Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[cdowis]

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?

You can pose the question to yourself, without placing seeds of doubt and destroying the testimonies of the weak. If you ask such questions with the result of dragging others down into the mirky depths of your doubts, then that is indeed a sin.

[Calm]

"Why was Joseph Smith commanded to marry other men's wives after sending them on missions?"...."How could the Church possibly be true if the founder slept with the wives of other men after sending those men on missions?"

Wouldn't it be wiser to figure out if the accusation was true before jumping to the question of how it affects the truth claims of the Church?

Thus the first question has much more value as a way to frame an exploration of the topic than the second, imo.

If one only frames questions in relationship to how they affect the truth claims of the Church, one is missing imo the whole point of historical research and how such information can be of value.

In science, who will discover new facts and expand our knowledge base...the person who focuses solely on disputing the claims of others or the person who looks for greater context, new information, etc.?

Edited May 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

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.

OK, l really like "bottom line" posts. Teach me something useful.

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.

OK, but usually these statements are verified to those who are on the other side of mortality. With few exceptions do we mortals experience those "final" answers. I have personally experienced one of those answers, and aware of others with a similar experience. I feel that I can speak with some knowledge.

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 prefer to look at it as "unanswered questions" which will be revealed on the other side. I have seen to many answers given by science which have changed over time. AND I have seen "official doctrines" which got turned around.

Let me be specific. There is a difference between a data point, an observation and a conclusion. Too often they are conflated -- "science tells us that...." is the first clue that this is happening.

Have you followed the discussion on DNA where science disproved the BOM? Here was absolute proof, the final breaking point on the veracity of the BOM presented several years ago. A bishop, a scientist, left the church and went on a mission to show the world.

Do we need to go into details over the final outcome, where our good ex-bishop admits that he made a mistake. I had written him an e-mail in the early days of his campaign, but he basically laughed it off and gave no cogent response.

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.

As I said, these issues have been refined on both sides, religion and science. The DNA issue is instructive that both interpretation of scientific statements and religious interpretations have been modified. This would take awhile to go into the details, but both sides had to learn a lesson and make adjustments.

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.

I have such a shelf, and I have dealt with tough questions, such as the age of the earth, and the evolution of organisms during the millions of years. We have had at least two threads on "death prior to Adam". It has taken me almost fifty years to tackle that issue, and I have come up with some ideas. That is what the "shelf" is all about.

Thanks for an interesting post, but I have been here several times. I made no claim to have all the answers, but, guess what, science is still not there yet. I have asked similar questions to our evolution proponents, and they have no answer to those questions. They finally admit that they have "faith" (confidence) that evolution will eventually give answer.

Edited May 7, 2012 by cdowis

[Cobalt-70]

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)

You must have been a little too sleepy when you read this, because apparently you misunderstood. These "many unsolved problems" relate to the existence of interstellar dust grains that are of an origin other than our own solar system. We don't know where many of them came from. What we do know--and the article makes this clear--is that they did not come from the same place that the sun and all the planets, including earth, came from. The isotope compositions of the sun, planets, earth, and the asteroids and comets indicate that they were all formed within the same homogenized cloud of gas and dust. The reason we know that some of these presolar grains are not from our solar system is that they differ greatly from that of the sun, earth, etc.

Had earth been formed in another solar system, such as that of Kolob, its isotope ratios would look as different from the sun and the other planets as these presolar grains do.

[Cobalt-70]

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

I wasn't intending to imply that this was your belief. I was just responding to the theory.

If someone doesn't care about science, they can believe whatever stories they want, with few restrictions. But if someone is going to use a scientific paper to support a religious view, they have to play by the rules of scientific realism, and those rules tell them that the alleged effect found by the Purdue-Stanford teams does not support the "earth formed in Kolob orbit 6000 years ago" theory.

The effect described by the Purdue-Stanford teams, if it is real (a big if), is a very small effect. Changing the apparent age of the earth from 4.5 billion years down to 6000 years is a change by six orders of magnitude. Whatever effect there might be would (assuming it has to do with particles emitted by the star) be inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the star, so that means that the planet would have to be 1000 times closer to the star than the earth is presently closer to the earth, divided by some tiny factor much, much smaller than 1 (which represents the percentage of the radioactive decay rate attributable to the effect). That makes for a very crispy earth. We would see the effects of that in that earth would have no atmosphere or oceans, and we would be able to dig down a few feet and find a 6000 year old molten layer of soil.

[bu11fr0g]

Mariner:

That was not my experience at all and i have nearly 50 years experience. Some members "in the mission field" certainly treated it that way, but most were critical. There were a lot more false theories coming from ga's back then and it was much more acknowledged as personal theorizing. There is tighter control now.

