FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hardly anyone becomes a bishop, and even less stake patriarchs.  Maybe a third of members attend temple -- in America.

Indeed, if tithing is really so important, why does the bishop not require pay stubs, bank statements, and IRS forms?  Why is the LDS corporation run so loosely?  You'd think that they would go broke.

It is not important. Members should all quit paying tithing and making the LDS Church filthy rich.

[Teancum]

On 1/7/2025 at 3:56 PM, marineland said:

Was the Adam from that other planet formed from the soil of that planet or through
a procreative act of the first or subsequent mortal parents from that other planet?

Neither.  Adam is a myth.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, longview said:

As I have referenced previously, God cannot organize a corruptible world.

This makes no sense. If you believe god created the Universe the majority of it is what you would term corruptible. 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

That we are aware of.

I don’t know why this “two things EPA ever spent money on” keeps getting reported as a fact when it is clearly not.

It has been many years since that handout was produced, so it is at least a decade out of date iirc.  That means many opportunities that may have been taken advantage of, especially since there seems to have been an intentional jump in humanitarian expenditures in more recent years.  

The conclusion from the handout may not have been accurate in the first place.  Perhaps the info provided was incomplete.  Perhaps the person who prepared the handout was not aware of all expenditures.

And the handout might even have been faked though I doubt it.  It did not come through official channels and I don’t see a fundamental reason to trust that it couldn’t have been created to cause issues for the Church…I just don’t think it likely was by Nielsen as it could be easily refuted though perhaps he knew the Church or EPA would never publicly respond.

I think saying ‘only one of two things EPA ever spent money on as far as we know’ is concerning enough and since it is accurate, less easy to dismiss with a “that’s not true” (though EPA had expenses it spent money on so maybe “invested in” is more accurate).

Well I guess so.  We cannot conclude anything since the church hides its finances even from its donating members.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I don’t pay tithing through my Ward — I send it directly to Salt Lake City.  If my Bishop needed to confirm that I am a full tithe payer — other than my saying so — he has no way of confirming that I have paid anything at all; and yet I do have a Temple Recommend.

And I would imagine you declare yourself a full tithe payer when you have your recommend interview and in tithing settlement. I never claimed that the bishop seeks to confirm tithe status other than what a member says. When I was a bishop if someone said they were a full tithe payer I accepted it. If they were lying then that was their problem.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

 Lucifer who led the rebellion when he must have known it was hopeless in the long run so all he could achieve would be hurting those God loves and that was enough for him….yeah, that guy I take very seriously. 

But the story is told in many different ways and most times I encounter one I get a different reaction, though I never think he is anything but arrogant so am lacking in sympathy for him.

My favorite version of Satan was one proposed by Terryl Givens on Mormon stories. He theorized that Lucifer and those that followed were not in rebellion and not punished. They were simply those that found the cost of mortality too high to continue. Those that couldn’t countenance a world that would allow for the rape of children, slavery, and other horrors. It goes against scripture and prophetic teaching, but at that point I didn’t even believe in Satan anymore, and it just made so much sense.  

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may be right on most of those counts, but I don't believe that the LDS Church will "be around hundreds of years from now," unless you are speaking of the Millennium.  These are the end times, and everything is rolling up rather quickly.  "Latter-day Saints" hundreds of years from now would be an oxymoron.

I am making the assumption humans and the earth will be around for a while. I do not believe in the end times other than it seems likely that in a few hundred years humans may mostly be extinct through destroying our species through a nuclear war and/or destroying our enviroment. Then the earth will roll on and evolution will continue and the next most intelligent species might be crows.

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Scholars already term Jesus a failed apocalyptic prophet.

Both Jesus and Paul thought the end times would happen in their generation. Christians have believed the end was imminent for 2000 years yet here we are.

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I won't even mention the multiple singularities now facing humanity.

Indeed there are many. War, environment, AI.

 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More evidence for the loose administration of the worldwide LDS Church.  Just one  more reason why a temple recommend is not central.

Didn't a recent church president emphasize a temple recommend was a critical representation of our faith?  That might go back to President  Hunter.

