was technically defined by Ostler- but the reality is, as long as you can pass the temple recommend interview honestly and forthrightly, you cannot be "out of step" with being LDS.

There is nothing about Noah on that interview.

[Mudcat]

Not necessarily true. I don't know if you are familiar with the notion of LDS "orthopraxis", which I suppose was technically defined by Ostler- but the reality is, as long as you can pass the temple recommend interview honestly and forthrightly, you cannot be "out of step" with being LDS.

There is nothing about Noah on that interview.

Yes I am familiar with the term.

Ostler isn't an LDS authority, rather and academic. You seem to like his view though.

I dunno what is on a temple recommend interview, nor do I understand why that is a particular standard for you when it seems to exclude a bit.

If your Prophets say there was a global flood, and a person believes that your Prophets were wrong on the issue and they can still somehow pass an interview that allows them to serve in the temple while disregarding the prophets. Then LDS "orthopraxy" is simply something that lies in the eye of the beholder and shouldn't be considered a standard of any sort, IMO.

[Olavarria]

It is proposed that we add the Ensign magazine to Section 139 through Section 976 of the Doctrine and Covenants, all in favor manifest.

Any opposed, by the same sign.

President Cinepro, the voting appears to be unanimous in the affirmative.

[mfbukowski]

Yes I am familiar with the term.

Ostler isn't an LDS authority, rather and academic. You seem to like his view though.

I dunno what is on a temple recommend interview, nor do I understand why that is a particular standard for you when it seems to exclude a bit.

If your Prophets say there was a global flood, and a person believes that your Prophets were wrong on the issue and they can still somehow pass an interview that allows them to serve in the temple while disregarding the prophets. Then LDS "orthopraxy" is simply something that lies in the eye of the beholder and shouldn't be considered a standard of any sort, IMO.

Actually I am not all that crazy about most of what Ostler has written, but it is a very useful and correct concept imo.

Well the key to the whole thing is that we believe in personal revelation.

We have the right, which is never surrendered, to receive a confirmation of every doctrine as we understand it. The temple recommend interview kind of sets the limits of which beliefs are those beyond which we are not "orthodox" enough to enter the temple.

Without personal revelation we cannot know who is a prophet and who is not- what is correct and what isn't. So it kind of forms the basis really- it IS the standard - anything else would be blind obedience.

Edited October 8, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

I am convinced that God can bring to pass things that are "scientifically" impossible--like, for example, moving mountains.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196226,00.html

The interesting thing is that it is detectable that this mountain has moved by looking at the evidence.