FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[The Nehor]

On 12/26/2024 at 1:31 AM, Stargazer said:

In connection with this topic, I offer this intriguing video...

 

 

Worth noting that nothing was “banned”. The talk was rejected as stating factual inaccuracies. The 10 scientific dogmas that supposedly hold up the entire scientific establishment were entirely made up and many of them are not dogma. Talking about how it was “banned” is just conspiracy fodder for those that imagine that anything that is rejected for publication or distribution by someone must be a part of a cover up. The Ted talk was rejected because it was rubbish.

Edited December 31, 2024 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, marineland said:

If the inspiration of the Holy Spirit leads them to teach about a literal garden with
actual fruit, then the inspiration of different individuals to teach others to view it 
as symbolic fruit in a symbolic garden is coming from someone or somewhere else.

No.  But teaching "Adam and Eve ate actual fruit in a literal garden" and "Adam and
Eve did not eat actual fruit in a literal garden" are both in agreement with scripture is
not a reasonable conclusion. It's one or the other, but not both.

Maybe some will feel the inspiration of what they believe to be coming from the Holy
Spirit and deny the command to be fruitful and multiply implies literal procreation.

One of the purposes of secondary school (high school) English classes is to help young folks to experience the wide array of Western literature (sometimes called the Western Canon).  Some leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have read Holy Writ with great care and have realized the vastly different ways in which it can be interpreted.  They do not always agree on what the meaning is in each case.  LDS theology asserts no belief in scriptural inerrancy or infallibility.  In fact just the opposite:  Leaders are flawed, as is Holy Writ.  Some mistakenly take a figurative expression as literal, or vice-versa.  I have cited and quoted some examples of this.  Here is an Anglican Bishop discussing the problem:

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

I like your approach but it certainly is not the approach most LDS take. See @teddyaware's comments.

Most Latter-day Saints are not biblical scholars and have no training whatsoever in that field.  So too with the Brethren -- none has ever gone to divinity school to study biblical languages or theology.  Most Latter-day Saints depend upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  One of the readiest ways to assess the value of that is to closely examine the success of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If faith and belief have so little value and everything is only confirmation bias, how do you suppose that such an organization maintains unity as it declares itself the Body of Christ.  This at the same time that Protestant denominations are flying apart and dissolving.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Guess it’s a POV thing and why you do it because I find it quite fun and engaging.  It feeds me rather than exhausts me. I like using my brain.

Well sort of. I am all for it, if it works for you.

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Latter-day Saints are not biblical scholars and have no training whatsoever in that field.  So too with the Brethren -- none has ever gone to divinity school to study biblical languages or theology.

Does the Church teach that the Brethren can’t be relied on to correctly interpret the scriptures because they aren’t biblical scholars and have no training whatsoever in that field?

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Latter-day Saints are not biblical scholars and have no training whatsoever in that field.  So too with the Brethren -- none has ever gone to divinity school to study biblical languages or theology.  Most Latter-day Saints depend upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  One of the readiest ways to assess the value of that is to closely examine the success of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If faith and belief have so little value and everything is only confirmation bias, how do you suppose that such an organization maintains unity as it declares itself the Body of Christ.  This at the same time that Protestant denominations are flying apart and dissolving.

You think Mormonism is prospering?  I certainly do not think it is prospering other than in its accumulation of substantial wealth.

[Stargazer]

On 12/31/2024 at 4:57 AM, The Nehor said:

Worth noting that nothing was “banned”.

It was removed from the TED platform. That is a form of banning, is it not?

On 12/31/2024 at 4:57 AM, The Nehor said:

The talk was rejected as stating factual inaccuracies. The 10 scientific dogmas that supposedly hold up the entire scientific establishment were entirely made up and many of them are not dogma. Talking about how it was “banned” is just conspiracy fodder for those that imagine that anything that is rejected for publication or distribution by someone must be a part of a cover up. The Ted talk was rejected because it was rubbish.