 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry I misunderstood your position.  I grew up in California, and held Utah in contempt as a land of hicks who talked funny.  I pretty much ignored the Church as a kid, and my scoutmaster and troop met in the basement of the local Congregational Church.  Only later, when I arrived at BYU did my eyes begin to open.

Having live in NY for 43 years now I sympathize 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Yes, they are indeed the stewards.  Yet you are in the agnostic camp?  About Jesus, I mean.

Yes I am a skeptical agnostic but still am open to the message of the New Testament. 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have replied "of course" several times, but always took a dig at your aggrandizement of a temple recommend (I have one by the way, even though I seldom attend nowadays -- age is catching up with me).  I had a stake president who said that doing genealogy was as important as attending the temple.  I follow his sage advice.

Sorry to annoy you with that video.  It's just that, as a young man, I was an activist in the civil rights movement, marching with Dr King's SCLC and NAACP.  One of my close LDS friends was a Freedom Rider in the deep South (later he was one of Hugh Nibley's grad assistants).   It now breaks my heart to find the woke cult destroying the MLK legacy -- while pretending that they are doing something worthwhile.

 All good.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well I guess so.  We cannot conclude anything since the church hides its finances even from its donating members.

I am not disagreeing here though we have different opinions on if this is good or not.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It goes against scripture and prophetic teaching, but at that point I didn’t even believe in Satan anymore, and it just made so much sense.  

It is not an unreasonable conclusion that there were those who felt that way.  It also doesn’t go with the personality of someone who is trying to sabotage God’s work because that certainly causes harm to their brothers and sisters.  Those who refused for that reason would be trying to help, not hinder.  So it rewrites most of the entire Satan and his helpers’ saga.

Did he explain why it went against scripture?

[marineland]

On 1/7/2025 at 7:55 PM, longview said:

Yes. Within the same "creative generation" per Lucifer's statement. It appears that on all the "concurrent earths" he had been giving the Fruit to respective Adam/Eves without consequence. When he got to "our Earth" he finally was punished for doing this act which surprised him.

What act surprised him and how?

On 1/7/2025 at 7:55 PM, longview said:

So "our Earth" probably was the last of the concurrent earths to be subjected to the Fall for this creative generation.

Why would "our Earth" probably be the last?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not an unreasonable conclusion that there were those who felt that way.  It also doesn’t go with the personality of someone who is trying to sabotage God’s work because that certainly causes harm to their brothers and sisters.  Those who refused for that reason would be trying to help, not hinder.  So it rewrites most of the entire Satan and his helpers’ saga.

Did he explain why it went against scripture?

That was my interjection. It had been years but somehow I remembered where in the episode it was. It was part of what I thought was a brilliant interpretation of the plan of salvation and it actually enabled me to stay in the church for years longer than I would have otherwise. 
 

It’s mormon stories episode 290. Background starts at 36:38. Limited background at 40:00 and direct quote at 40:42. 

Edited January 9, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

I will break my MS rule and watch then (Dehlin’s chat style drives me buggy, he could be the most devout Saint and I couldn’t watch or listen to him except in extreme cases, his style of criticism just compounds the problem, lol)…but it will have to wait till this evening because I actually have things to do, places to be for once. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will break my MS rule and watch then (Dehlin’s chat style drives me buggy, he could be the most devout Saint and I couldn’t watch or listen to him except in extreme cases, his style of criticism just compounds the problem, lol)…but it will have to wait till this evening because I actually have things to do, places to be for once. 

This is before video, so podcast app maybe. Not sure the whole thing is worth listening to, but the five minutes is good. And it’s Terryl worth listening to not John.

Edited January 9, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not disagreeing here though we have different opinions on if this is good or not.

We certainly do.

[longview]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

On 1/7/2025 at 5:55 PM, longview said:

Yes. Within the same "creative generation" per Lucifer's statement. It appears that on all the "concurrent earths" he had been giving the Fruit to respective Adam/Eves without consequence. When he got to "our Earth" he finally was punished for doing this act which surprised him.

What act surprised him and how?

