Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Oaks Taught Us To Trust The Scientists


Recommended Posts

Elder Oaks said in 1995, "While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners" 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

 

Notice that Elder Oaks did not say blogs or internet websites (like AnswersinGenesis). 

Elder Oaks said "scientific literature" and "qualified scientists" 

 

Elder Oaks read the scientific literature to read about the evidence about homosexuality, he found that the evidence is not conclusive according to the scientific literature. (Back in 1995) 

 

The scientists and the scientific literature told Elder Oaks that there was a scientific debate, it was not the internet websites and blogs that told him that. 

 

Elder Oaks taught us that it is very important to trust the qualified scientists and the scientific literature. If we are not going to do scientific research, we should trust the experts. 

 

The Scientific Consensus is important according to Elder Oaks

He said, "most scientists concede" 

He also said, "let alone a consensus" 

and "a prominent scientist observed"

 

Elder Oaks also said, "We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics" 

 

Mormon Newsroom 

"From estimating the genealogical relationships among fleas to understanding the population genetics of crayfish, DNA sequence information can provide clues to the past and allow scientists to test very specific hypotheses in a way that was unapproachable even a few years ago. The announced completion of the Human Genome Project is not really a completion of DNA work at all, but simply one step on the road toward a better understanding of ourselves as biological organisms, our shared genetic history as humans, and the genetic history we share with all living organisms" - Mormon Newsroom 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/assets/pdf/Whiting_DNA.pdf

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Link to comment

What if one is a scientist or practitioner of a field and has an opinion that is a little more nuanced and may, on the surface, seem to go against what's largely held by that particular part of the "scientific community," or at least what the public thinks is a consensus among that scientific community?

Link to comment

Elder Oaks said in 1995, "While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners" 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

 

Notice that Elder Oaks did not say blogs or internet websites (like AnswersinGenesis). 

Elder Oaks said "scientific literature" and "qualified scientists" 

 

Elder Oaks read the scientific literature to read about the evidence about homosexuality, he found that the evidence is not conclusive according to the scientific literature. (Back in 1995) 

 

The scientists and the scientific literature told Elder Oaks that there was a scientific debate, it was not the internet websites and blogs that told him that. 

 

Elder Oaks taught us that it is very important to trust the qualified scientists and the scientific literature. If we are not going to do scientific research, we should trust the experts. 

 

The Scientific Consensus is important according to Elder Oaks

He said, "most scientists concede" 

He also said, "let alone a consensus" 

and "a prominent scientist observed"

 

Elder Oaks also said, "We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics" 

 

Mormon Newsroom 

"From estimating the genealogical relationships among fleas to understanding the population genetics of crayfish, DNA sequence information can provide clues to the past and allow scientists to test very specific hypotheses in a way that was unapproachable even a few years ago. The announced completion of the Human Genome Project is not really a completion of DNA work at all, but simply one step on the road toward a better understanding of ourselves as biological organisms, our shared genetic history as humans, and the genetic history we share with all living organisms" - Mormon Newsroom 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/assets/pdf/Whiting_DNA.pdf

To my knowledge, the Mormons are the only religious group to actually embrace science as a part of rational thought. Learning to ask the correct questions and to get answers from appropriate sources is the next hurdle. Science is generally quite compartmented, so as an example, asking a Marine Biologist about Equine pregnancy would not yield proper answers. As upset as I get at the church at times, this man sometimes makes me speechless.

Link to comment

Elder Oaks said in 1995, "While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners" 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

 

Notice that Elder Oaks did not say blogs or internet websites (like AnswersinGenesis). 

Elder Oaks said "scientific literature" and "qualified scientists" 

 

Elder Oaks read the scientific literature to read about the evidence about homosexuality, he found that the evidence is not conclusive according to the scientific literature. (Back in 1995) 

 

The scientists and the scientific literature told Elder Oaks that there was a scientific debate, it was not the internet websites and blogs that told him that. 

 

Elder Oaks taught us that it is very important to trust the qualified scientists and the scientific literature. If we are not going to do scientific research, we should trust the experts. 

