Jump to content

43 Minutes Which Could Change Your Life And This Forum - Science & Religion

Recommended Posts

I never have seen any conflict between science and the LDS religion. So I won't waste my time with your video.

Does that mean if you don't see a conflict between what church leaders say and your own view of the gospel then you don't waste your time on General Conference?  There is always a chance to learn, whether from opposing views or similar views.  It all depends on our attitude.  I guess that comes full circle, though, because if you view something as a waste of time and go into it with that attitude -- it likely will be a waste of time.

Link to post

I never have seen any conflict between science and the LDS religion. So I won't waste my time with your video.

Would this be an innapropriate reply?

2 Nep 28:27 Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!

If that isn't then this may well be:

"Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-“Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.” Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. “Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence-this plea in bar of effort- “thus far and no farther.”…This sort of “reverence” is easily simulated, and is of such flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow- “soul take thine ease”- that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the same category as the simulated humility couched in “I don’t know,” which so often really means “I don’t care, and do not intend to trouble myself to find out.”

Elder B.H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course of Theology, vol. V (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1912), pg. v -

The video is excellent. It won't be a waste of time.

Link to post

D&C 93:24 defines truth as knowedge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  For the moment, let's assume that "truth" means what the D&C says it means.


Arround 12:30 in your video, Rorty says:


Nowadays since the development of modern science, religious belief and scientific beliefs have become tools for doing different jobs.  Scientific beliefs help us predict and control events in space and time.  This job used to be done by cosmogonist hypothesis pervaded by priests and prophets, but it can now be done better.


If "truth" is knowledge of things as they really are, then according to what Rorty is saying, science does a better job of helping us understand the truth.



As much as I appreciate science, and I do A LOT, science can't help me understand truth. What it can do is help me understand facts. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Link to post

I never have seen any conflict between science and the LDS religion. So I won't waste my time with your video.


God is the ultimate scientist, many of his ways are beyond us currently, but we humans continue to learn new scientific principles all the time.


Let me explain what I think mfb meant by 'conflict', in a tiny bit of a different way.  The best example is actually illusions of various sorts.  For instance, what do they say in car mirrors... 'Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear'.  Why do they say this?  Because how we interpret what we see looking in one direction, and how we interpret what we see looking in another direction conflict.  And so, we develop a resolution (that is, that objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear).  Is this necessarily the only resolution?  No.  We could develop thousands of different alternative resolutions.  This is just the one we chose.  We choose to change how we interpret our sight so that way we are able to bring resolution to the conflict.  By conflict (in philosophical terms), it doesn't mean that something is irreconcilable.  It just means we are developing a resolution.  There are several issues where what is said in mainstream scientific opinion and religious speech conflict, that is, they seem to disagree with each other.  And so, we develop resolutions in various ways, so that way the conflicts disappear.  And there isn't anything to be criticized for when creating resolutions - almost everybody does it believe it or not. So if people criticize you for it, just point out that they are doing the same thing on other topics.  Like nearly all of us do.


To put it more succinctly, rather than change what we believe is correct, we change how we believe it's correct instead.

Edited by TAO
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Would this be an innapropriate reply?

In my book any reply would be inappropriate.  I usually avoid militant defenders of ignorance.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

Well I thought I would give this a bump and see if anyone wants to jump in.


I noticed that Kevin Graham is still saying very stupid things about me on the other board and would like to have him comment on this video if he sees it.


But I don't want to discuss it over there.  It's too distracting having groundlings throwing rotten fruit while you are trying to have a discussion.