God the Father confronted three persons in the Garden. First, Adam admitted taking the fruit because of Eve. Second, Eve confessed to partaking of the fruit because she was beguiled by Lucifer. Then God asked Lucifer: "What hast thou been doing?" Lucifer replied: "The same thing which I have been doing on other worlds." God: "What is that?" Lucifer: "Giving the fruit to them." God then imposed a punishment on Lucifer: "Because thou hast done this you shall go upon your belly and eat dust . . ." Lucifer is stunned and rages at God saying: "Why am I being punished for doing the same things as on other worlds?"

2 hours ago, marineland said:

On 1/7/2025 at 5:55 PM, longview said:

So "our Earth" probably was the last of the concurrent earths to be subjected to the Fall for this creative generation.

Why would "our Earth" probably be the last?

For several reasons: 1- all the concurrent earths were allowed to enter into the FALL; 2- God permitted the FALL in order to implement the Plan of Redemption (initiation of mortality and the Second Estate); 3- if God had imposed the punishment too soon then NOT all the earths would have been influenced into making the FALL; 4- because ALL of the earths made the critical step for the FALL, then could God finally impose the punishment on Lucifer (like after the fact). [Some church leaders have referred to this as being the "Fortunate Fall."]

Because Lucifer was punished on "our Earth", that implies ALL the concurrent earths were successfully transitioned to the Plan of Redemption. Therefore "our Earth" had to be the last to make that leap into mortality.

@Calm I do not anticipate mods to have a problem with the above dialogue because I remember reading church leaders that as long as we do not discuss ordinances it would be alright.

[Stargazer]

On 1/2/2025 at 4:33 AM, webbles said:

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.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, longview said:

The same thing which I have been doing on other worlds

That’s not the right wording. 

[Stargazer]

On 1/2/2025 at 7:24 AM, The Nehor said:

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.

Yes, idiots abound.

On 1/2/2025 at 7:24 AM, The Nehor said:

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.

 

On 1/2/2025 at 7:24 AM, The Nehor said:

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.

Yes, he had some odd ideas, for sure. But he also had brilliant ones. Unfortunately, his misses are remembered more than his hits.

On 1/2/2025 at 7:24 AM, The Nehor said:

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.

Not looking for her as an ally. Her videos are interesting and sometimes entertaining. 

And I don't need any allies. I've been around long enough to realize that junk science, pseudoscience, and other such vapor trails abound. The problem with some people is that they tend to believe that "science" is settled. In the meantime, ignorance also abounds, as well as new research, new discoveries, and new ideas. 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, longview said:

which I have been

Nope. No “I”

Edited January 10, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, longview said:

 

@Calm I do not anticipate mods to have a problem with the above dialogue because I remember reading church leaders that as long as we do not discuss ordinances it would be alright.

It would be nice to be able to discuss it. Times have changed, leaders have been more specific about what not to discuss. I assume that has led to a change in comfort level for most.  Will be interesting to see if mods respond.

[webbles]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

The paper can be read at https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15143.  The paper is just adding more evidence for the Timescape model (first proposed in 2007 instead of the widely accepted Lambda CDM model.  It will be interesting to see if the Timescape model gets enough evidence to beat out the Lambda CDM model.  Who knows?

Here's a youtube video of one of the authors of the paper and is probably a much better explanation than what you posted:

 

Edited January 10, 2025 by webbles

[Stargazer]

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I would say that this is where your ignorance is showing. I'll provide a very, very elementary sort of explanation for you.

You don't think I've already read about it? That I'm just spouting off in ignorance? That's OK. I'm sure I'm quite ignorant on this compared to you.

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In the big bang theory, it isn't simply a dimensionless point. While this is one way to describe it, it misses the underlying idea that in that point, everything exists everywhere - all at once. In other words, even if there is some kind of gravity - that gravity doesn't have a center - there isn't a greater force that exists in part of that dimensionless point than in some other part. And the universe is the singularity. That is, there isn't this sort of huge amount of vacuum in which the singularity exists - and which is filled as the universe expands. The universe is the singularity - and as it starts to expand, that expansion is smooth (uniform). So there is no pull to the center - because there is no center of gravity. But gravity is dependent on mass. And so at the same time as the big bang begins, at least according to our current understanding, there isn't a Higgs field. And without a Higgs field, there is no mass (and so no gravity). The Higgs field begins forming as the big bang moves away from its first moments, and as the universe begins its cooling process. So after the beginning, we start to see mass (mass is just energy bound into subatomic particles in a Higgs field). As the Higgs field comes into existence that mass then allows gravity to come into existence. Because of the temperatures of the early universe, this mass and the gravity isn't fully functional until we have consistent formation of subatomic particles. So, by the time that we see gravity and that gravity is working - as the weakest of the natural forces it isn't capable of reestablishing a singularity. What it does do is to change the uniform nature of the expansion to create collections of mass that become groups, galaxies, stars, and so on.