Factual inaccuracies are not alleged. The official TED explanation is that it "appear[s] to have crossed the line into pseudoscience." There's a difference between pseudoscience and raising questions. Let us consider the nature of pseudoscience. Is it not ideas not conforming to the "currently accepted thought"? Things thought to be pseudoscience in the past have sometimes turned out to be science. For example, Alfred Wegener's "continental drift." And Ignaz Semmelweis's work on childbed fever prevention. 

I'll grant you that Sheldrake has a negative reputation. And what little I know of him makes me regard him with a good deal of skepticism. However, he does seem to raise some interesting questions, and I find his ideas interesting and worthy of some discussion. At the very least, his ideas can be conversation starters.

One thing Sheldrake does well is to caution us to avoid dogmatism in science.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Things thought to be pseudoscience in the past have sometimes turned out to be science. For example, Alfred Wegener's "continental drift." And Ignaz Semmelweis's work on childbed fever prevention. 

 

Pseudoscience has a different connotation for me where it’s not just ideas that are unconfirmed at this point, but mixing up science with areas that are out of the arena science plays in…combining scientific ideas with nonscientific methodologies…like ‘woo’.

Edited January 1, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

nonscientific methodologies…like ‘woo’.

What's 'woo'?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It was removed from the TED platform. That is a form of banning, is it not?

Factual inaccuracies are not alleged. The official TED explanation is that it "appear[s] to have crossed the line into pseudoscience." There's a difference between pseudoscience and raising questions. Let us consider the nature of pseudoscience. Is it not ideas not conforming to the "currently accepted thought"? Things thought to be pseudoscience in the past have sometimes turned out to be science. For example, Alfred Wegener's "continental drift." And Ignaz Semmelweis's work on childbed fever prevention. 

I'll grant you that Sheldrake has a negative reputation. And what little I know of him makes me regard him with a good deal of skepticism. However, he does seem to raise some interesting questions, and I find his ideas interesting and worthy of some discussion. At the very least, his ideas can be conversation starters.

One thing Sheldrake does well is to caution us to avoid dogmatism in science.

 

No, banning would be if someone was deliberately trying to suppress or prevent distribution. The TED platform did not consider it up to their standards so did not publish it. Other platforms did and no one tried to censor it or ban it or hide it or suppress it. That is not a ban. That is like arguing that a news story that is determined to be factually incomplete or not newsworthy or whatever is banned if journalists don’t publish it.

No, pseudoscience is not ‘science that is not accepted’. It is stuff that is believed to have been derived from scientific methodology but is not. That can be due to ignorance or deliberate deception.

I think there are much smarter people trying to figure out the philosophy behind science and science is not nearly as dogmatic as some people try to push. Scientists LOVE new ideas when they are credible. Not only is it fascinating but it gives them things to study, talk about, or make a name for themselves with. The idea that the ‘ivory tower intellectuals’ are relentlessly conservative and rigid is a myth propagated by charlatans who want you to listen to them even though the establishment determined their methodology or conclusions to be flawed. Sheldrake is a waste of time.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Pseudoscience has a different connotation for me where it’s not just ideas that are unconfirmed at this point, but mixing up science with areas that are out of the arena science plays in…combining scientific ideas with nonscientific methodologies…like ‘woo’.

The problem is, one man's pseudoscience is another man's questioning of principles in order to delve into matters in ways that may yield insight. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The problem is, one man's pseudoscience is another man's questioning of principles in order to delve into matters in ways that may yield insight. 

I am not sure about that.  Science is a type of methodology as well as the information resulting from that methodology.  A pretty straightforward methodology imo.  You can’t claim you are using the methodology and call it science and expect to be taken seriously if you aren’t actually using the methodology.

Now interpretation of the results of the methodology can vary, but one can’t take the results and ignore the method so that one can make the results mean whatever you want them to mean and still meaningfully label it science.

Edited January 2, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, banning would be if someone was deliberately trying to suppress or prevent distribution. The TED platform did not consider it up to their standards so did not publish it. Other platforms did and no one tried to censor it or ban it or hide it or suppress it. That is not a ban. That is like arguing that a news story that is determined to be factually incomplete or not newsworthy or whatever is banned if journalists don’t publish it.

A true ban would be a law making it an offense to speak then? 

I don't know, I kind of agree with you in a sense, but not in another sense. 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, pseudoscience is not ‘science that is not accepted’. It is stuff that is believed to have been derived from scientific methodology but is not. That can be due to ignorance or deliberate deception.

In a way, I kind of equate that to mainstream Christian organizations labelling Latter-day Saint teachings as pseudoscience. And they attribute it to both ignorance and deliberate deception. 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think there are much smarter people trying to figure out the philosophy behind science and science is not nearly as dogmatic as some people try to push. Scientists LOVE new ideas when they are credible. Not only is it fascinating but it gives them things to study, talk about, or make a name for themselves with. The idea that the ‘ivory tower intellectuals’ are relentlessly conservative and rigid is a myth propagated by charlatans who want you to listen to them even though the establishment determined their methodology or conclusions to be flawed. Sheldrake is a waste of time.

I don't think it's a myth that "ivory tower intellectuals" are relentlessly conservative and rigid. Because I know there are such. Too many, probably. The myth is that all scientists LOVE new ideas when they are credible. Of course, some do, but... I already gave you Wegener and Semmelweis. Here's another: Galileo. He advocated for ideas (heliocentrism) that the ivory tower intellectuals relentlessly fought in their rigidity. Let's not stop there. Consider the astronomer Fred Hoyle. After every other astronomer had accepted the Big Bang, he stayed relentlessly married to his "steady state theory" to his dying day. 

I thought this was an interesting video. Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist. Here she discusses some of the problems in science.

 

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure about that.  Science is a type of methodology as well as the information resulting from that methodology.  A pretty straightforward methodology imo.  You can’t claim you are using the methodology and call it science and expect to be taken seriously if you aren’t actually using the methodology.

But it seems that questioning conclusions is being treated as advocating pseudoscience. For example, the guy in my original video mentioned the value of G, the gravitational constant. He spoke of how its reported value seems to change as they measure it. The question he raises is this: is it actually a constant, or does it vary over time, or over other conditions? But questions like this are unwelcome and dubbed pseudoscientific.

As for me, one problem that seems to have gone not only unanswered, but also unmentioned (unless someone has raised it and I didn't hear of it) is that of gravitation in the Big Bang. If the entire universe started out as this dimensionless point and just started expanding, how could expand if gravitation existed? Aside from Hawking Radiation, we expect that nothing can escape from black holes, for example, because gravity prevents it. Well, why didn't gravity hold the primordial singularity together? How could it expand? Was gravity non-existent at the time? Was the value of G 0.0? Or some negative number? Or? Maybe that's been answered, and I'm just not aware of it.

They once thought that there was something called dark energy, but I've heard recently that they've decided it can't exist. 

On some issues all we have is pseudoscience, apparently.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Now interpretation of the results of the methodology can vary, but one can’t take the results and ignore the method so that one can make the results mean whatever you want them to mean and still meaningfully label it science.

The guy in the video mentioned that the standards people decided to define one constant in terms of another property in such a way that if the value of the constant were to change, they wouldn't be able to tell. Is the method still valid?

In my lifetime I have seen enough changes in principles that were once thought to be immutable that I am quite willing to accept that scientists do not always hew to the scientific method. In the words of Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder: "I don't trust scientists." Or, in my case, at least, further than I can throw them.  

Don't get me wrong, though: I love science.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think it's a myth that "ivory tower intellectuals" are relentlessly conservative and rigid. Because I know there are such. Too many, probably. The myth is that all scientists LOVE new ideas when they are credible. Of course, some do, but... I already gave you Wegener and Semmelweis. Here's another: Galileo. He advocated for ideas (heliocentrism) that the ivory tower intellectuals relentlessly fought in their rigidity. Let's not stop there. Consider the astronomer Fred Hoyle. After every other astronomer had accepted the Big Bang, he stayed relentlessly married to his "steady state theory" to his dying day.

In the somewhat technical field of my day job, I have reason to believe the "ivory tower intellectuals" are, to some extent, asking and answering the wrong questions. 

My observation is that the very top minds in the field, the actual architects of the current mainstream paradigm, are often quite open to alternative ideas if based on good data and good analysis.  But the next level down, the sincere-believers-turned-ardent-defenders of the orthodoxy, are where I have found those who are "relentlessly conservative and rigid" in their opposition to outside-the-box thinking. 

Edited January 2, 2025 by manol

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But it seems that questioning conclusions is being treated as advocating pseudoscience. For example, the guy in my original video mentioned the value of G, the gravitational constant. He spoke of how its reported value seems to change as they measure it. The question he raises is this: is it actually a constant, or does it vary over time, or over other conditions? But questions like this are unwelcome and dubbed pseudoscientific.

A scientist, Paul Dirac, actually proposed the idea that the gravitation constant changed over time.  This was back in 1937.  And guess what?  People came up with tests to see if it actually did change.  They did that for several of the constants.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants.  They never proved that the constants did not change, but they have been able to put upper bounds on how much they change.  And these upper bounds have gotten smaller as they do more and more tests.  So, there is nothing pseudoscientific about speculating if the gravitation constant changes.  But you'll need to explain all of the tests that have been done that have shown that if there is a change, it would be really small.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for me, one problem that seems to have gone not only unanswered, but also unmentioned (unless someone has raised it and I didn't hear of it) is that of gravitation in the Big Bang. If the entire universe started out as this dimensionless point and just started expanding, how could expand if gravitation existed? Aside from Hawking Radiation, we expect that nothing can escape from black holes, for example, because gravity prevents it. Well, why didn't gravity hold the primordial singularity together? How could it expand? Was gravity non-existent at the time? Was the value of G 0.0? Or some negative number? Or? Maybe that's been answered, and I'm just not aware of it.

That is a question that scientists are trying to figure out.  The period of time from the big bang to when gravity came into being is called the "Plank Epoch" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Planck_epoch.  There are lots of theories about what happened but many are really hard to prove because it is practically impossible to duplicate the situation that occurred then.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

They once thought that there was something called dark energy, but I've heard recently that they've decided it can't exist. 

Dark energy is still discussed.  The idea of "dark energy" exists because the universe is expanding.  There is an "Einstein field equation" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations -  that can describe gravity.  If you add a variable to the equation, it turns it into a static equation.  That variable is called "dark energy".  So, dark energy is really just a mathematical construct to make the universe fit the math.  It is possible the field equation could be corrected and make dark energy disappear.  Many mathematicians have attempted that.  There's also other attempts to either rework the dark energy variable to be based on some other constant so it isn't a thing by itself.

 

Edited January 2, 2025 by webbles

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not sure about that.  Science is a type of methodology as well as the information resulting from that methodology.  A pretty straightforward methodology imo.  You can’t claim you are using the methodology and call it science and expect to be taken seriously if you aren’t actually using the methodology.

Now interpretation of the results of the methodology can vary, but one can’t take the results and ignore the method so that one can make the results mean whatever you want them to mean and still meaningfully label it science.

I completely agree. The methodology of scientific research is well established and has been in use for centuries. Most non-scholars don't realize how structured real research is. Peer review plays a crucial role in this process, as it is designed to challenge researchers and identify weak areas in their work. It can be quite rigorous, and it can be brutal. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/31/2024 at 12:29 PM, Analytics said:

Does the Church teach that the Brethren can’t be relied on to correctly interpret the scriptures because they aren’t biblical scholars and have no training whatsoever in that field?

I merely pointed out a fact:  "Most Latter-day Saints are not biblical scholars and have no training whatsoever in that field.  So too with the Brethren -- none has ever gone to divinity school to study biblical languages or theology."  I could expand the list to include Jesus and his apostles, or Moses and his priestly tribe of Levi.

My grandfather and his eldest son were both divinity school graduates and ordained Methodist ministers.  A requirement for Methodist clergy.  Yet the United Methodist Church is now in a death spiral, as are all the mainstream Protestant churches.  But not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Howso?