Link to post
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Anijen
      In reading some of the posts involving crimes [sexual assault], allegations, [Kavanaugh, President Russel Topic], or even controversial subjects such as Climate Change, Book of Mormon Geography, etc.. I have thought to myself there are a lot of faith based concepts juxtaposed up to scientific method and actual evidence. I'd like to discuss both and how it might affect our concept of that topic and what we take away.
      Personal belief systems can take root at a very early age, sometimes as a part of our cultural or ethnic identity. As a result, they are almost impossible to remove without eroding the soil of substance that gives one both a sense of identity and purpose. However, also true, as a consequence, most will not surrender a deeply held personal belief for fear it could lead to their spiritual loss or death. There is nothing wrong with personal beliefs. I, for one, am deeply faithful and active in church. Each person finds meaning and purpose in their own way and that is how it should be. There is a difference between faith and scientific method and reason. Personal faith is not a problem unless it gets in the way of objective forensic investigation and examination.
      For example; using faith based reasoning (let's say using the Bible to prove a point), the premise of an argument and the conclusion are a matter of personal belief and subsequently often considered above criticism. Those who question the premises of such beliefs, religious and otherwise dogmatic, are labeled heretics or worse. I have been called an apostate for not subscribing to a heartland theory, a racist for objecting to a safe-place policy, a climate denier for even questioning global warming (which I know there is climate change, my interests is, is it really all just man made?), a racist and a bigot for disagreeing about kneeling as a protest, a chauvinist pig for thinking men and woman are different and we should use the appropriate public bathrooms.  
      In faith and personal belief, there is little room for critical thinking and no place for doubt. As a consequence, the nature of faith runs contrary to knowledge building. My faith tells me men and women are both children of God and are different from each other, science also tells me there is a biological difference too. We still have debates to how we should act and even appropriate ways to speak. For example is refusing to bake a cake with a message one does not believe in compelling speech?
      Questions, questions, questions... When is testify via faith and testify via science appropriate and acceptable and when is it not?
    • By TOmNossor
      I enjoy reading Catholic thought and I wanted to share.  I believe the call for SSM and many other criticisms of the CoJCoLDS (primarily from those who still hold to some sense of its being “true”) is a product of lack of rigorous thought.  An emotionalism where we substitute how we feel about things for sound principles derived by seeking God with faith and reason.
      First two links:
      Article by Archbishop of Philadelphia:
      Faith and Reason by JPII:
      I will admit that I have only read parts of Faith and Reason, but I hope to rectify this.
      I think the Catholic Church is in crisis partially because its highest leaders have left behind sound thinking on issues for a hoped pastoral love of all.  This is from First Things:

      More poignantly from an interview with Bishop Chaput:

