The Most Unscientific Things Currently Published By The Church

[Rivers]

These unscientific teachings of the church are my biggest stumbling block for my faith in the church. I wish I had all the answers to these issues.

These issues are so difficult because they are more easily falsifiable. How would one go about falsifying the resurrection of Christ?

[Chris Smith]

http://www.foxnews.c...,196226,00.html

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

Contrary to the article, it wasn't the whole mountain that moved. It was an extremely large blockslide. What was unusual about it was that it slid on a 2 degree grade, which shouldn't have happened under normal circumstances. See here.

[Bernard Gui]

D&C 121

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; 27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;

28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. 29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

30 And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars— 31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—

32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.

[shalamabobbi]

Contrary to the article, it wasn't the whole mountain that moved. It was an extremely large blockslide. What was unusual about it was that it slid on a 2 degree grade, which shouldn't have happened under normal circumstances. See here.

The point is not the movement of the mountain but the ability to read the data and make the inference as to what happened. Someone has faith that God can do impossible things by our understanding, fine by me. The issue I have is the idea that the evidence isn't going to be registered however that event occurs, whether naturally or supernaturally.

[Chris Smith]

The point is not the movement of the mountain but the ability to read the data and make the inference as to what happened. Someone has faith that God can do impossible things by our understanding, fine by me. The issue I have is the idea that the evidence isn't going to be registered however that event occurs, whether naturally or supernaturally.

Agreed.

[Sevenbak]

Here's one of my favs.

Pangea existed much later than science said it did, (divided after Noah, before Abraham) and will return to that state at the 2nd coming.

From LDS.org:

Gondwanaland: What It Means to Latter-day Saints

D&C 133:23-24

And from the current CES manuals (Institute and Seminary)

Old Testament Student manual:

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-03-gen-b-4.asp

(4-22) Genesis 10:25 . Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?

“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [ D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]”

And the D&C manual:

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-131-133.asp

D&C 133:23–24 . Will the Continents Be Rejoined?

Genesis indicates that in the early history of the world the land masses were united. Moses recorded that one of the great-great-grandsons of Shem was named Peleg (a Hebrew word meaning division) because “in his days was the earth divided” ( Genesis 10:25 ). Many scholars have passed this reference off as meaning some sort of cultural or political division, but modern prophets have taught that this statement should be taken literally.

An article published early in the history of the Church under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” (“The Last Days,” Evening and Morning Star, Feb. 1833, p. 1.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “If . . . the earth is to be restored as it was in the beginning, then all the land surface will again be in one place as it was before the days of Peleg, when this great division was accomplished. Europe, Africa, and the islands of the sea including Australia, New Zealand, and other places in the Pacific must be brought back and joined together as they were in the beginning.” ( Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:74.)

In an introduction to a book on continental drift , a scientist writes:

“Formerly, most scientists regarded the earth as rigid and the continents as fixed, but now the surface of the earth is seen as slowly deformable and the continents as ‘rafts’ floating on a ‘sea’ of denser rock. The continents have repeatedly collided and joined, repeatedly broken and separated in different patterns, and, very likely, they have grown larger in the process.

“This scientific revolution, as others before it, was long in the making, but it was not until the late 1960s that it began to succeed. At a meeting of the world’s geophysicists in August of 1971, it was made clear that the notion of continental drift, which had been heresy only a few years before, had become the orthodoxy of the great majority.” ( Continents Adrift, preface.)

Though the time of this division of the land is placed much earlier by scientists than by the biblical chronology, the idea of one land mass is widely accepted. This revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 133 declares that sometime in the future that geographical unity will be restored."

[Sevenbak]

Another one that has but one reference, that's always intrigued me from the BoM, is Jacob's statement that "the very trees obey us".

Some day I hope to be able to ask him what he meant. I'm really hoping they didn't have an army of "ents" protecting them from the Lamanites...

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

Actually no. The Church has no position on a literal Global Flood. We are free to believe or not as we so choose. Hugh Nibley one of our most prominate members didn't believe it, and he was a member in good standing till his death in 2005.

[Kevin Christensen]

I like D&C 1:25-28

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

I notice that it does not say,

And inasmuch as any member with office or access to a pulpit, magazine, or manual, ever thought or said something in err, it is forever binding as as shame and blot on all, for there shall never be diversity of thought in the Church, and if there is, it shall not be acknowledged, because that distracts from the spotlight and pursuit of rhetorical advantage.

For members have no need to seek wisdom or be instructed, but all merely go to the Big Book of What to Think, and none thinks otherwise, for that would provide a moving target, and who needs that complication?

And inasmuch as anyone ever points out a single mistake in another's eye, they have taken the full measure of all the church for all time, they shall be enshrined as intellectual free thinkers, even if they have never made a single positive contribution, for whoever can see a mote in another's eye thereby proves that their own vision is eternally clear, and is a fountain of pure knowledge leading to an everlasting sense of self-satisfaction.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Whiskeypete]

I find it interesting how many of these discussions go back to Josph Fielding Smith. He obviously had very strong opinions and didn't hesitate to publish them. It is also clear that many of his scientific pronouncments are in opposition to modern understanding of science.

I think Joesph Fielding Smith (and somewhat by proxy, Bruce R McConkie) perceived a very real danger in people using science as a reason to abandon religion. And they KNEW that God was real, that Jesus was the Christ, that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

People do actuallyow make statements like "the Bible is a collection of myths and fables" and thr out the baby with the bath water so to speak. Because they reject parts in the bible based based on their understanding of science, they reject all of it, including the teachings about Christ and the Atonement. Which teachings, again, President Smith and Elder McConkie know by revelation to be true.

I think that they have made the opposite mistake of keeping the bathwater with the baby.

[J Green]

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.

LOL! Nice, Pedro. Very nice.

[thesometimesaint]

Whiskeypete:

Agreed.

[wenglund]

One of the most unscientific things I have found in the Church is the way some members worshipfully look to science to judge the things of the spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TAO]

I think the most unscientific thing about the church is miracles... and there isn't something less scientific really. It simply means, 'something that seems to defy nature'. But miracles don't bother me, that they don't =). They are what make church marvelous. I wouldn't want to be in church if it wasn't miraculous, and special.

Edited October 8, 2011 by TAO

[Bill Hamblin]

It is rather amusing that supposedly scientific thinkers like Cinepro are still in thrall to fundamentalistic inerrantism when it comes to trying to understand the Church. I'm simply astonished that he can't wrap his mind around the idea that there is divergence of opinion within the Church, and one does not have to be anti-science to be a believing LDS.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Darth_Bill]

In relation to the mountain moving, I would be significantly more impressed if it was commanded to do so. Then you would have me. The reason people lose faith because if the hard events didn't happen, then what about the intimate events? Those can be made up. We aren't hindus, so we think that all those stories of flying monkey men and multi-headed serpents are made up...yet millions of people believe them. We have the NT, where maybe one or two witnesses actually told people what happened. Why is that believable (spiritual confirmation aside)? Is it more believable that God-man came down and somehow paid for our sins (we need cultural definition to even have that concept) and died and rose again...or that monkey men helped defeat an indestructible demon? Why believe the resurrection if we have to mythologize the first 4000 years of the religion to get past the glaring errors?

[mfbukowski]

In relation to the mountain moving, I would be significantly more impressed if it was commanded to do so. Then you would have me. The reason people lose faith because if the hard events didn't happen, then what about the intimate events? Those can be made up. We aren't hindus, so we think that all those stories of flying monkey men and multi-headed serpents are made up...yet millions of people believe them. We have the NT, where maybe one or two witnesses actually told people what happened. Why is that believable (spiritual confirmation aside)? Is it more believable that God-man came down and somehow paid for our sins (we need cultural definition to even have that concept) and died and rose again...or that monkey men helped defeat an indestructible demon? Why believe the resurrection if we have to mythologize the first 4000 years of the religion to get past the glaring errors?

I would suggest that millions of Hindus believe they are just as symbolic as we do.

I have known several well-educated Hindus, and none of them think God really has an elephant's head. I suppose there will always be fundamentalists among us, and I think the only thing which will change that is education.

Until then, there will be some who believe these to be "glaring errors".

[thesometimesaint]

That the elements are eternal. The discovery of the transuranium elements disproved that idea.

Ps. I assume the Church still publishes D&C 93.

Edited October 9, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

It is rather amusing that supposedly scientific thinkers like Cinepro are still in thrall to fundamentalistic inerrantism when it comes to trying to understand the Church. I'm simply astonished that he can't wrap his mind around the idea that there is divergence of opinion within the Church, and one does not have to be anti-science to be a believing LDS.

I haven't argued for "inerrantism" or introduced any concept of "official doctrine" to these things (although others have).

If we can agree that, through magazines, talks and curriculum the Church publishes "teachings", and that some of these "teachings" really, really contradict modern scientific theories (to the degree that some modern members of the Church can't bring themselves to believe them), it wouldn't seem harmful to actual discuss what these teachings are. Especially since, if Rivers is correct, these things can become a stumbling block to some.

Or, to put it another way, we could ask which things currently taught by the Church are disbelieved by Bill Hamblin, thesometimesaint, and others based (at least in part) on scientific reasoning? I suspect many of the things already brought up in this thread are on that list (global flood, Pangaea splitting post-flood). What else is there?

Edited October 9, 2011 by cinepro

[LeSellers]

That the elements are eternal. The discovery of the transuranium elements disproved that idea.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, and to whom?

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, use the "Quote" button. It can't be all that difficult. Even I have managed to figure it out. At least give us some context.

I assume the Church still publishes D&C 93.

Of course she does. Yet we also know that "element" refers to something other than the Periodic Table in this passage.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

The elements that make up God and man are eternal. It is obvious that He is not referring to transuranium elements, but those that make up man, and even then it is not clear that He's talking about carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the trace elements in our bodies, per se.

Lehi

Edited October 9, 2011 by LeSellers

[Tarski]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, and to whom?

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, use the "Quote" button. It can't be all that difficult. Even I have managed to figure it out. At least give us some context.

Of course she does. Yet we also know that "element" refers to something other than the Periodic Table in this passage.

The elements that make up God and man are eternal. It id obvious that He is not referring to transuranium elements, but those that make up man, and even then it is not clear that He's talking about carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the trace elements in our bodies, per se.

Lehi

What information is God trying to convey by use of the word element--what did he expect us to think? Also, what "elements" do you think might be eternal and in what sense? (I am worried that the age of the universe being at about 14 billion years might cause problems for this eternal picture.)

Edited October 9, 2011 by Tarski

[shalamabobbi]

That the elements are eternal. The discovery of the transuranium elements disproved that idea.

Ps. I assume the Church still publishes D&C 93.

The biggest question about the early part of the Big Bang Theory that bothered me was the creation of matter since the conversion of energy to matter always seemed to produce equivalent matter with its corresponding anti-matter.

I saw some math paper describing an imbalance in the process but since the math was beyond my level I assumed it was answered. Not until I read the book "The Mystery of the Missing Anti-matter" by Helen R. Quinn, did I discover that the problem is still unresolved by about an order of magnitude. (Unless of course it is currently resolved and hasn't worked its way down to popular publication yet).

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

If you have such a hard time knowing what the Title of the subject under discussion without a constant reminder there isn't much that I can do.

The title of the Opening Post is: The Most Unscientific Things Currently Published By The Church

That the elements be they from the scientific Periodic Table of Elements, or the ancient Greek belief that the elements are Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water are not eternal. If you are going to use scientific as the standard then an appeal to a non-scientific definition is oxymoronic.

Edited October 9, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

shalamabobi:

They were almost but not quite exactly equal. Matter had a less than 1% advantage. No one knows why.

[shalamabobbi]

Of course as pointed out by Hi Jolly in another thread, the elements may be eternal in the same way that punishment is eternal..