In joseph smiths day it was much worse with members and leaders regularly claiming revelation for the whole church.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

Now you've opened a can of worms. My viewpoint comes from having raised my own six kids, a foster child and co-parented five other kids not mine by birth. AND, (and this is a big AND) none of these kids live at home any longer. My experiences are also tempered by two deaths in the family, something which has given me cause to question many of the things I believed were true.

I have spent a good twenty years, of my 35 years teaching, teaching teenagers. I'm not convinced that there is something that can be commodified as "parental authority". I can define parental responsibilities but a parental authority seems to vanish as soon as a teenager submits it to challenge, and decides to defy it.

Furthermore, if children didn't question their parents "parental authority", they would never move out, (perish the thought).

[SamIam]

You must have been a little too sleepy when you read this, because apparently you misunderstood. These "many unsolved problems" relate to the existence of interstellar dust grains that are of an origin other than our own solar system. We don't know where many of them came from. What we do know--and the article makes this clear--is that they did not come from the same place that the sun and all the planets, including earth, came from. The isotope compositions of the sun, planets, earth, and the asteroids and comets indicate that they were all formed within the same homogenized cloud of gas and dust. The reason we know that some of these presolar grains are not from our solar system is that they differ greatly from that of the sun, earth, etc.

Had earth been formed in another solar system, such as that of Kolob, its isotope ratios would look as different from the sun and the other planets as these presolar grains do.

I was simply pointing out that the article has as many whatever, maybe's, could indicates, and "unsolved problems" as cosmic particals upon the cosmic sea shore. The veracity with which you are making your assumptions far outweighs that of those who performed the study. Since the strength of your assertations is not bound to the contents of the document it simply, in my opinion, calls in to question your objectivity hence my previous statement from the earlier post, "I couldn't see where this material was adeqate to support your efforts." It seems to infer in very general terms and with questioned certainty your points but it is far from conclusive as this is a early pass through on an emerging concept hence subject to more scrutiny than I think you might have, in prudence, given it. Therefore, I wonder why the excessive subjectivity? Why does it have to be right? What fear drives an overriding necessity that can't just stay with the tenor of the material as opposed to magnifiying its significance and substance?

That's all I am wondering.

[T-Shirt]

No. I am not saying that at all.

It sure seems like you are.

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.

And, one should be able to ask questions outside the "Church is false" box without being mocked and regarded as a dupe lacking in critical thinking skills. Nevertheless, there are many ways to ask a question, and there are more categories than , "the Church is true" and "the Church is false". Most people, who first come across troubling issues tend to be in the "I am not sure" box. These people are encouraged to ask questions, and regardless of what the question is, it can be asked with respect and with an honest desire to know the answer.

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

This is a good example of a possible question that could be asked by anyone, regardless of their belief. It is asked in a respectful way.

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?

There are several problems with this question. First, you have confirmed my point above by framing this question in such a way to indicate that the questioner has already made up his mind about an issue before the answer is even given. Second, why would there even be a need to frame a question like this, even if you did not believe the truth claims of the Church? Each question may have the same issue at its core, but each question is not asked for the same reason.

I trust that you can see the difference.

Sure I can, the first is respectful and the second is not respectful and indicate's that the questioner has already made up his mind before the question was asked. Which is what I thought you meant, all along.

I trust you can see the difference.

[Mariner]

It sure seems like you are.

And, one should be able to ask questions outside the "Church is false" box without being mocked and regarded as a dupe lacking in critical thinking skills. Nevertheless, there are many ways to ask a question, and there are more categories than , "the Church is true" and "the Church is false". Most people, who first come across troubling issues tend to be in the "I am not sure" box. These people are encouraged to ask questions, and regardless of what the question is, it can be asked with respect and with an honest desire to know the answer.

I agree, and I finished that stage in the process quite some time ago.

This is a good example of a possible question that could be asked by anyone, regardless of their belief. It is asked in a respectful way.

There are several problems with this question. First, you have confirmed my point above by framing this question in such a way to indicate that the questioner has already made up his mind about an issue before the answer is even given. Second, why would there even be a need to frame a question like this, even if you did not believe the truth claims of the Church? Each question may have the same issue at its core, but each question is not asked for the same reason.

Sure I can, the first is respectful and the second is not respectful and indicate's that the questioner has already made up his mind before the question was asked. Which is what I thought you meant, all along.

I trust you can see the difference.

I do see your point. Those were just the two questions that came to mind as examples.

I would prefer to say that the first was question from a "faithful" point of view as compared to the second, which was a question from a skeptical (or critical) point of view.

While it could be claimed that critics have already made up their mind, it is a little bit harder to claim the same for skeptics.

Skepticism is generally used to describe one who has doubts and is still in information gathering mode, while criticism implies that one has gathered sufficient information to render an opinion.

Just out of curiosity, is there any viable apologetic response to question #2?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Mariner

[SamIam]

With regard to Noah's ark and the global flood, I consider this story a bronze age myth with some possible basis in a cataclysmic local flood (perhaps the overflow of the Med into the Black Sea that occurred some 5600 years ago near the end of an ice age).

One other question as I have pondered upon this response concerning the flood. It would seem that it holds no religious significance to you. Is that correct?

[BCSpace]

If someone doesn't care about science, they can believe whatever stories they want, with few restrictions. But if someone is going to use a scientific paper to support a religious view, they have to play by the rules of scientific realism, and those rules tell them that the alleged effect found by the Purdue-Stanford teams does not support the "earth formed in Kolob orbit 6000 years ago" theory.

True enough. However science now supports the notion that there are many free and unassociated (not in orbit about a star) worlds that could potentially have been flung from their original system and eventually come to be associated gravitationally with another. However, the time and mechanics involved also do not lend this notion to creationism at all.

[altersteve]

Just out of curiosity, is there any viable apologetic response to question #2?

First you're going to have to provide evidence that Joseph did sleep with anyone other than Emma. If you can't, then the question isn't even worth answering.

[altersteve]

It was considered Mormon doctrine by members (hence the name of the book), until it wasn't.

Until it wasn't what? Doctrine, or considered doctrine by some Church members?

Anyway, the Church has never declared that Mormon Doctrine is an authoritative work. Everyone has told you this. Bruce R. McConkie himself admitted that what was written in his book reflected his beliefs and his beliefs only. That it has been criticized by other Church leaders since its publication should make this obvious.

[Mariner]

One other question as I have pondered upon this response concerning the flood. It would seem that it holds no religious significance to you. Is that correct?

Yes. The flood myth is seen in a number of cultural traditions, at least one if which is well documented and predates the OT version of the myth. Again, I think it is very plausible that the myth has some basis in actual, relatively localized, events.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Mariner

[T-Shirt]

I agree, and I finished that stage in the process quite some time ago.

And many would say that you were premature in doing so.

I do see your point. Those were just the two questions that came to mind as examples.

I understand. However, as I tried to point out, it is not, so much, the question, as it is the way it is asked or the motivation behind the question.

I would prefer to say that the first was question from a "faithful" point of view as compared to the second, which was a question from a skeptical (or critical) point of view.

I don't agree. The first could just as easily have been asked by a skeptic. There is no sin in skepticism. I am, by nature, a skeptic, yet I am a faithful Latter-day Saint. I like the old saying, "Trust, but verify." one can be skeptical without being disrespectful and without being offensive.

While it could be claimed that critics have already made up their mind, it is a little bit harder to claim the same for skeptics.

A skeptic, who has asked question number two has moved past skepticism alone.

Skepticism is generally used to describe one who has doubts and is still in information gathering mode,

Question #2 does not fit this definition.

while criticism implies that one has gathered sufficient information to render an opinion.

How does one determine when one has sufficient information? And when one has reached this point, does it justify him being disrespectful and condescending?

Just out of curiosity, is there any viable apologetic response to question #2?

It is a bad question to begin with. It is a question based on a conclusion that does not have sufficient data to arrive at.

[thesometimesaint]

Now you've opened a can of worms. My viewpoint comes from having raised my own six kids, a foster child and co-parented five other kids not mine by birth. AND, (and this is a big AND) none of these kids live at home any longer. My experiences are also tempered by two deaths in the family, something which has given me cause to question many of the things I believed were true.

I have spent a good twenty years, of my 35 years teaching, teaching teenagers. I'm not convinced that there is something that can be commodified as "parental authority". I can define parental responsibilities but a parental authority seems to vanish as soon as a teenager submits it to challenge, and decides to defy it.

Furthermore, if children didn't question their parents "parental authority", they would never move out, (perish the thought).

All my kids(3 boys) are grown and have families of their own, and am currently raising my grandnephew. Worked my career in the bizz of child and teen mental health issues.

My wife and I always gave our kids as much freedom/responsibility as they could handle. They are well adjusted men. the oldest turns 40 next year. Gosh how time flies, I CAN'T be that old. Now I get to spoil my grandkids rotten and send them home to their parents.

Both sets of our parents are dead now, and have buried one granddaughter who died just a few days before she was to be born.

I expect kids, and teens to constantly press for new freedoms,responsibiliies, and to decide for themselves what it is they do. i would call myself a failure as a parent, or there was something seriously wrong with my child, if they didn't. My kids(now grown men), and Grandnephew know that I'm always available for them to talk to, and are polite enough to at least listen when we do.

[SamIam]

Yes. The flood myth is seen in a number of cultural traditions, at least one if which is well documented and predates the OT version of the myth. Again, I think it is very plausible that the myth has some basis in actual, relatively localized, events.

Well, I'm actually taking a circuitous path to a direct question. So I'll be more direct. This will help me know how best to approach these discussions. Point being that if I ignore that you have come to the perceptions that LDS theology is wrong that is one thing but if you have come to the conclusion that God is less of a force than traditional Christian expectations that is actually a fundamentally more significant perspective to deal with.

If I continue to support creation mentalities from a perspective that you have negated, the effort is fruitless, unless some means is available to come through a more scientific perspective which you are still receptive to. Now I don’t give as much probability of success to such an endeavor as it is only marginally barely suitable for bringing the reality of God into the conversation but, at least for the experience of the attempt, for me at the moment I’m interested in the process. So the question is are you fully converted to the scientific models for explanations of all things relative to creation and evolution or in your paradigm is there a God that accounts for utilizing scientific methods to accomplish the same tasks. Please be a precisely specific as you can.

Nevertheless, my paradigm is the scriptural and prophetic comments are correct and that in many instances I can conform scientific considerations to them. However, I cannot make God conform to science as that is the antithesis of the foundational principles of true religious science. However, knowing your perspective I might be able to couch comments in terms that are not subconsciously discounted as having no merit even before you can exercise mature thought processes upon the subject at hand.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

"Yes. The flood myth is seen in a number of cultural traditions, at least one if which is well documented and predates the OT version of the myth. Again, I think it is very plausible that the myth has some basis in actual, relatively localized, events.

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

I subscribe to the idea that God used Evolution in the Creation of everything.

[altersteve]

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?

You know, now that I think about it, this is kind of like asking, "How can the sky be blue if it's cloudy?"

[mfbukowski]

Mariner:

"Yes. The flood myth is seen in a number of cultural traditions, at least one if which is well documented and predates the OT version of the myth. Again, I think it is very plausible that the myth has some basis in actual, relatively localized, events.

Agreed.

All my kids(3 boys) are grown and have families of their own, and am currently raising my grandnephew. Worked my career in the bizz of child and teen mental health issues.

My wife and I always gave our kids as much freedom/responsibility as they could handle. They are well adjusted men. the oldest turns 40 next year. Gosh how time flies, I CAN'T be that old. Now I get to spoil my grandkids rotten and send them home to their parents.

Both sets of our parents are dead now, and have buried one granddaughter who died just a few days before she was to be born.

I expect kids, and teens to constantly press for new freedoms,responsibiliies, and to decide for themselves what it is they do. i would call myself a failure as a parent, or there was something seriously wrong with my child, if they didn't. My kids(now grown men), and Grandnephew know that I'm always available for them to talk to, and are polite enough to at least listen when we do.

Pardon my board nannying, but I would like to make a suggestion if I may.

My suggestion is that you always use the quote feature as you did in the second post, and not post a quote without it as you did in the first. I often like to go back and see the full context of what you are commenting about.

Remember your comments are not only to the person you are answering- but the rest of us want to know what you are talking about as well. You keep us all up on the discussion and your comments become more valuable when we know what you are talking about, which is not always the case when you post one-liners or just put quotes around what you are quoting. It's valuable to see whom you are quoting and the full context of what they said for the rest of us.

I will now take off my board nanny vest and resume my usual-nasty-self role, and hope I don't get reprimanded

[mfbukowski]

You know, now that I think about it, this is kind of like asking, "How can the sky be blue if it's cloudy?"

Wow that's a good one! I gotta steal that one! Illustrates that our experiences or understandings can be perfectly "true" without any reference to even knowing what "really is"

Is the sky blue? Yes- true

Is the sky white? Yes- true (different circumstance)

Is there even a "sky", in a scientific sense? No!

What is "real"? All of the above.

[Mariner]

You know, now that I think about it, this is kind of like asking, "How can the sky be blue if it's cloudy?"

Depends on if the two are mutually exclusive. In terms of the sky, cloudy and blue can describe the same sky condition. In terms of religion, most would agree that Joseph Smith's behavior would be incompatible with the founding of a Christian religion in the 19th century that could in any way be characterized as "true" (or perhaps even as Christian).

Edited May 9, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Isn't it wonderful that God thinks enough of us to allow people as flawed and imperfect as JS was and I am to serve him.