      It is my opinion that there are many very concerning things coming for the Pope and the leadership around him.  I fear he has forgotten (and I think it likely that many around him have forgotten) the second half of: “Truth without love is imperious self-righteousness. Love without truth is cowardly self-indulgence.” With an organization so committed to preserving the “truth once delivered,” how (with or without God’s supernatural guidance) can such a thing happen.  How can it happen to the CoJCoLDS?
      Somebody who wrestles with issues like advocating for or against SSM will become a general authority (not me).  In my personal life, I feel the desire to embrace love without the restraining influence of truth.  In the name of love sometime not just self love, I can stray from God’s path.  As my attempt at my best self online, I feel the desire to embrace love without mentioning truth to those with whom I dialogue even though I do not face the same issues they do (I like to not speak of their sin or emphasize that I too am a sinner to eliminate or soften the truth).  How much tougher will this be for the future bishop who can clearly see the pain in those he loves and knows that speaking truth to them will make him a lone voice in a world that has ceased to care about truth.
      There are two things about the difficult and recent declaration concerning children of same sex couples.  First, is that it would be somewhat cruel to ask a child to explain the reason his/her parents have embraced a way of living out of alignment with God’s teaching.  The second is having not been cruel, those who likely believe that SSM is a wonderful institution that has blessed their lives will continue to grow and learn and progress in the church.  
      As I said in a recent thread, I think it quite possible that one day our church will embrace SSM in many and perhaps all ways.  IMO today this would be the love without truth result.  If this happens in the future, it will not be the end of the church, but too much of this love without truth could be (I have faith that God is in control and can steer away from this).  But, one of the ways God steers away from this is by calling us to THINK correctly.
      I believe that wrong thinking after Vatican II has lead to the place where the Catholic Church is today and while some of the things Pope Francis is doing may briefly increase the number of folks in the pews, I believe ultimately it will further water down truth and lead to more indifference to the things of God.
      I do not think the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS have succumbed to the thinking Pope Francis has embraced.  And I believe that the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS receive revelation and inspiration to guide God’s church.  That being said, I have little doubt that Bishops and Stake Presidents struggle with these issues.  Without a commitment to have both TRUTH and LOVE, I think errors can happen.  As these error permeate the church AND society, there may be one day when our God (who I think is pragmatic) will recognize that it does more harm than good to continue to teach the truth in certain ways.  Someday, the pain caused by the truth and the prevalence of societies tolerant arms willing to offer an ultimately cold loveless embrace, could make it better for the church to water down the gospel in certain areas (no more United Order comes to mind).  Alternatively, if the gospel understanding of these issues is correct and discussion and dialogue helps folks to find ways to love in truth, perhaps pragmatic solution will not be required.  
      Anyway, there is great value in learning from wise folks like JPII and Arch Bishop Chaput.  I believe God is in charge.  I believe the CoJCoLDS passed through its first 200 years in a way far more remarkable than the years 33-233AD were for New Testament Christians and evidence God’s continuing inspiration and revelation for the whole body of the church.  That being said, God’s hand is occasionally the wise and intelligent council of our brothers and sisters.  The society into which President Nelson held his first press conference is hostile to God’s truths.  I believe that the church is guided by God through President Nelson, but ALL of us imbibe inappropriately of the ideas evidenced in this press conference hostility (in the name of love or in the name of self-indulgence or in the name of …but we imbibe).  May right reasoning and truth from God provide a counter force to societies pull!  
      Charity, TOm  
      P.S.  In case it is somehow veiled by what I say above, I do not think I am superior in my thinking to all others.  I offer the above because it is what seems true to me.  If it didn’t seem true to me, my best self, would find something else to embrace that I think is true.  I desire to align my beliefs with what God believes to be true!  
      This also means I want to read and discuss thoughts about the above.
    • By USU78
      MFBukowski and I have had conversations in the past hereabouts on the subject of JSJr's and Mormonism's unique ability to anticipate modern philosophical thought.  The Late XVIIIth-Early XIXth Century poet, playwright, and thinker Schiller advised his hypothetical philosopher king to pursue through aesthetics the worthy goal of transcending matter and mind in order to become a creator through play [Spieltrieb].  JSJr taught that we are, at our most fundamental, both in our prior life, our present life, and in our life to come, demiurgical beings.  We once helped to create the world we now live in.  We seek to continue on to be creators with and for G-d in the hereafter.  We are to create in partnership with G-d, as He communicates TRVTH in our hearts and in our minds, an abundant life here.
      It is the creation of that abundant life that I wish to explore in this thread, and all are welcome to offer what they wish, so long as it's on topic.
      It occurred to me reading Alma 34:37, which is connected to and of a kind with Philippians 2:12-13, that "working out our salvation" is just another way of saying we are to create that abundant life here.
      Now, yes, there's the often confusing "fear and trembling" [phobos kai tromos] which suggests the attitude we should bring to the work of our creation of our lives.  Let's get this at least partway out of our way, however.  That is a paraphrase of Psalm 2:11, which states: "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."  Cf.  Psalms 55:5.
      The "fear" in the Hebrew [which is also translated in the Septuagint as phobos], is more in the nature of "respect" and "awe," rather than terror, and the way that "trembling" is presented in the Psalm is likewise not to be understood as "shaking in fear" as used, but rather in excitement and joy.  We are thus to "work out our salvation" with respect for G-d, standing in awe of Him, but with great joy to the point of trembling.
      As MFB never tires of pointing out, our ability to perceive the world around us, the phenomena we encounter and, to a certain extent, even ourselves [please keep Freud out of this], depends upon our senses communicating data to our minds and hearts.  We can know nothing except as filtered through our perceptions and colored by our experiences.  Thus we in a sense create the world by taking in our perceptions of it, making sense of those perceptions by employing our native abilities and our experience.  Our salvation, I argue, we create "work out" in the same way.  The key to making our lives abundant, however, is in that Hebrew/Greek idiom phobos kai tromos.  Only by having a correct attitude towards G-d, a correct conception of Him and relationship with Him, can we hope to live in abundant joy to the point of dancing naked on the beach, having created a world where such joy is an everyday thing.
      Men are, after all, that they might have joy.
      Have at it!
    • By Five Solas
      As LDS Church membership growth stalls and in some places declines (particularly in urban areas like Seattle), a number of explanations have been offered.  There’s been a lot of focus on availability of information via the internet, particularly regarding church history.  There’s also been a lot of discussion of Millennials and their preferences, which are often not well aligned with traditional LDS beliefs and culture.
      But I wonder if part of the trouble isn’t related to a decline in the traditional candidate pool for LDS conversions.  In my experience, LDS converts often came from what I would call liberal Protestantism, mainline denominations many of which have been in steady decline in recent decades.  And if my observation is broadly true, then as they have declined the result has been a shrinking pool of promising candidates for LDS missionaries to draw from.  Implicit here is that the LDS message doesn’t resonate equally well across different groups (unless the candidate is only marginally engaged therein).
      What do folks here think?  Does the LDS religion have a uniform appeal across religious backgrounds?  Or are some more likely, statistically speaking, to be receptive to the LDS message? 
      Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
      Now it looks as though they're here to stay
      Oh, I believe in yesterday
      --The Beatles, 1965
    • By Calm

      Heaven & Earth
      Mormonism and the Challenges of Science, Revelation and Faith
      February 22nd - 23rd, 2018
      Classroom Building, Room 511
      Utah Valley University

      click here for a pdf version of the program 
      The relationship between science and religion has been among the most fiercely debated issues since the Copernican revolution displaced traditional wisdom regarding the nature of the cosmos. Some have argued  for a sharp division of labor while others have sought to harmonize spiritual and empirical truths. From its beginnings, Mormonism has wrestled with the implications of modern science and has produced a variety of  theological responses. This conference will explore the landscape of Mormon thought as it relates to the relationships between science, theology, scriptural narratives, and LDS authoritative discourse. It will also examine abiding questions of faith, reason, and doubt and the reactions against the intellectualizing forces that bear on the truth claims of Mormonism.  
        Keynote Speaker
      Molly Worthen
      Assistant Professor of History
      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
      author of Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism Eugene England Lecture
      Steven L. Peck
      Associate Professor of Biology
      Brigham Young University
      author of Science the Key to Theology Conference Participants
      Philip L. Barlow
      Leonard J. Arrington Chair in Mormon Studies & Culture
      Utah State University
      author of Mormons and the Bible: The Place of Latter-day Saints in American Religion
        Brian D. Birch 
      Brian D. Birch, Director, Religious Studies Program
      Utah Valley University
      series co-editor, Perspectives on Mormon Theology
        David Bokovoy
      Online Professor of Bible and Jewish Studies
      Utah State University
      author of Reading the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy 
        Matthew Bowman
      Matthew Bowman, Assistant Professor of Philosophy
      Henderson State University
      author of The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith
        Deidre Nicole Green
      Postdoctoral Fellow
      Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
      author of "Becoming Equal Partners: Latter-day Saint Women as Theologians” 
        Jamie L. Jensen
      Associate Professor of Biology, Brigham Young University, author of “Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution:  Mormons as a case study” 
        Boyd Jay Petersen
      Program Coordinator for Mormon Studies
      Utah Valley University
      author of “One Soul Shall Not Be Lost': The War in Heaven in Mormon Thought" 
        Jana K. Riess
      Senior Columnist
      Religion News Service
      author of The Next Mormons
        David W. Scott
      Professor of Communication
      Utah Valley University
      author of “Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?"  
      Ben Spackman
      History of Christianity & Religions of North America Program
      Claremont Graduate University
      author of “Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis”  
      Co-Sponsors & Partners
      Religious Studies Program, Utah Valley University College of Humanities & Social Sciences, Utah Valley University
  • Create New...