Yes, yes. I've read all about this. It's as clear as mud. Very interesting mud, but mud nevertheless. <- That is a witticism, by the way, so don't try to explain mud to me.  

When it is written that "gravity comes into existence" I ask the question "What mechanism caused this?" The formation of the Higgs field? Where did that come from? Do they know when the Higgs field finally formed? Apparently, it began to form at the end of the electroweak epoch. And before the electroweak epoch, all particles were completely massless and travelled exactly at the speed of light. This suggests the question: why did the Higgs field form? 

And then there's the idea that the universe at the very beginning was infinitely dense, and infinitely hot. Which is mathematically possible according to equations, of course, but physically impossible because not even God can count to infinity. And the reason it didn't all collapse back into a black hole singularity was because it was too tightly compact to have a gravity gradient. And gravity hadn't been invented yet, anyway. But by the time the Higgs field came into existence it was too late for it all to slam back together again -- no gravity gradient to speak of. And yes, you wrote some of that in your reply to me, but I knew it already. It's just that it all sounds a little bit like they were making stuff up as they went along.

Scientific American astronomy editor George Musser once wrote: 

"The basic point is that the universe was born with a tendency to expand, which overcame the tendency of matter to collapse. According to relativity theory, space does not like to remain static; for all but the most special cases, it either expands or contracts. But why it initially chose the former is still a mystery."

Apparently, Aristotelians liked to explain gravity, or the fall of objects to the ground, by saying that it was in the nature of objects to fall. Which rather sounds like "the universe was born with a tendency to expand". Or that "space does not like to remain static". I realize that Musser is trying to write down to the masses (but not with malice!) in order to help the reader to understand. And the above was written in 2003, so understandings have shifted since then.

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's an oversimplification but it should begin to answer your questions.

You might have missed it that my questions were rhetorical.

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I wanted to point something out about the video that you linked - this is an argument that is quite familiar to those of us with postmodernist leanings. Postmodernism isn't a rejection of the scientific method, it simply wants to point out that there is always bias in the application of the scientific method. The video suggests that much of the expansion of ideas in theoretical physics are caused because people are trying to find ways to expand theoretical physics - and that scientists have many reasons to engage in such expansions apart from the pure search for knowledge. The embedded youtube video loses some context. She put some notes in for viewers who look at the video as she published it:

I hesitate to say it, but in general, postmodernism doesn't really do much for me. Nevertheless, I have been reading your "Nephi: A Postmodernist Reading," and finding it quite interesting. Towards the beginning you discuss Rabinowitz's different audiences, and that concept, at least, rings true to me. Shaping one's text with awareness of one's audiences is quite intriguing. It might even help one shape a book in order to make it more interesting to one's audiences. As a self-published author, perhaps I could benefit from examining this in the context of future books! (see my sig)

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The loss of trust isn't about the results or discoveries of science, it is a loss of trust in the motivations of scientists.

That's something we can agree about.

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

One of the most fundamental discoveries in terms of physics in my lifetime has been the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012. Discovery is such a bad word for this (even though its thrown around) because it was predicted mathematically back in 1964 as part of the theory of the Higgs field - the mechanism by which high energy particles developed mass (central to this discussion about gravity). It was an untestable theory in 1964 - and over time, technology developed to the point where experiments could be conceived to test the existence of the particle and then eventually they could be carried out - and the prediction proven to have some basis in reality.

I accept that the confirmation/discovery of the Higgs boson/field is a wonderful development. But my brain refuses to wrap itself around the idea that it is the Higgs Field that confers mass. