Proof That The Church Loves Irony

[mfbukowski]

  Klatu, veradda niktu.

What is really hilarious is that I looked that up on the internet to see if I got it "right"

 

It turns out that I "misspelled" it.  

 

Humans!!

[mfbukowski]

Uh, please explain any definition of the word "true" which makes the following statement...not false:

 

"BYU biology professors do not believe the Theory of Evolution is true."

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Edit: Notice that I am not necessarily endorsing this theory of truth, but you asked for it, so there it is

Either you "believe in evolution" as one "believes in God" or one doesn't. Saying such a statement is "true" is something else entirely because it implies a theory of what "true" means. This is one theory that negates all the others. So according to this theory, the words "true" and "false" add nothing to the discussion.

Therefore your statement is "not false" because to be "false" is meaningless and the statement that "BYU professors do not believe in evolution" is not meaningless.

Edited May 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Edit: Notice that I am not necessarily endorsing this theory of truth, but you asked for it, so there it is

Either you "believe in evolution" as one "believes in God" or one doesn't. Saying such a statement is "true" is something else entirely because it implies a theory of what "true" means. This is one theory that negates all the others. So according to this theory, the words "true" and "false" add nothing to the discussion.

Therefore your statement is "not false" because to be "false" is meaningless and the statement that "BYU professors do not believe in evolution" is not meaningless.

My head always hurts after reading your posts, but I sure do enjoy them and appreciate the interesting viewpoint you bring here.

[canard78]

Doctrines taught in General Conference, official publications, and curriculum are also found in the scriptures, that is how it works. 

There is a problem with "no blood" and "no animal" death before the Fall because they are not found in the scriptures. 

 

There is evidence that the church is moving away from those ideas, the evidence is that "no blood" has been deleted in newer editions of the same manuals.

 

Very interesting, can you give me a link? 

 

Sure, three months. Where is "no blood" before the Fall taught in lds.org from the last 12 years or 3 months?

12 years is a long time, the church publishes thousands of pages (General Conference, magazines, manuals) in that time period. 

 

The First Presidency has probably not read the Bible dictionary, it is simply not a publication for doctrine. 

 

Wowsers... so much in this post.

 

Like Cinepro, I'm bemused by the idea that somehow the recency of the teaching is evidence of it's truthfulness. Does that mean they were wrong back then when teaching it and it's proven as wrong by the gap in teaching it.

 

Does it have to be in the scriptures to be doctrinal? What about cannabis? OK to smoke it? It's not in the scriptures anywhere.

[cinepro]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Edit: Notice that I am not necessarily endorsing this theory of truth, but you asked for it, so there it is

Either you "believe in evolution" as one "believes in God" or one doesn't. Saying such a statement is "true" is something else entirely because it implies a theory of what "true" means. This is one theory that negates all the others. So according to this theory, the words "true" and "false" add nothing to the discussion.

Therefore your statement is "not false" because to be "false" is meaningless and the statement that "BYU professors do not believe in evolution" is not meaningless.

 

Remember, this is in the context of post #103 regarding why evolution is taught in BYU biology classes. 

 

The issue isn't whether or not the philosophical ruminations on the meaning of the word "true" apply to my comment in every semantic permutation of the word.   The issue is was whether or not the BYU Biology dept. is teaching evolution "even though it is wrong" (meaning they consciously believe the theory of evolution is wrong, but teach it only to educate their students about the scope of wrong theories in the world of biology).

 

So I apologize if the word "true" is too confusing for you in this context.  If it hurts your brain less to use your definition, we can just acknowledge that "they think it's the best explanation for the evidence."  Either way, it's pretty clear that Elder Nelson does not think "it's the best explanation for the evidence" (he finds it "unbelievable"), so we're back to the irony of him dedicating a building where it is taught that organic evolution is believable.

Edited May 5, 2015 by cinepro

[TheSkepticChristian]

Wowsers... so much in this post.

 

Do you want the church to teach Young Earth Creationism? 

Edited May 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Wowsers... so much in this post.

