Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[Cobalt-70]

That would mean that if we were presuming a constant present decay rate, but if in fact say the earth in the past was receiving a LOT more sunlight, the earth could be a lot newer than we presently believe, if I have the logic of that right.

Like if maybe the earth was closer to an object making sunlight for example- the rates of decay might be way off, causing the earth to appear older than it is.

The earth would be newer and a lot crispier--having been burned, and its atmosphere and oceans evaporated by close proximity to a star.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Baked not fried.

[Cobalt-70]

Yes, that is what the scriptures say.

The scriptures don't say that Earth ever revolved around Kolob. Abraham 5:13 only says that Adam's time was initially "after the time of Kolob." To get from there to the theory that earth revolved around Kolob in Adam's day (i.e., 6000 years ago) is an astronomical leap (pun intended). It also contradicts Abraham 4:16. Not to mention that it contradicts all kinds of data including (1) isotope ratios from meteorites and other planets that show the earth and these bodies were formed from the same cloud of gas and dust as each other and the sun (http://unicorn.ps.uci.edu/H2A/handouts/PDFs/meteorites2.pdf), (2) ice age cycles that match with the earth's rotation and precession around the sun for millions of years, and (3) sunspot cycle patterns taken from tree rings going back at least 11,000 years.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[bu11fr0g]

Mariner has an agenda and a dogmatic misunderstanding of what constitutes doctrine. Further he demands infallibility from people who did not claim it.

This is a highjacked thread in my opinion.

antiMormons do not get to determine what LDS doctrine is. I will frankly admit that one of the greatest disservices was Mckonkie as a non apostle having the hutzpah to claim his side of Mormon theorizations as "Mormon Doctrine " which they werent. The book cannot and should not be defended as anything more than one righteous believer's attempt to grapple with the eternities.

The sun being held still in the Bible is an equivallent.

[bu11fr0g]

The reality is these men were called to testify of Christ and to guide us on how to receive our own inspiration.

[bu11fr0g]

It is the height of hubris for an outsider to tell someone what the doctrine of their church is. At best you can say that certain statements that have been published by the church appear inconsistent with a post and ask for the explanation.

[altersteve]

The reality is these men were called to testify of Christ and to guide us on how to receive our own inspiration.

Agreed. Our leaders are more there to help us learn how and why to believe than they are to teach us what to believe.

[Mariner]

Mariner,

Thank you for your response. As I can see that you are willing to honor the bounds of genuine interaction and communication, I am more than willing to engage you on your fundamental topics of interest. To be candid, I find individuals who have left the church some of the most interesting people to me as I must profess it boggles my mind that one could do so. I am very interested in the points that made that decision appropriate for you.

If we can engage in the first topic you mention of conflicting statements of God I would find that very interesting and make no predictions as to how I will fair but if we are open minded and allow some leeway for the nature of our perspectives I think we can at least make a go of it.

I’m sure you have given this subject a lot of thought, so I’m guessing you have the conflicting quotes available to you. If you will just do the ones that relate to God and where you see conflicting statements then we can work through that one on to others. I am very thorough and not inclined to abbreviated efforts so it is best for me if we stay tight with each subject we may choose to discuss and not change mid stream before a reasonable treatment if possible.

Again, this is only if you have the time and are interested. I suspect I can assure that it will not be according to previous conversations you may have had on these subjects with other LDS – but we shall see.

Samlam,

Thank you for your Post # 245. I am more than willing to discuss these issues. As bu11fr0g mentioned, however, discussion of the topics you describe in your Post would probably constitute a thread derailment here. So perhaps we should open another thread to do so. I will have more time to do spend on this in a few days than I have now.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mariner

[Mariner]

It is the height of hubris for an outsider to tell someone what the doctrine of their church is. At best you can say that certain statements that have been published by the church appear inconsistent with a post and ask for the explanation.

I agree that it is inappropriate for an outsider to tell you what the doctrines of your Church are. As a former member, however, I can certainly describe what they used to be. Like it or not, there was a time when Mormon Doctrine sat on the Church bookshelf in most LDS homes (mine included) right between the Standard Works and Jesus the Christ. It was considered Mormon doctrine by members (hence the name of the book), until it wasn't.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Funny I have a copy of "Mormon Doctrine" sitting on my bookshelves. but never because it was/is LDS Doctrine.

[SamIam]

The scriptures don't say that Earth ever revolved around Kolob. Abraham 5:13 only says that Adam's time was initially "after the time of Kolob." To get from there to the theory that earth revolved around Kolob in Adam's day (i.e., 6000 years ago) is an astronomical leap (pun intended). It also contradicts Abraham 4:16. Not to mention that it contradicts all kinds of data including (1) isotope ratios from meteorites and other planets that show the earth and these bodies were formed from the same cloud of gas and dust as each other and the sun (http://unicorn.ps.uc...meteorites2.pdf), (2) ice age cycles that match with the earth's rotation and precession around the sun for millions of years, and (3) sunspot cycle patterns taken from tree rings going back at least 11,000 years.