 

The Scientific Consensus is important according to Elder Oaks

He said, "most scientists concede" 

He also said, "let alone a consensus" 

and "a prominent scientist observed"

 

Elder Oaks also said, "We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics" 

 

Mormon Newsroom 

"From estimating the genealogical relationships among fleas to understanding the population genetics of crayfish, DNA sequence information can provide clues to the past and allow scientists to test very specific hypotheses in a way that was unapproachable even a few years ago. The announced completion of the Human Genome Project is not really a completion of DNA work at all, but simply one step on the road toward a better understanding of ourselves as biological organisms, our shared genetic history as humans, and the genetic history we share with all living organisms" - Mormon Newsroom 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/assets/pdf/Whiting_DNA.pdf

 

Again, did he single those sites out for rejection or is that simply your own biased opinion?  Lest you misinterpret me I do not support or reject the sites you have named.

Edited by ERayR
Link to comment

MFT, you must not be old to realize that 1995 was barely a year or two after the internet was still very mucn in its infancy. I am sure I could find Church speaking against the use of the internet or similar statements. Yet today, the Church does a twitter feed during Conference.

 

 

Elder Oaks, October 1995,

 

"While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.”"

 

What is the present position of the Church? And, in accordance with President Uchtdorfs talk about gaining more light and knowledge, would Elder Oaks modify his refutation?

 

Mormonsandgays.org: "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, ... "

 

Ether 12:27:  " And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; ... " 

 

We know that we are "given" weaknesses, could that mean we are born with certain weaknesses?  

Link to comment

Catholics are way ahead of us on accepting human evolution.  

And both are way ahead of the EV denomination I belonged to. :)  There is a great deal of work being done on human genetics as it relates to birth defects, gender, and mental health issues.

Link to comment

To my knowledge, the Mormons are the only religious group to actually embrace science as a part of rational thought. Learning to ask the correct questions and to get answers from appropriate sources is the next hurdle. Science is generally quite compartmented, so as an example, asking a Marine Biologist about Equine pregnancy would not yield proper answers. As upset as I get at the church at times, this man sometimes makes me speechless.

In my experience, Unitarians embrace science much more than Latter-day Saints.

Link to comment

To my knowledge, the Mormons are the only religious group to actually embrace science as a part of rational thought. Learning to ask the correct questions and to get answers from appropriate sources is the next hurdle. Science is generally quite compartmented, so as an example, asking a Marine Biologist about Equine pregnancy would not yield proper answers. As upset as I get at the church at times, this man sometimes makes me speechless.

That is because we believe in natural laws which are manipulated by gods. Yeah, he sometimes has that effect on me, but not in a good way, so I have found that it works better spiritually for me to not listen to him or read his talks. I find that this allows me to accept him.

Link to comment

Elder Oaks, 1995,

 

"Much can be learned by observation and analysis, but that method will yield only partial knowledge of the function and potential of a machine."

 

In the above statement, he is refering to science.

 

"The best and most complete knowledge about the operation and potential of a machine will be revealed by studying the manual written by its manufacturer. The operator’s manual for our bodies and souls is the scriptures, written by the God who created us and interpreted by his prophets."

 

I am not sure that Oaks is putting as much stock in sciencitific knowledge as you seems to assert he is.

Edited by tonie
Link to comment

Elder Oaks, 1995,

 

"Much can be learned by observation and analysis, but that method will yield only partial knowledge of the function and potential of a machine."

 

He is refering to science

 

"The best and most complete knowledge about the operation and potential of a machine will be revealed by studying the manual written by its manufacturer. The operator’s manual for our bodies and souls is the scriptures, written by the God who created us and interpreted by his prophets."

 

I am not sure that Oaks is putting as much stock in sciencitific knowledge as you seems to assert he is.

Only when it fits his ideology

Link to comment

The Church does not reject science. Not until the Church created mormonsandgays.org, the Church statements on origin of homosexual tendencies were directed to what the science of the day says. Obviously, in 1995, Elder Oaks deferred to science. A few years later President Hinckley deferred to science.

 

However, presently, on mormonsandgays.org the Church position is that some people do not choose the tendencies - not choosing tendencies, suggest to me, inborn tendencies.

 

However, we should not (and I say can not) rely on science for testimony of Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Link to comment

Elder Oaks, 1995,

 

"Much can be learned by observation and analysis, but that method will yield only partial knowledge of the function and potential of a machine."

