What The Church Dna Essay Teaches Us

[ERayR]

Facts are not extreme. They are just facts. It is entirely fair to say you don't know. Heck there is plenty I don't know. However science is more than just a list of things we don't know. It is the accumulated things we do know from the evidence presented so far. Religious stories whether true or not, can not be considered evidence in science.                        

 

Facts are not extreme, I agree.  Facts are just facts.  It is interpretation of facts that are sometimes extreme.

 

Science is not only an accumulation of things we know but it is also a large accumulation of things we only think we know because of our interpretation of the facts.  Where the line is nobody really knows.

[thesometimesaint]

Read for comprehension.  He said "I".  This means himself. 

 

The above mentioned trio are as subject to error as anyone else.

 

like every other person on earth is subject to error. The Church has as binding law "Common Consent" The Theory of Evolution has never been put to the Church for its consent. Neither has the Pythagorean Theorem for that matter. We can all believe whatever we want on those subjects. However large numbers of people in the Church accept as fact both.

[ERayR]

.

One person told me arsenic is poison and can kill you. Another said it is a good addition to a healthy diet.

The truth must lie somewhere in the middle.

 

In this case one probably ought to be very careful, however, we do know that in our environment there are trace amounts of arsenic in many things.  I think I will limit my intake as much as possible.

[ERayR]

like every other person on earth is subject to error. The Church has as binding law "Common Consent" The Theory of Evolution has never been put to the Church for its consent. Neither has the Pythagorean Theorem for that matter. We can all believe whatever we want on those subjects. However large numbers of people in the Church accept as fact both.

Irrelevant and inane comparison.

[readstoomuch]

Mormonfreethinker,

There must be some history from another thread, but I try to make science and religion make sense to me. They harmonize more than you would think, but not perfectly. So there you go.

Edited May 7, 2014 by readstoomuch

[thesometimesaint]

Facts are not extreme, I agree.  Facts are just facts.  It is interpretation of facts that are sometimes extreme.

 

Science is not only an accumulation of things we know but it is also a large accumulation of things we only think we know because of our interpretation of the facts.  Where the line is nobody really knows.

 

In science it is all interpretations based on the observations(facts). If we see different observations the interpretations must change. Consistent observation that the observation is consistent with the interpretation is the key.

 

The line is always fixed; Do the observations justify the interpretation or not. IE; If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen I observe water coming out. OTOH if I observe miniature flying pink elephants coming out. Far more than likely it is I who did something terribly wrong, and/or that God did intervene and made miniature flying pink elephants come out.

Edited May 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Mormonfreethinker,

There must be some history from another thread, but I try to make science and religion make sense to me. They harmonize more than you would, but not perfectly. So there you go.

 

Ultimately someday they will be harmonized, but that day isn't likely to be today.

[ERayR]

In science it is all interpretations based on the observations(facts). If we see different observations the interpretations must change. Consistent observation that the observation is consistent with the interpretation is the key.

 

The line is always fixed; Do the observations justify the interpretation or not. IE; If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen I observe water coming out. OTOH if I observe miniature flying pink elephants coming out. Far more than likely it is I who did something terribly wrong, and/or that God did intervene and made miniature flying pink elephants come out.

 

You do have a knack for inane examples.  With the parameters defined by the science club to restrict interpretation to conclusions acceptable to the club then pink elephants are probably as good as anything.  Define the acceptable conclusions then reject anything outside those parameters and you will always get what you want.

[ERayR]

Ultimately someday they will be harmonized, but that day isn't likely to be today.

 

Only when the science club and the bible club remove their extreme restrictions.

[Opinion Slayer]

The earth was never baptized at any time during which man has been on it. Theologically we don't baptize inanimate or nonhuman objects. There is no need and doing so makes a mockery of repentance.

 

Church law requires that all doctrine be confirmed by Common Consent. Ensign articles(Universal Flood) do not meet that law.

 

You, like everyone else, are free to believe anything you want. When you teach your ideas as Church doctrine you do error.

 

Whether I or anyone else has a nice day is irrelevant to this discussion.

"The earth was created as a living thing and The Lord ordained that it should live a celestial law. It was Baptized in water and will receive the baptism of fire; It will die, be resurrected and attain unto a state of celestial exaltation..." Doctrines of Salvation pp. 72-89 

 

It's sad that people still dispute or are confused by this simple doctrine taught by the prophets. Have a nice day!

[Opinion Slayer]

"FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling." (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320)

[joebob2986]

Yay finally someone else that recognizes that not believing the Global Flood or the Hemispheric model is not rejecting the prophets.  Why can't we talk like this at church people!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yay finally someone else that recognizes that not believing the Global Flood or the Hemispheric model is not rejecting the prophets.  Why can't we talk like this at church people!

WE can and do. Well I do. Just to see what people say.

[Rob Osborn]

It was in reference to your claim to your own scientific truths. But now that you do bring it up you do have an idiosyncratic definition of the words Atheist/Atheism.

You lack class my dear friend- lack of class.

 

Don't insult others here.

[ERayR]

"The earth was created as a living thing and The Lord ordained that it should live a celestial law. It was Baptized in water and will receive the baptism of fire; It will die, be resurrected and attain unto a state of celestial exaltation..." Doctrines of Salvation pp. 72-89 

 

It's sad that people still dispute or are confused by this simple doctrine taught by the prophets. Have a nice day!

 

See my post #34 above.

[Lachoneus]

One person told me arsenic is poison and can kill you. Another said it is a good addition to a healthy diet.

The truth must lie somewhere in the middle.

 

Actually, you are correct, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

For example, for the last 500 years arsenic in various forms has had various medicinal uses for humans. During the 1700s soluble arsenic compounds were used as stimulants and might, therefore, be thought of as part of "a healthy diet." Arsphenamine, an organoarsenic molecule first introduced in the 1910s, was the first effective treatment for syphilis and trypanosomiasis. In 2000 the FDA approved arsenic trioxide for the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia that is resistant to ATRA.  More recently research has been done using arsenic-74 instead of iodine-12 to locate tumors because the PET it produces is clearer with less "noise." All of these examples serve to show that arsenic, properly understood and used, can be used to improve one's health rather than as a poison.

 

So, yes, the truth is often in the middle. And thanks for illustrating that what we often assume to be a scientific truth can turn out to be a lot different than what we first assumed in our ignorance.

 

BTW, you may want to scratch off apple juice as part of your "healthy diet" because it contains arsenic. And if you decide just to eat a fresh apple to avoid the arsenic, you might want to avoid eating the seeds.They contain cyanide.

[The Nehor]

Actually, you are correct, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

For example, for the last 500 years arsenic in various forms has had various medicinal uses for humans. During the 1700s soluble arsenic compounds were used as stimulants and might, therefore, be thought of as part of "a healthy diet." Arsphenamine, an organoarsenic molecule first introduced in the 1910s, was the first effective treatment for syphilis and trypanosomiasis. In 2000 the FDA approved arsenic trioxide for the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia that is resistant to ATRA.  More recently research has been done using arsenic-74 instead of iodine-12 to locate tumors because the PET it produces is clearer with less "noise." All of these examples serve to show that arsenic, properly understood and used, can be used to improve one's health rather than as a poison.

 

So, yes, the truth is often in the middle. And thanks for illustrating that what we often assume to be a scientific truth can turn out to be a lot different than what we first assumed in our ignorance.

 

BTW, you may want to scratch off apple juice as part of your "healthy diet" because it contains arsenic. And if you decide just to eat a fresh apple to avoid the arsenic, you might want to avoid eating the seeds.They contain cyanide.

Yes, because I was definitely talking about trace amounts.

[readstoomuch]

I like Joseph Fielding Smith's teachings. His young earth, creation and other science related quotes are usually taken from marginal science and not reliable. As far as I know they were written before he was the prophet. I think a symbolic baptism or limited flood is fine by me. I enjoy president Smith's passion for the gospel and he was inspired. I just take it that they took the best knowledge that they felt comfortable with when there is poor science.

[SamIam]

I like Joseph Fielding Smith's teachings. His young earth, creation and other science related quotes are usually taken from marginal science and not reliable. As far as I know they were written before he was the prophet. I think a symbolic baptism or limited flood is fine by me. I enjoy president Smith's passion for the gospel and he was inspired. I just take it that they took the best knowledge that they felt comfortable with when there is poor science.

 

Simply for a point to consider I provide this quote from the talk "The Bible a Sealed Book" by Elder McConkie:

 

The same or like knowledge is contained in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. For aught we know the two sealed books are one and the same. Of this much we are quite certain: When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in preexistence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances in their fullness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings, and many such things (see, e.g., Ether 1:3-5).

 

As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the Creation, both of this earth and all forms of life, and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And, sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity. .

 

Our purpose in referring to the sealed book or books spoken of by Isaiah and John is to set the stage for a consideration of the sealed book-the Holy Bible-that is now in our hands. As the Lord Jesus alone has power to loose the seven seals on John's book, so the coming forth of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon depends upon the faith and righteousness of us men.

 

Most reject this particular position but I find it perfectly fitting with

 

Isaiah 14:29:"Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."

 

And

 

1 Corinthians 1:19 

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

 

I realize that in the pronouncements of our wise men, the doctors and lawyers and scientists of our age there is very good reasoning and what we can observe seems very right and agreeable with their pronouncements.  However, I have long felt that these kinds of scriptures must be referencing those that society looks to for the answers of our existence and that independent of how they appeal to our need to "know", there is a calculated point in time when all of their pronouncements will be found wanting.  So, for me, though I realize sometimes from my current vantage point their statements of "fact" may be appealing, I believe these sciptures, Elder McConkie, Elder Smith and all others that feel these days will come when all we thought we knew will be as nothing once we truly know. 

