Innoculating

[Mark Beesley]

I learned a long time ago that the difference between disillusion and enlightenment, between the experience of shattering and expanding is under the control of the receiver of new information, and not the inevitable byproduct of the information itself. When Jesus told the parable of the sower, and of the vastly different yields that came from the same information (the seed, he explains, representing "the word"), he commented "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

Was there a terrible betrayal of my childlike faith in the absolute iron control and necessarily uniform and God-Breathed, Infallibly only true thinking that exists at all levels of life in the faith to realize that Don Parry had a rather narrow take on the flood story, and got it in the Ensign? Not to me, because I didn't have a childlike faith in the absolute iron control and uniform thinking in the various levels of life in the LDS faith because I had already been initiated in the diversity of thought, and the various trends, schools, organizations, and attitudes. I read a bit on my own, seeking out of the best books, words of knowledge. Not a heretical, rebellious act. Just taking conspicuous advice. The trends and schools had histories that I knew, and root causes in attitudes and human traits that I understand. I found the essay annoying, but not toxic, easy to dismiss as one man's opinion, because I knew a great many other opinions. I'd long been aware of Nibley's "Before Adam" for instance, offered very different take, and knew the intellectual divide between Joseph Fielding Smith and Talmage ( a trained geologist, which, not surprisingly, influenced what he was able to imagine as he read) and others, including the gulf between the geology department at BYU and those at CES. I'd studied the human tendencies that go with personality type, and that go with over-specialization in education. I'd been impressed by the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth for which I see re-enforcing value in threads like these.

Are there scientists out there who once learned Newtonian physics, and who had trouble when Relativity and worse, quantum mechanics came along? Do Darwinians moan about their betrayed expectations when Darwin's glacially slow gradual change ran into Gould's punctuated equilibrium, of periods of rapid change and diversification? When has a closer look at any topic not brought surprises? I remember an account of the Galileo flyby of Jupiter's moons, among the scientists at JPL labs, where every moment of watching the new images shattered old theories and brought images and sights that none had imagined. The shake up actually resembled that occurred when Galileo point his telescope and saw the moons for the first time, finding that there was another unanticipated center, around which something else revolved. Such things did not discredit the scientific enterprise because most people accept that science is a self correcting process. That is, progress depends on our willingness to be wrong about somethings, to accept that authorities are not always right. To be able to endure and sustain one's faith in the process.

And incidentally, I had a major moment of enlightenment in contemplating the supposed picture of the layered Hebrew Cosmos, and the primitive backward, pre-scientific thinking that it was supposed to represent. As I looked at a drawing, and pondering, I remember thinking "Where have I heard of this before?" Ah... Hamlet's Mill. I went back and looked again, and tather than suffering shattering disillusion, I felt my mind expand. I wrote what became my first published essay, and it ended up in Dialogue.

https://www.dialogue..._V24N03_123.pdf

The same seed had fallen into a better, more receptive and productive patch of soil. I'd read Hamlet's Mill, not an easy read, because I'd seen important references in two Nilbey essays. Before Adam, and his The Three Facsimilies of the Book of Abraham. So I had a broadened context, and context makes the difference. Anomaly, as Kuhn observes, emerges most clearly against a background of expectation. What happens to perception and experience under an altered set of expectations? What happens to perception and experience if one refuses to alter one's expectations?The difference between a victim of trauma and a survivor made wiser by sometimes painful and unpleasant experience is in way the individual processes the events.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thank you!

[TruthSeeker2013]

Thanks for prodding me into reading the full article. You're right, it says far more than you quoted. Some thoughts below:

Thank you for your thoughts canard78, I love your reactions to the article!

[thesometimesaint]

Mark beesley:

"I would add the caveat that scientific evidence is equally subject to being massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit theory".

No; the theory is massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit the scientific evidence.

[Johnnie Cake]

I would add the caveat that scientific evidence is equally subject to being massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit theory.

CFR that scientific evidence is massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit the scientific theory. Scientific theory is well substanciated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Mark Beesley]

Mark beesley:

"I would add the caveat that scientific evidence is equally subject to being massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit theory".

No; the theory is massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit the scientific evidence.

Yeah, data manipulation never occurs . . .

But, yes. I agree that theory can be massaged, etc.

[Mark Beesley]

CFR that scientific theory is massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit the scientific evidence. Scientific theory is well substanciated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

http://en.wikipedia....ific_misconduct

Just Google "manipulation of scientific data"

CFR that scientific evidence is massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit the scientific theory. Scientific theory is well substanciated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Of course, now I'm not sure if your CFR is to whether theory or evidence is massaged. You need to quit massaging your post.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Mark Beesley

[ERayR]

CFR that scientific evidence is massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit the scientific theory. Scientific theory is well substanciated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

That would be certain accepted interpretations and extrapolation of data not necessarily substantiated in its final conclusions.

[CV75]

Actually, expressing doubt in terms of degrees of certainty or uncertainty would better fit my thought. I do like the idea of faith being the stabilizer between belief and doubt. That much is implied when I say the most important question is whether God speaks to you through (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, whatever). If so, then everything else is just details.

I don't identify faith as being synonymous with belief, though don't ask me how they are different. The most I can say is that faith is more sublime. That's why for me, there is never "equal time" with the Lord.

Cool! I do think that “Give the Lord equal time” is just an expression to convey something a bit different than minutes or effort. The article goes on to say:

“Let us give the Lord equal time. Let us give Him His due share of our thoughts, our time, our talents, and our attention. I know that we are all very busy. There are many demands for our attention, and our time is limited by a wide variety of constraints. But as we learn to manage our time, let us be sure that we give the Lord His portion.”

In the Church, “equal” has a funny connotation. With tithe, everyone pays 10%, not $10. In the plan of salvation and priesthood everyone has equal opportunity and potential (Alma 13:5). The storehouse for the poor, having all things in common, the United Order, etc. means everyone has what they want and need, not an equal amount of goods and services. By “[gazing] into heaven for five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject (TPJS, p. 324; cf. HC 6:50).” Fortunately, only a particle of faith suffices as “equal” against all the other things we have going against us.

I think if the young missionary had given such equal time to the Lord, he could have successfully negotiated whatever it was that came across his path and caught his attention and effort so as to undermine his testimony. But that goes for all of us one way or another.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, data manipulation never occurs . . .

But, yes. I agree that theory can be massaged, etc.

The good thing about science is it repeatability. If you can't repeat my experiment and get the same results then mine isn't scientific evidence.

Of course data is sometimes manipulated. But mere data points don't make scientific evidence. IE; If I burn simple hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and a miniature flying pink elephant pops out that is mere data. If 100's of others burn simple hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and miniature flying pink elephants pop out. Then we have to think of a new theory to explain it. To date all the scientific evidence shows that miniature flying pink elephants don't result from burning simple hydrogen in the presence of oxygen.

[Robert F. Smith]

I got one. January 1998 Ensign about Mormons having a literal belief in the Noah's Ark story.

https://www.lds.org/...-babel?lang=eng

What's most disturbing is that this is from 1998, not 1898.

Are you saying that when a BYU professor assembles some materials and makes his case in a Church magazine, that we have heard the final and "disturbing" official word, as though it is Scripture? Or might we make our own judgment based on all the materials available to us? We have discussed the Flood question before on this board. Where were you?

[tagriffy]

A clear and precise understanding of the language used in both our arguments, as well as a complete and unadulterated understanding of what scripture is and what, therefore, constitutes a scriptural claim are essential before a useful and productive dialogue can occur to resolve what has been proved and what has not so been. A discussion board such as this is woefully inadequate to arrive at that destination. The fact that you believe that my statement - that I learned early on that the Genesis account of the creation is figurative - proves the modified point to which Johnnie agreed, - that some interpretations of scientific evidence conflict with certain assumptions about some LDS spiritual claims - leads me to believe that you are not giving equal weight to every word being used to, as Johnnie put it, "massage, nudge, fudge and nuance scriptural interpretations." I would add the caveat that scientific evidence is equally subject to being massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit theory.

Finally, I would simply note that if what we are indeed experiencing in this world is a trial of evidences - scientific vs. spiritual - then I would suggest that presently we are in the midst of the world presenting its case via the scientific evidence it can muster (with appropriate objections from God's team), but the case for will not be completed until God presents His case, and the evidence He will present (which we do not yet even begin to fathom) will, I am confident, blow you away. Hold on for the ride.

We were doing an example "just for fun." Technically, you could say I was cheating by using an example that doesn't account for the modern LDS interpretation. But consider this:

The Priestly writer(s) of Genesis 1, though demythologizing the creation account vis a vis neighboring religion, totally accepted the current "science" of the day (i.e., the earth is basically flat and topped off with a dome on which the sun moved). The stories of Joshua and Hezekiah hardly make sense without this view in mind. Now we've discovered that the earth is round and we launch vehicles into space without them slamming against a dome. So when you came back with the modern LDS view, you really made the case for Johnnie's larger point that "physical evidence that conflicts with spiritual evidence tends to win in the long run." The modern LDS view is itself an accommodation to physical evidence that conflicts with Scripture.

[tagriffy]

Cool! I do think that “Give the Lord equal time” is just an expression to convey something a bit different than minutes or effort. The article goes on to say:

“Let us give the Lord equal time. Let us give Him His due share of our thoughts, our time, our talents, and our attention. I know that we are all very busy. There are many demands for our attention, and our time is limited by a wide variety of constraints. But as we learn to manage our time, let us be sure that we give the Lord His portion.”

In the Church, “equal” has a funny connotation. With tithe, everyone pays 10%, not $10. In the plan of salvation and priesthood everyone has equal opportunity and potential (Alma 13:5). The storehouse for the poor, having all things in common, the United Order, etc. means everyone has what they want and need, not an equal amount of goods and services. By “[gazing] into heaven for five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject (TPJS, p. 324; cf. HC 6:50).” Fortunately, only a particle of faith suffices as “equal” against all the other things we have going against us.

I think if the young missionary had given such equal time to the Lord, he could have successfully negotiated whatever it was that came across his path and caught his attention and effort so as to undermine his testimony. But that goes for all of us one way or another.

Okay. I can go with this.

[Robert F. Smith]

That is a statement I can't agree with. It presumes doubt is inherently bad. It assumes belief and doubt can't coexist. And it's an excuse not to do your homework.

Still, Tim, it is helpful to hear both sides (or multiple sides) of a question, sans doute. I remember serving on a jury in a civil case many years ago. Both attorneys were evenly matched, and, as I left the jury box to deliberate, I really didn't know which way to go. I had doubt. Fortunately, during deliberation some of my fellow jurors had heard things I had not, and I was able to clarify for them some other things, so that we were finally able to reach a satisfactory verdict.

What does it really mean to "give the Lord equal time"? Does it mean to have blind faith, or does it mean to study both the secular and sacred bases of some claim which is under fire? The phrase "by study and also by faith" comes to mind.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mark the list of scientific evidences that conflict with LDS scriptural claims is lengthy...but if you wish to rely on your spiritual confirmations rather than accept scientific facts...you are welcome to do so. I think I'll stick with the physical evidence

CFR means actual citation of specific evidence -- usually to a published source.

[Mark Beesley]

The good thing about science is it repeatability. If you can't repeat my experiment and get the same results then mine isn't scientific evidence.

Of course data is sometimes manipulated. But mere data points don't make scientific evidence. IE; If I burn simple hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and a miniature flying pink elephant pops out that is mere data. If 100's of others burn simple hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and miniature flying pink elephants pop out. Then we have to think of a new theory to explain it. To date all the scientific evidence shows that miniature flying pink elephants don't result from burning simple hydrogen in the presence of oxygen.

Leaving out the extreme example, replication of scientific experiments is always subject to being able to control all variables, the exactness which is required being dependent on the nature of the theory and test. Absolute exactness is something that is nearly impossible, but usually close enough to obtain useful data. Heck, the time day, the position of the moon, the altitude and barometric pressure may all affect the appearance of those pink elephants, but we assume they usually don't . . .

But this is getting absurd.

ERayR's point that we need to balance our exposure to criticisms of the Church with those activities which foster faith, such as scripture study, prayer, and service to others is what we need to be focusing on. So, I will return to my original foray into this morass of evidences by pointing out and restating that the spiritual test that I conducted, resulting in a sure witness that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, will trump any negative evidence one may wish to present to expose him as a charlatan. I am confident that if anyone were able to exactly replicate my experience, they would reach the same conclusion. But alas, I am equally confident that no one can. Fortunately, the theory - that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God - can be tested and proved for oneself in other ways. Those who reach a contrary conclusion are engaged in data manipulation, i.e. they are not giving the Lord equal time.

[tagriffy]

Still, Tim, it is helpful to hear both sides (or multiple sides) of a question, sans doute. I remember serving on a jury in a civil case many years ago. Both attorneys were evenly matched, and, as I left the jury box to deliberate, I really didn't know which way to go. I had doubt. Fortunately, during deliberation some of my fellow jurors had heard things I had not, and I was able to clarify for them some other things, so that we were finally able to reach a satisfactory verdict.

What does it really mean to "give the Lord equal time"? Does it mean to have blind faith, or does it mean to study both the secular and sacred bases of some claim which is under fire? The phrase "by study and also by faith" comes to mind.

Indeed, the phrase "by study and also by faith" does come to mind. My mind as well as yours, even if I did quote it incorrectly. In my mind the distinction between secular and sacred bases practically disappears when you are looking at things "by study and also by faith."

[Ahab]

Interesting post...

I recently had one of my younger grandchildren ask me completely out of left field..."Grandpa, Is the Book of Mormon True?" My personal view is that the book is a 100% human product...written from the thoughts and ideas of a human mind just like every other book found in a library...So should I lie to my grandson and tell him what his parents would tell him had the question been asked of them or

should I tell him what I believe… after all he did ask for my opinion...

What I did was (just like many here) was to nuance my answer in a way that I could remain honest to my personal beliefs yet respect what his parents teach him. I said..."Well that’s a complicated question.. there are people in the world who believe that it is true and there are people in the world who believe it is not." Several days passed and I get a call from my son asking why I told my grandson that the Book of Mormon wasn't true. Taken back some I responded that that was not what I had said and shared with him what and how I had answered this direct question.

The problem with inoculation…is that sometimes even telling the truth gets you in trouble

Not as long as you innoculate correctly.

I was talking with my brother a while back (he's not a member of the Church nor are any other of my parents children) about how he was teaching his children. I asked: "Do you teach them what you believe is true or instead do you teach them how they can find out what is true?" He said straight out that he taught them what he believed was true. I then said something about how a lot of people seem to prefer that approach, but considering how many different religions there are and how many conflicting beliefs there are there needed to be some way to find out and make sure that something is true. And then I said a few things about how I go about it, pretty much leaving it at that.

That's how to innoculate someone correctly. People have all kinds of beliefs about all kinds of things, but what we need is a way to find out what is true. Once you can do that the various conflicting opinions of each person don't pose much of a problem when you have already found out what is true.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

Johnnie Cake said:

funny how physical evidence that conflicts with spiritual evidence tends to win in the long run...

Ugggg...

One: Adam was first man

The Brethren have always said that the Creation account is to be taken figuratively or symbolically. Brother Brigham even made the point that Adam was conceived and born just like all other humans.

It is very easy to make the same mistake made by biblical literalists that the poetic, iterative, and catechetical Creation account in Genesis is meant to be taken as a biology and geology text, but that is just plain silly -- and tantamount to taking the annual reading of the creation account at the Esagila Temple in ancient Babylon as anything other than liturgy. I know of no scholar who makes that absurd mistake (a logical category mistake).

Moreover, most scholars agree the word 'adam is a collective term meaning "man, humanity," who is taken from the 'adama "earth, clay." See Gerhard von Rad's commentary on Genesis.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mark Beesley, on 13 June 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Just for fun, name one.

tagriffy said:

Just for fun. Genesis 1 describes the earth as basically flat and fitted with a dome to keep the upper waters out. Obviously this conflicts with physical evidence the earth is round, space vehicles don't bang against the dome, and said space vehicles do not get shorted out by the water above the atmosphere.

Mark Beesley, on 13 June 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

I'm on my way out the door, but just a quick note . . .

I learned, the first time I went through the temple, that the Genesis account of the creation is figurative.

I think you've just proven Johnnie's point.

I suppose so, Tim, if one assumes that the Genesis account of creation is meant to be taken as a scientific or historical text. I challenge anyone to find a biblical scholar who accepts that as the proper genre assignment, or who does Formgeschichte in that obtuse fashion. Surely we can approach such texts (including Enuma elish) in a more acceptable way.

Moreover, God presumably speaks to man in a normative, culture-based fashion appropriate to his understanding. Does that seem outlandish?

Cheers,

Bob

[Tacenda]

The Brethren have always said that the Creation account is to be taken figuratively or symbolically. Brother Brigham even made the point that Adam was conceived and born just like all other humans.

It is very easy to make the same mistake made by biblical literalists that the poetic, iterative, and catechetical Creation account in Genesis is meant to be taken as a biology and geology text, but that is just plain silly -- and tantamount to taking the annual reading of the creation account at the Esagila Temple in ancient Babylon as anything other than liturgy. I know of no scholar who makes that absurd mistake (a logical category mistake).

Moreover, most scholars agree the word 'adam is a collective term meaning "man, humanity," who is taken from the 'adama "earth, clay." See Gerhard von Rad's commentary on Genesis.

I'm not remembering these teachings, do you mind a CFR or some talks to read?

[thesometimesaint]

Leaving out the extreme example, replication of scientific experiments is always subject to being able to control all variables, the exactness which is required being dependent on the nature of the theory and test. Absolute exactness is something that is nearly impossible, but usually close enough to obtain useful data. Heck, the time day, the position of the moon, the altitude and barometric pressure may all affect the appearance of those pink elephants, but we assume they usually don't . . .

But this is getting absurd.

ERayR's point that we need to balance our exposure to criticisms of the Church with those activities which foster faith, such as scripture study, prayer, and service to others is what we need to be focusing on. So, I will return to my original foray into this morass of evidences by pointing out and restating that the spiritual test that I conducted, resulting in a sure witness that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, will trump any negative evidence one may wish to present to expose him as a charlatan. I am confident that if anyone were able to exactly replicate my experience, they would reach the same conclusion. But alas, I am equally confident that no one can. Fortunately, the theory - that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God - can be tested and proved for oneself in other ways. Those who reach a contrary conclusion are engaged in data manipulation, i.e. they are not giving the Lord equal time.

I have no problem with JS being a prophet of God. I actually like the idea. OTOH I categorically reject attempts to conflate science with theology.

I don't believe it is a matter of simply giving the Lord quantitative equal time. It is however a matter of giving quality time to both.

[cinepro]

The Brethren have always said that the Creation account is to be taken figuratively or symbolically. Brother Brigham even made the point that Adam was conceived and born just like all other humans.

Really? Whom did he say Adam's parents were...?

As for what the "Brethren" have "always said" about the Creation, you're totally off-base. The "Brethren" have always said that the creation, starting with "We will go down, and we will take of these materials and we will make an Earth", is a historical event.

You have to be careful, because the "Brethren" outline the Plan of Salvation as having three key components:

1. The Creation

2. The Fall

3. The Atonement

If any one of these is just figurative or symbolic, then it has a serious impact on the validity of the other two.

Doctrinally speaking, there be danger in these waters.

Edited June 14, 2013 by cinepro

[Ahab]

I have no problem with JS being a prophet of God. I actually like the idea. OTOH I categorically reject attempts to conflate science with theology.

I don't believe it is a matter of simply giving the Lord quantitative equal time. It is however a matter of giving quality time to both.

You're going to die thinking that way, aren't cha?

Strange idea, to me. Theology is all about understanding God and it seems to me that should include what God understands about what we refer to as science.

[tagriffy]

I suppose so, Tim, if one assumes that the Genesis account of creation is meant to be taken as a scientific or historical text. I challenge anyone to find a biblical scholar who accepts that as the proper genre assignment, or who does Formgeschichte in that obtuse fashion. Surely we can approach such texts (including Enuma elish) in a more acceptable way.

Moreover, God presumably speaks to man in a normative, culture-based fashion appropriate to his understanding. Does that seem outlandish?

Cheers,

Bob

I think I need a smiley that indicates I have my tongue in cheek and a twinkle in my eye.

Seriously, at most, what I am saying is that the account, at least as it was redacted into Genesis, was put forth and accepted as a more or less straightforward account. That we no longer receive it that way owes a lot to what we now know about the physical evidence.

Of course it isn't outlandish to think of God speaking in a normal, culturally-based fashion. In fact, it is the cornerstone of my theology of Scripture.

[thesometimesaint]

You're going to die thinking that way, aren't cha?

Strange idea, to me. Theology is all about understanding God and it seems to me that should include what God understands about what we refer to as science.

I'm nearly 62 years old, and my ideas are pretty entrenched at this point. So I'll probably die thinking that way. Doesn't mean I opposed to changing them, but it will take something pretty big to do that.

We know so very little about both, that if that day does comes when they are joined in harmony. Today probably isn't that day. Until that day I'm content to let science tell me the HOW God did it, and have God tell me the WHY.

Edited June 14, 2013 by thesometimesaint