 

In the above statement, he is refering to science.

 

"The best and most complete knowledge about the operation and potential of a machine will be revealed by studying the manual written by its manufacturer. The operator’s manual for our bodies and souls is the scriptures, written by the God who created us and interpreted by his prophets."

 

I am not sure that Oaks is putting as much stock in sciencitific knowledge as you seems to assert he is.

Does this ignore knowledge given to individual believers by the Holy Spirit?  Is he implying that all scriptural interpretation must come from the prophet? That is not something I can support.

Link to comment

In my experience, Unitarians embrace science much more than Latter-day Saints.

One might humbly submit that our Unitarian friends are a social network more than a religion, since no specific beliefs are attendant with membership in the group. This is not to disrespect the group, but their own webpage states that you are welcome there, "no matter what you believe, or even if you don't".

Link to comment

Elder Oaks said in 1995, "While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners" 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

 

Notice that Elder Oaks did not say blogs or internet websites (like AnswersinGenesis). 

Elder Oaks said "scientific literature" and "qualified scientists" 

 

Elder Oaks read the scientific literature to read about the evidence about homosexuality, he found that the evidence is not conclusive according to the scientific literature. (Back in 1995) 

 

The scientists and the scientific literature told Elder Oaks that there was a scientific debate, it was not the internet websites and blogs that told him that. 

 

Elder Oaks taught us that it is very important to trust the qualified scientists and the scientific literature. If we are not going to do scientific research, we should trust the experts. 

 

The Scientific Consensus is important according to Elder Oaks

He said, "most scientists concede" 

He also said, "let alone a consensus" 

and "a prominent scientist observed"

 

Elder Oaks also said, "We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics" 

 

Mormon Newsroom 

"From estimating the genealogical relationships among fleas to understanding the population genetics of crayfish, DNA sequence information can provide clues to the past and allow scientists to test very specific hypotheses in a way that was unapproachable even a few years ago. The announced completion of the Human Genome Project is not really a completion of DNA work at all, but simply one step on the road toward a better understanding of ourselves as biological organisms, our shared genetic history as humans, and the genetic history we share with all living organisms" - Mormon Newsroom 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/assets/pdf/Whiting_DNA.pdf

Is this more of your anti-creation pro evolution rant?

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

One might humbly submit that our Unitarian friends are a social network more than a religion, since no specific beliefs are attendant with membership in the group. This is not to disrespect the group, but their own webpage states that you are welcome there, "no matter what you believe, or even if you don't".

I'm definitely assuming you mean the Unitarian Universalist Association  -- since there are Biblical Unitarians that don't necessarliy agree with the UUA --, and your use of the word "religion" could be contextually correct; however, some may object by stating that they're a liberal religion whose 7 suggested principles include the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning."

Link to comment

Rob, I urge you (and any other members who still discount evolution) to take an hour and listen to this podcast (#075): http://athoughtfulfaith.org/steven-peck-evolution-science-mormonism-god-of-science-climate-change-stewardship-a-short-stay-in-hell/?_=1413551106014

I've never heard such a well-articulated description for why we can (and really should) embrace evolution, with some beautiful depth pertaining to our particular faith, even.

Link to comment

One might humbly submit that our Unitarian friends are a social network more than a religion, since no specific beliefs are attendant with membership in the group. This is not to disrespect the group, but their own webpage states that you are welcome there, "no matter what you believe, or even if you don't".

 

This point appears to be at least a small piece of evidence for an argument that religious dogma (or any dogmatic stance for that matter) is the enemy, or at least an inhibitor, to scientific reason.

Link to comment

Rob, I urge you (and any other members who still discount evolution) to take an hour and listen to this podcast (#075): http://athoughtfulfaith.org/steven-peck-evolution-science-mormonism-god-of-science-climate-change-stewardship-a-short-stay-in-hell/?_=1413551106014

I've never heard such a well-articulated description for why we can (and really should) embrace evolution, with some beautiful depth pertaining to our particular faith, even.

As soon as I saw the name Steven Peck that was enough for me. He is not a noce guy. I hae went the rounds over the years with him and he is so close minded and opinionated you cant even talk to him unless you bow before him and worship him. Sorry, but it is the truth.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...