I just waded through the material in your link and in my current state of sleep deprivation that in itself is an accomplishment of cosmic proportions. However, I've just got to ask did you read it at all? The leaps you make of such definitive assertions are far beyond the scope of the document and seem to me an effort to sustain a pre-concieved notion. Of course this is not something I disagree to specifically but it should at least look like it supports your preconcieved notion. I am willing to concede that it is always a great challenge to take scientific endeavor and conclusions an make them relate to creative theology and I am willing to grant the slack that lets us try to bridge the great divide...but I couldn't see where this material was adeqate to support your efforts. Perhaps you can be a bit more specific and also consider the lack of temerity in which the authors postulate their efforts. They genuinely seem more interested in posing the new quesitons their new technologies have enabled them to consider above answering anything with definitive conclusion.

From the the information at your link:

Microscopic presolar dust grains are clearly an exciting new source of important information about cosmic objects tens of orders of magnitude larger than themselves (Fig. 1). However, there are still many unsolved problems, some of them fundamental, some in the details. I have touched on some puzzles in this brief review (e.g. the still uncertain origins of nanodiamonds, high-density graphite, A+B SiC and Group 4 oxide grains) but there are of course others, including the origin of 15N enrichments in SN grains [48,52] and the paucity of presolar oxides relative to C-rich presolar grains [16]. Although many of these problems will undoubtedly be solved, we are certain to encounter both new surprises and new puzzles in the future. Some of the most promising routes to interesting new insights are given below. (Frontiers Presolar stardust in meteorites: recent advances and scientific frontiers, Larry R. Nittler,

Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Road NW, Washington, DC 20015-1305, USA Received 16 July 2002; received in revised form 12 September 2002; accepted 20 December 2002)

Edited May 7, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Samlam,

Thank you for your Post # 245. I am more than willing to discuss these issues. As bu11fr0g mentioned, however, discussion of the topics you describe in your Post would probably constitute a thread derailment here. So perhaps we should open another thread to do so. I will have more time to do spend on this in a few days than I have now.

It's a date then...I'll keep my eye out for your new thread.

[Mariner]

Mariner, are you saying that it is a "necessity" for every member of the Church to create a "shelf of disbelief"?

No. I am saying that every member with whom I have discussed this issue has one. I am saying that many who leave the Church describe theirs as "broken" (from too much weight). And (worst of all in my judgement) Church youth are encouraged to create one.

These go under various names, including "shelf of faith", "shelf of disbelief", and "unanswered questions file" (for a Church reference to the latter see http://www.lds.org/n...stions?lang=eng ). In this Church article in the New Era, young LDS members are instructed to "ask questions" but warned not to "question". The clear subtext here is that questions should be asked from the point of view that "the Church is true and there are a few details that need to be cleared up" as opposed to "depending on the answer to this question, the truthfulness of the Church could be called into question." In other words "questions" are allowed while "questioning" is not.

Read the cited article.

Do you really want your children to use this kind of paradigm in developing their logic and critical analytical and judgement skills?

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

The LDS parents that I know want their children to ask as many questions as they have. No parent that I know appreciates their children questioning of their parental authority.

[T-Shirt]

Do you really want your children to use this kind of paradigm in developing their logic and critical analytical and judgement skills?

Just so I understand, are you saying that proper logic and critical analytic and judgement skills, necessarily require that questions be asked, not only with disrespect and mockery, but with having made ones mind made up, even before the question is asked?

Edited May 7, 2012 by T-Shirt

[mfbukowski]

The earth would be newer and a lot crispier--having been burned, and its atmosphere and oceans evaporated by close proximity to a star.

I specifically said that I did not necessarily believe the theory, if you had actually read the post.

And I am sure there are ways around that point if you want to believe it

[mfbukowski]

The scriptures don't say that Earth ever revolved around Kolob. Abraham 5:13 only says that Adam's time was initially "after the time of Kolob." To get from there to the theory that earth revolved around Kolob in Adam's day (i.e., 6000 years ago) is an astronomical leap (pun intended). It also contradicts Abraham 4:16. Not to mention that it contradicts all kinds of data including (1) isotope ratios from meteorites and other planets that show the earth and these bodies were formed from the same cloud of gas and dust as each other and the sun (http://unicorn.ps.uc...meteorites2.pdf), (2) ice age cycles that match with the earth's rotation and precession around the sun for millions of years, and (3) sunspot cycle patterns taken from tree rings going back at least 11,000 years.

Interesting, but this has nothing to do with what I was saying

[mfbukowski]

No. I am saying that every member with whom I have discussed this issue has one. I am saying that many who leave the Church describe theirs as "broken" (from too much weight). And (worst of all in my judgement) Church youth are encouraged to create one.

Well you haven't met every member and the fact that many who leave the church have had a "shelf of disbelief" would indicate that HAVING one seems to be highly correlated with leaving the church.

The reality is that we need to educate our youth so they don't come out with your level of understanding. That much I agree with. My kids "get it" thank God and understand the philosophy of science- it's a pity you don't.

I really don't mean to be hard on you personally- but I do very much mean to be as hard as I can be on your dogmatic lack of understanding of what the gospel is- and isn't- about. You might actually influence someone in the same direction which would be a pity, since your views are so based in misunderstandings.

[mfbukowski]

Just so I understand, are you saying that proper logic and critical analytic and judgement skills, necessarily require that questions be asked, not only with disrespect and mockery, but with having made ones mind made up, even before the question is asked?

[BCSpace]

I agree that it is inappropriate for an outsider to tell you what the doctrines of your Church are. As a former member, however, I can certainly describe what they used to be. Like it or not, there was a time when Mormon Doctrine sat on the Church bookshelf in most LDS homes (mine included) right between the Standard Works and Jesus the Christ. It was considered Mormon doctrine by members (hence the name of the book), until it wasn't.

The important thing though is that it was never considered doctrine by the Church. However, it does contain a lot of good doctrine and it is quoted in many official Church publications and those specific quotes therefore would be doctrine.

[Mariner]

Just so I understand, are you saying that proper logic and critical analytic and judgement skills, necessarily require that questions be asked, not only with disrespect and mockery, but with having made ones mind made up, even before the question is asked?

No. I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that one should be able to ask questions outside the "Church is true" box without being regarded as a sinner or one of insufficient faith.

Example of a "faithful" (allowable) question: "Why was Joseph Smith commanded to marry other men's wives after sending them on missions?"

Example of a "sinful" (forbidden) question: How could the Church possibly be true if the founder slept with the wives of other men after sending those men on missions?

I trust that you can see the difference.

[Calm]

And (worst of all in my judgement) Church youth are encouraged to create one.....

Do you really want your children to use this kind of paradigm in developing their logic and critical analytical and judgement skills?

Because it is so much healthier to develop an expectation that one should be able to get answers for everything in life NOW.

[cdowis]

Do you really want your children to use this kind of paradigm in developing their logic and critical analytical and judgement skills?

I think it is possible for a scholar to be educated and and to have an unshaken testimony, having the ability to think in parallel tracks, such as my experience with the Salamander Letter. It is a gift only available to those who have gained an authentic testimony, to compartmentalize your life with pray and revelation on the one side, and using critical analytical and judgment skills on the other.

Sometimes the two sides come together, and sometimes you will have to wait until you go to the other side to understand it. From what you post, there are those whose shelf has broken down because it was improperly constructed or used.

I think the Ensign article gives good advice, and It certainly helped to prevent me from making a serious mistake. I realize that there were those who threw away their testimony and salvation over this letter, never to return again even after it was discovered to be a fake, written by a murderer.

[Mariner]

Well you haven't met every member and the fact that many who leave the church have had a "shelf of disbelief" would indicate that HAVING one seems to be highly correlated with leaving the church. The reality is that we need to educate our youth so they don't come out with your level of understanding. That much I agree with. My kids "get it" thank God and understand the philosophy of science- it's a pity you don't. I really don't mean to be hard on you personally- but I do very much mean to be as hard as I can be on your dogmatic lack of understanding of what the gospel is- and isn't- about. You might actually influence someone in the same direction which would be a pity, since your views are so based in misunderstandings.

mfbutowski,

You can talk about philosophy of science and the difference between science and religion all you want. At the end of the day there is this.

The LDS Church makes objective and falsifiable truth claims on which certain of its beliefs and recommendations as to proper behaviors and responses are based.

A substantial number of these truth claims have been falsified by science. These claims can therefore no longer be trusted as a rational basis for belief or recommendations as to proper behavior or responses. Over time, the Church does try to leave these falsified beliefs behind, but generally seems to have a hard time keeping up, given the pace of scientific advances.

I can provide you with a substantial list of such beliefs. If I were to do so, you would claim one or more of the following:

- these weren't ever really beliefs,

- these were misunderstood beliefs,

- these were merely opinions of men, or

- these were mistakes that have been corrected.

If you personally do not have such a shelf, then it must mean that you know the answers to all of the tough questions, or that you are not very concerned about the disconnects and conflicts between LDS beliefs and objective reality as determined by science.

_____________________

(With apologies to cdowis for momentarily confusing him with mfbutowski.)

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mariner

[Mariner]

Because it is so much healthier to develop an expectation that one should be able to get answers for everything in life NOW.

No - because it is so much healthier not to live in an environment that discourages one from asking the tough questions.

The answers to many (if not most) of the tough questions are available NOW, provided that one can accept factually correct answers that do not comport with current Mormon doctrine and beliefs.