Could it be that dependence upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is actually of more importance than attendance at a theological seminary?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/31/2024 at 2:11 PM, Teancum said:

You think Mormonism is prospering?  I certainly do not think it is prospering other than in its accumulation of substantial wealth.

Apply whatever metrics you prefer, Teancum.  What are they?

How is it that Latter-day Saints give more in charity per capita than any other religious group?  How is it that obedience to the Parable of the Talents results in "substantial wealth"?  And what is that "substantial wealth" used for?  The late Mike Quinn made a careful study of that wealth and declared that the Brethren never use it to line their own pockets.  How is that possible in a world of flimflam and skullduggery?

Are you simply in a bad mood?

[manol]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The late Mike Quinn made a careful study of that wealth and declared that the Brethren never use it to line their own pockets.

In the early 1980's I was driving through Salt Lake City with a friend and he asked if I wanted to see President Kimball's house.  I said "Sure!", and followed his directions into a neighborhood that was towards the more upscale end of the spectrum, but not by much.  I think it was an older neighborhood, the streets being rather narrow and winding, and the yards were mostly small but well-kept. 

The smallest house in the neighborhood was President Kimball's house.  That's NOT what I was expecting.  Wow.

Not that one sample a data set makes, but THAT one sample made an impression on me.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In a way, I kind of equate that to mainstream Christian organizations labelling Latter-day Saint teachings as pseudoscience. And they attribute it to both ignorance and deliberate deception. 

If they actually say that they are idiots. Religious teachings (generally) are not testable via the scientific method and can’t be scientific or pseudoscientific.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think it's a myth that "ivory tower intellectuals" are relentlessly conservative and rigid. Because I know there are such. Too many, probably. The myth is that all scientists LOVE new ideas when they are credible. Of course, some do, but... I already gave you Wegener and Semmelweis. Here's another: Galileo. He advocated for ideas (heliocentrism) that the ivory tower intellectuals relentlessly fought in their rigidity. Let's not stop there. Consider the astronomer Fred Hoyle. After every other astronomer had accepted the Big Bang, he stayed relentlessly married to his "steady state theory" to his dying day.

Galileo didn’t get in trouble for his teachings about an astronomical model. He got in trouble because he defended his model with a dialogue with a caricature of the pope presented as a huge moron. The “ivory tower intellectuals” of the time were not strongly opposed to his model. He had many allies. At one point that included a pope. Galileo was punished for being a jackass. I don’t think it is a good thing that people were punished for mocking the pope but I am not going to pretend Galileo went down for fearlessly telling the truth. He didn’t. He went down for a being a pompous idiot.

Individual scientists being obstinate is not rare. The “ivory tower” realized Hoyle was wrong and moved on without him. Hoyle’s Fallacy was not named after him as a compliment.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

I thought this was an interesting video. Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist. Here she discusses some of the problems in science.

 

She is talking about a lot of the junk “science” about multiverses and string theory that are untestable and don’t really create anything falsifiable. Basically she is railing against a lot of the theoretical junk pretending it is in the same category as hard science. She isn’t attacking the foundations of science. She is talking about a lot of the junk popular science that is showing up all over the place. Ironically this is the stuff that those who rail about “ivory tower intellectuals” adore. She is probably not the ally you are looking for.

[JVW]

I know a scientist who was so excited going through school to change the world, after graduation he succeeded in getting his own lab and assistants. After this initial success his job is now ... to fill out paperwork and write grant requests. He's very disappointed but that's the way it goes. If he doesn't do it, he won't be able to fund his research and keep his lab open, so he's a glorified fundraiser.

The ones actually performing the scientific research are being very scientific, but there's a lot more to the scientific world than performing research. It's a whole world, with it's own culture and pitfalls. Corruption, industry capture, lobbying (in the US), etc. should here be considered. For an example of lobbying being dumb see https://airestech.com/blogs/current-events/5g-protests-result-in-rollout-interruption-in-certain-countries (no idea what the site is but this article gets the point across). In the US we have massive lobbying spend from the companies that want 5G, so in the US 5G came with no resistance and no public backlash, meanwhile there were protests in countries around the world who didn't have that kind of government corruption.

If you aren't researching something popular, or researching something presumed to be impactful, or if you just aren't well-known or reputable in the scientific community you will struggle. There is a romantic view of the unbiased, pure scientific researcher; but the reality is that people need to live. A researcher I've enjoyed following recently is Marc Girardot. I think he's been presenting some fascinating ideas in his research but he's broke and struggles to support his family. Who knows how long he'll be able to live his passion before he loses everything.

Like an idiot I didn't bookmark the interview, and now I can't find it. But many years ago I read about an Alzheimer's researcher in Australia who was effectively blacklisted from the scientific community because the hypotheses he was testing against were so against the current consensus in Alzheimer's research that no one would fund him.

For outsiders who trust the scientific "world" the mainstream messaging around scientific endeavors is incredibly misleading and the public conversation around mainstream scientific topics is dismal with next to no critical thinking. What's unfortunate about this is that public opinion has an effect on what research receives funding, and also on the decisions that policy makers make. What the media says also can have a very serious effect on the lives of the scientists they report on. Here's a (once in a lifetime) happy ending David v Goliath story https://www.carter-ruck.com/news/the-mail-on-sunday-apologises-and-pays-substantial-damages-to-doctor-and-academic-in-statins-case/

There is also corruption in peer-review, especially if the research presents "controversial" findings. Of course, there is a broad spectrum in what, and how many, levers are pulled regarding peer-review, but here's a very obvious example (in India) https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/breaking-journal-pressured-to-retract

Anytime the term "pseudoscience" is used to describe any field of research or endeavor my gut reaction is to discount the label and investigate the topic in question. I think it's a real shame that any research around the topic of EMR (electromagnetic radiation) is branded as pseudoscience as our entire existence is EMR what more meaningful thing could there be to research?

Another problem that I won't get into but deserves a mention is contained in the quote, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". What data is collected and how it's presented are also subject to scrutiny. The first guy to pop in my mind when thinking about exposing this sort of trickery is Tony Heller.

If science is your religion, then the ideas I present above will be very grating, but really these ideas are mostly just common sense considering the world we live in. To me, it is very obvious that there are issues with science and I believe it is healthy to apply some degree of skepticism and critical thinking when considering what is being presented as the latest scientific research. I have a hard time understanding why people argue any differently.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Could it be that dependence upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is actually of more importance than attendance at a theological seminary?

I think that this is all problematic in different ways. It isn't an either/or situation. Catholicism, for example, has developed a reasonably healthy relationship with its academics. And it works reasonably well. But what you are describing here isn't exactly a good comparison. Part of this is built into the nature of a degree in theology - which doesn't meet some sort of standard across the board (across faiths). There is a huge difference between highly conservative seminaries and progressive ones. This - in and of itself - really has nothing to do with the idea that some religions are failing.

Mormonism (which may eventually arrive at the place where Catholicism is) has some issues - particularly when we start discussing creationism and Evolution. The problem we have when we try to favor inspiration is that inspiration can be hard to track down. We know that the creationism taught by LDS leader Joseph Fielding Smith was heavily influenced by George McCready Price (the Seventh-Day Adventist who was one of the fathers of modern creationism). Price's views appeared heavily in Smith's material - and this didn't become a real problem until Smith became the President of the LDS Church and his adoption of Price became correlated. Because the LDS Church doesn't recognize the influence that sources like Price have had on these discussions - and instead attribute most of it to inspiration, we run into problems with unsustainable (and contradictory) belief. One of my favorite gems to come out of Smith's young earth creationism was his arguments about the nature of the flood (as a universal flood):

Quote

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.

This baptism wasn't viewed as merely symbolic, it has been claimed to be a necessary requirement. The problem with this view (as least a part of the problem of this view) is that it contradicts other parts of LDS thought. In Moroni 8, we read that baptizing those who "are not capable of committing sin" is solemn mockery before God." Do we assume then that the earth is capable of committing sin so that it requires baptism? This idea works much better in certain non-LDS theologies - and it is those theologies that gave birth to these ideas that were adopted by some LDS leaders. On the more fundamentalist side of Mormon thought is the idea that only the leaders of the Church can receive inspiration that is relevant in anything more than a personal context. And this is the challenge. When does an LDS leader's opinions become the basis for theology? As soon as they move far enough upward through the hierarchy that they become correlated. At any rate, as long as we privilege these opinions over reasonable scholarship, we will continue to have problems - and we see that in discussions like this where there is the largest conflicts between literalist and fundamentalist readings of the text, and the evidence that contradicts those readings.

Eventually, if Mormonism continues to survive, I expect that it will, like Catholicism, develop a better relationship with academic studies.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Apply whatever metrics you prefer, Teancum.  What are they?

I think the best metrics are annual growth via convert and child of record baptisms, % activity rate and how many people resign on their own each year. Of course the latter is not indictive of departures as many, like myself and my wife, do not participate but still are members of record.  All of these metrics are fairly dismal. My guess, since the church does not publish activity rate, is that it is about 35% world wide. I think it lower in non US nations and higher in the US. A close friend of mine serves as MP of one of the Santiago Chili missions a few years ago.  They had wards with 1000 names on the records with 30 members attending. He had his missionaries spend significant time in seeking out many of those with reactivation efforts.

 

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How is it that Latter-day Saints give more in charity per capita than any other religious group? 

This isi skewed since tithing is a requirement to be in good standing and attend the temple. It would be interesting to see how much LDS persons give to other charitable organizations.

 

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

How is it that obedience to the Parable of the Talents results in "substantial wealth"?  And what is that "substantial wealth" used for?  The late Mike Quinn made a careful study of that wealth and declared that the Brethren never use it to line their own pockets.  How is that possible in a world of flimflam and skullduggery?

The substantial wealth I refer to is used for, well nothing. The EPA fund just keeps growing and growing. I do not accuse the leaders of lining their own pockets at all.  I simply noted the church has been successful in accumulating substantial wealth. Whether that is good or bad has been debated to death on this board.

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you simply in a bad mood?

Not at all.

Edited January 2, 2025 by Teancum

[webbles]

50 minutes ago, JVW said:

The ones actually performing the scientific research are being very scientific, but there's a lot more to the scientific world than performing research. It's a whole world, with it's own culture and pitfalls. Corruption, industry capture, lobbying (in the US), etc. should here be considered. For an example of lobbying being dumb see https://airestech.com/blogs/current-events/5g-protests-result-in-rollout-interruption-in-certain-countries (no idea what the site is but this article gets the point across). In the US we have massive lobbying spend from the companies that want 5G, so in the US 5G came with no resistance and no public backlash, meanwhile there were protests in countries around the world who didn't have that kind of government corruption.

The push against 5G is based on a lot of misinformation.  Test after test after test has shown that 5G is safe yet people still keep making up stuff on how it is dangerous.  Just because people protest doesn't mean they are right.  WiFi is much more dangerous than 5G and you'll hardly hear any protests against it.  It has a much stronger output and can pass right through your body.  People are working on being able to passively look at WiFi signals from a house and using it to watch what happens inside of the house.

54 minutes ago, JVW said:

For outsiders who trust the scientific "world" the mainstream messaging around scientific endeavors is incredibly misleading and the public conversation around mainstream scientific topics is dismal with next to no critical thinking. What's unfortunate about this is that public opinion has an effect on what research receives funding, and also on the decisions that policy makers make. What the media says also can have a very serious effect on the lives of the scientists they report on. Here's a (once in a lifetime) happy ending David v Goliath story https://www.carter-ruck.com/news/the-mail-on-sunday-apologises-and-pays-substantial-damages-to-doctor-and-academic-in-statins-case/

You are right that public opinion has an affect on what research is done.  Take your 5G example.  It has lots of public opinion and so gets lots of funding.  Lots of tests are done on it.  And, fortunately, it keeps being shown that it is safe.  Unfortunately, people can't seem to get that message (probably because of non-scientists who have something to sell) and so they keep demanding more funding in it.  It would be nice if we stopped wasting this funding for 5G and focused it on other things that are more useful.