 

Like Cinepro, I'm bemused by the idea that somehow the recency of the teaching is evidence of it's truthfulness. Does that mean they were wrong back then when teaching it and it's proven as wrong by the gap in teaching it.

 

Does it have to be in the scriptures to be doctrinal? What about cannabis? OK to smoke it? It's not in the scriptures anywhere.

 

 

 

Does it have to be in the scriptures to be doctrinal? What about cannabis? OK to smoke it? It's not in the scriptures anywhere.

 

It is not the doctrine of Christ, it is church policy  

https://www.lds.org/callings/church-safety-and-health/handbook-activites?lang=eng

 

 

Like Cinepro, I'm bemused by the idea that somehow the recency of the teaching is evidence of it's truthfulness. Does that mean they were wrong back then when teaching it and it's proven as wrong by the gap in teaching it.

 

"No Blood" was never doctrine of the church because it is not in the scriptures or First Presidency statements. If "No Blood" was doctrine (however you want to define doctrine), it is not anymore because "No Blood" was deleted from the newer editions of the same manuals. 

 

A 12 year absence is a long time because the church publishes thousands of pages (General Conference, manuals, Magazines) in that period. It is clear that the church is moving away from the "No Blood" and "No animal death" theories 

 

"There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find." - Elder Nelson 

 

I have my doubts, I am not 100% convinced, but the critics help me strengthen my faith when I read their stuff because I see that so many of them don't know what they are talking about. You guys help me doubt my doubts. 

Edited May 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

If you must put religion into science to make it work it is no longer science but something else.

SEE

[cinepro]

It is not the doctrine of Christ, it is church policy

No one ever said it was "doctrine." You only brought that up after it became obvious that it was a "teaching".

 

 

If "No Blood" was doctrine (however you want to define doctrine), it is not anymore because "No Blood" was deleted from the newer editions of the same manuals.

The "no blood before the fall" teaching is still found in a currently published CES manual entitled "Doctrines of the Gospel". Its most recent copyright date is 2010.

 

“Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones.

“… Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood. …

“… When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77).

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2010 Second Edition)

(Emphasis added)

I find it fascinating that the Church would publish a false teaching in a manual entitled "Doctrines of the Gospel." We are fortunate to have people like you around to point this out for us, because I suspect there are many people that would read a currently produced Church manual called "Doctrines of the Gospel" and assume they're reading, uh, "doctrine."

 

A 12 year absence is a long time because the church publishes thousands of pages (General Conference, manuals, Magazines) in that period. It is clear that the church is moving away from the "No Blood" and "No animal death" theories

 

Except it isn't (see above). 

 

Regardless, the idea of an expiration date on the teachings of LDS leaders is silly, and is something that is made up by people who are just looking for a reason to ignore teachings that they can't otherwise explain away.  If it were a true principle, it would be very clearly stated because it would be vitally important for Church members to know they shouldn't be living their lives according to or believing these stale teachings!

 

"There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find." - Elder Nelson

 

See my sig.

 

I have my doubts, I am not 100% convinced, but the critics help me strengthen my faith when I read their stuff because I see that so many of them don't know what they are talking about. You guys help me doubt my doubts.

 

If the "critics" are quoting current Church publications and statements from current Apostles in General Conference, and your defense is to try and explain why we should ignore current Church publications and leaders, and you see yourself as a "defender" of the faith, then I think you might want to doubt your ability to properly label the parties of this discussion.

Edited May 6, 2015 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Dismissing 400+ years of science with flick of a theological finger. Galileo would have been impressed.

Edited May 6, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

For reference, these are the other quotes taught to the college-age LDS students in the "Doctrines of the Gospel" Institute Manual:

 

 

 

I do not look upon Adam’s fall as a sin, although it was a transgression of the law. It had to be. And Adam came under a different law. The temporal law. And he became subject to death. The partaking of that fruit created blood in his body and that blood became the life-giving influence of mortality” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Atonement of Jesus Christ, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [25 Jan. 1955], 2).

 

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2010)

 

“Not subject to death when he [Adam] was placed upon the earth, there had to come a change in his body through the partaking of this element—whatever you want to call it, fruit—that brought blood into his body; and blood became the life of the body instead of spirit. And blood has in it the seeds of death, some mortal element. Mortality was created through the eating of the forbidden fruit” (Smith, “Fall—Atonement—Resurrection—Sacrament,” 125).

 

 

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2010)

 

 

 

“Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones.

“… Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood. …

“… When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77).

 

 

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2010)

 

 

It's taught three times in one chapter!

Edited May 6, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Dismissing 400+ years of science with flick of a theological finger. Galileo would have been impressed.

 

But he probably wouldn't have dedicated the Vatican's Physical Sciences building...

Edited May 6, 2015 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

 

But he probably wouldn't have dedicated the Vatican's Physical Sciences building...

 

The Vatican already had a telescope. The Vatican pointed its towards Heaven while Galileo pointed his towards the heavens. They saw different things. It was rather impolitic at the time to call one of the Pope's advisers a simpleton. Galileo paid a personal price for it. However his science was proven right. So yes I do believe that if Galileo had been a little more polite he would have enjoyed working at the Vatican.

Edited May 6, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

The "no blood before the fall" teaching is still found in a currently published CES manual entitled "Doctrines of the Gospel". Its most recent copyright date is 2010.

 

You links say "Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000), 19–21"

 

It doesn't say 2010

 

Still, why was the "no blood" deleted?

 

Why do you want to church to teach young earth ideas?

Edited May 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[cinepro]

You links say "Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000), 19–21"

 

It doesn't say 2010

 

Still, why was the "no blood" deleted? Why do you want to church to teach young earth ideas?

I didn't say I want the church to "teach young Earth ideas." I'd be thrilled if they changed to a more scientific view of biology, geology, anthropology, Egyptology, etc.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend they have when they obviously haven't.

 

And it does mean that when the BYU Life Sciences building is dedicated by an Apostle who has expressed such unscientific views over the years, it's ironic.

Here's the copyright page from the manual.

Edited May 6, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

The Vatican already had a telescope. The Vatican pointed its towards Heaven while Galileo pointed his towards the heavens. They saw different things. It was rather impolitic at the time to call one of the Pope's advisers a simpleton. Galileo paid a personal price for it. However his science was proven right. So yes I do believe that if Galileo had been a little more polite he would have enjoyed working at the Vatican.

 

 

Perhaps so, but in the context of this thread, you're equating Elder Nelson with the Vatican of Galileo's day.  So the better analogy would be the Pope Paul V sending a Cardinal to dedicate Galileo's observatory.

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps so, but in the context of this thread, you're equating Elder Nelson with the Vatican of Galileo's day.  So the better analogy would be the Pope Paul V sending a Cardinal to dedicate Galileo's observatory.

 

The Pope and Galileo were actually pretty good friends. It was that friendship that saved Galileo from being burned at the stake. It took 400 years for the Vatican to apologize to Galileo. Bruno wasn't that lucky. Galileo was a bit of a jerk to a certain Cardinal. So I don't see that as happening. But what a different world it would have been if both were a little less impolite. From my perspective that war of hatchets should have been buried long ago, and not in each others heads. But as long as there is money and polemics to be made the war will go on.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I didn't say I want the church to "teach young Earth ideas." I'd be thrilled if they changed to a more scientific view of biology, geology, anthropology, Egyptology, etc.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend they have when they obviously haven't.

 

Okay good enough 

 

Here's the copyright page from the manual.

 

Okay, you win, but I don't understand something, it has three copyright years, so why second edition? 1986, 2004, 2010

 

Perhaps because it was created in the year 2000? 

Edited May 7, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

It is not, it is a serious possibility. However, the title is wrong, it should be "Maybe no singularity?"

Oh, I don't doubt that it is a serious possibility. The fact that I like it, and the fact that it does explain a lot, does not, ultimately, mean anything.

What is, is. What is not, isn't.

[Stargazer]

That like God, the Universe is eternal.

 

Well, God is eternal, but the Universe isn't.  It is constantly in motion and undergoing change.  Galaxies that were once near to ours are further away now, and in 4 billion years or so our galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy and won't that be a pretty sight?

 

 

And eventually, in a few hundreds of sextillions of years: Heat Death.  Everything is a burnt-out cinder.  But God will still be there.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Stargazer

[canard78]

No one ever said it was "doctrine." You only brought that up after it became obvious that it was a "teaching".

The "no blood before the fall" teaching is still found in a currently published CES manual entitled "Doctrines of the Gospel". Its most recent copyright date is 2010.

I find it fascinating that the Church would publish a false teaching in a manual entitled "Doctrines of the Gospel." We are fortunate to have people like you around to point this out for us, because I suspect there are many people that would read a currently produced Church manual called "Doctrines of the Gospel" and assume they're reading, uh, "doctrine."

Except it isn't (see above).

Regardless, the idea of an expiration date on the teachings of LDS leaders is silly, and is something that is made up by people who are just looking for a reason to ignore teachings that they can't otherwise explain away. If it were a true principle, it would be very clearly stated because it would be vitally important for Church members to know they shouldn't be living their lives according to or believing these stale teachings!

See my sig.

If the "critics" are quoting current Church publications and statements from current Apostles in General Conference, and your defense is to try and explain why we should ignore current Church publications and leaders, and you see yourself as a "defender" of the faith, then I think you might want to doubt your ability to properly label the parties of this discussion.

You are, without question, one of the finest contributors to this board.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Here's the copyright page from the manual.

 

It has three copyright years (1986, 2004, 2010), but it is the 2nd edition. What changed? The cover?

It still says ""Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000)" perhaps because there hasn't been any changes yet, that is probably why it is not a third edition. 

 

You are, without question, one of the finest contributors to this board.

 

Please explain 

 

"Jesus Christ was the first person to be resurrected on this earth. Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45). whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone" (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” 761, emphasis added to aid comparison.) 

 

“Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected on this earth (Matt. 27:52–54; Acts 26:23; 1 Cor. 15:23; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” new edition)

 

“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam,” 670)

 

“Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam and Eve,” new edition)

 

Why is "no blood" not found in the scriptures? 

Edited May 7, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Senator]

Why is "no blood" not found in the scriptures? 

 

I've never understood the "no blood" theory.

 

Why is blood the part of our anatomical being that makes us mortal? Is there not such thing as immortal blood? Yet there is supposedly immortal flesh, which I presume is a catagory which includes all of our organs. Will we have hearts that just don't beat. Or will they beat just for the nastalgia?

[Gray]

I've never understood the "no blood" theory.

 

Why is blood the part of our anatomical being that makes us mortal? Is there not such thing as immortal blood? Yet there is supposedly immortal flesh, which I presume is a catagory which includes all of our organs. Will we have hearts that just don't beat. Or will they beat just for the nastalgia?

 

I was taught growing up that immortal beings have some kind of fluid other than blood. Celestial embalming fluid?

[cinepro]

It has three copyright years (1986, 2004, 2010), but it is the 2nd edition. What changed? The cover?

It still says ""Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000)" perhaps because there hasn't been any changes yet, that is probably why it is not a third edition. 

 

 

Please explain 

 

"Jesus Christ was the first person to be resurrected on this earth. Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45). whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone" (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” 761, emphasis added to aid comparison.) 

 

“Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected on this earth (Matt. 27:52–54; Acts 26:23; 1 Cor. 15:23; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” new edition)

 

“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam,” 670)

 

“Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam and Eve,” new edition)

 

Why is "no blood" not found in the scriptures? 

 

 

Those are great changes, and who knows, maybe 50 years from now the "no blood" teaching will be a dusty relic of the past? 

 

Although we can then wonder if that's really the best way to deal with the incorrect teachings of our leaders (slowly remove them from publications and hope they fade over time).