[Opinion Slayer]

I like Joseph Fielding Smith's teachings. His young earth, creation and other science related quotes are usually taken from marginal science and not reliable. As far as I know they were written before he was the prophet. I think a symbolic baptism or limited flood is fine by me. I enjoy president Smith's passion for the gospel and he was inspired. I just take it that they took the best knowledge that they felt comfortable with when there is poor science.

Congratulations on liking a prophet of God's teachings, I guess after 60 years of serving as an apostle and prophet of God he might know the doctrine much better than most. But Like his father the prophet Joseph F. Smith and his uncle Joseph Smith Jr, they did not acquire their knowledge from a laboratory. They acquired their knowledge through the power of pure revelation from their Maker. But just like archeologists today that scoff and mock Joseph for the pearl of great price because it doesn't add up to what they now know so will scientists continue to theorize different views of the flood but it will not change the truth the prophets have received.

 

FYI Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrine of Salvation was published when he was President of the Quorum of the 12 and 18 yrs after when he was the prophet he never recanted or changed his doctrinal view from the many books written by his hands or compiled by other prophets and that's because the source of his knowledge never changed (D&C 93:24) The flood was universal when Noah was alive, it was universal when Joseph Fielding Smith was alive and it's still universal today!

[The Nehor]

FYI Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrine of Salvation was published when he was President of the Quorum of the 12 and 18 yrs after when he was the prophet he never recanted or changed his doctrinal view from the many books written by his hands or compiled by other prophets and that's because the source of his knowledge never changed (D&C 93:24) The flood was universal when Noah was alive, it was universal when Joseph Fielding Smith was alive and it's still universal today!

 

Counterpoint: I see dry land out the window and am not currently drowning.

[Tiki]

Counterpoint: I see dry land out the window and am not currently drowning.

You're next, after the polar bears.

[readstoomuch]

I really love JFS. I actually can't believe the conversation here. I can line up apostles like James Talmadge and John Widstoe who were scientists and didn't agree with BRM and JFS on everything. They were all inspired men, but they often held different belieffs on science. Were my evolution, physics and chemistry classes at BYU all wrong because they don't fully go slong with JFS and his Man His Origin and Destiny? Is that what some of you are saying? Amazing.

[thesometimesaint]

You do have a knack for inane examples.  With the parameters defined by the science club to restrict interpretation to conclusions acceptable to the club then pink elephants are probably as good as anything.  Define the acceptable conclusions then reject anything outside those parameters and you will always get what you want.

 

I use inane examples as a model for what some have claimed as scientific truth. Science isn't a club. It is merely a tool to observe the natural world and make logical consistent predictions based on those observations. Over hundreds of years using many thousands if not millions of observations we can make logical consistent predictions that burning hydrogen in the presence of oxygen always produces water, at the atomic/molecular level it has to do with electron attraction sharing to make a stable molecule. There has never been a confirmed case where that process produced anything but water including elephants.

 

We have to define what acceptable limits are or we do get anything but good logical consistent predictions. IE; Ptolemy made predictions for a geocentric solar system of the sun and 4 planets revolving around the earth. That idea held for some 1400 years. Bruno, not a scientist, predicted a heliocentric solar system. He didn't have the tools to convince anyone of his observations and was burned at the stake for it. Copernicus had the tools but because of fear of religion kept quiet. Galileo had the tools and didn't keep quiet. He paid a heavy price because of religion, but eventually was vindicated, and today we largely follow, with minor variation, his theory of a heliocentric solar system.

 

Thankfully we don't burn people at the stake anymore. But some, even here, do get equally silly idea that Fred Flintstone rode around on a coconut eating dinosaur some four-five thousand years ago.

[thesometimesaint]

Congratulations on liking a prophet of God's teachings, I guess after 60 years of serving as an apostle and prophet of God he might know the doctrine much better than most. But Like his father the prophet Joseph F. Smith and his uncle Joseph Smith Jr, they did not acquire their knowledge from a laboratory. They acquired their knowledge through the power of pure revelation from their Maker. But just like archeologists today that scoff and mock Joseph for the pearl of great price because it doesn't add up to what they now know so will scientists continue to theorize different views of the flood but it will not change the truth the prophets have received.

 

FYI Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrine of Salvation was published when he was President of the Quorum of the 12 and 18 yrs after when he was the prophet he never recanted or changed his doctrinal view from the many books written by his hands or compiled by other prophets and that's because the source of his knowledge never changed (D&C 93:24) The flood was universal when Noah was alive, it was universal when Joseph Fielding Smith was alive and it's still universal today!

 

Joseph Fielding Smith also predicted that man would never be in space or on the moon. His source of knowledge never changed. He never changed that position until presented with an American flag that had been there. Science 1; Apostle of God 0.

 

BTW I still consider him a very good man and Apostle of God, but am not tied to everything he ever said. He was the Prophet when I joined the church. So in a way he is my prophet.

Edited May 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint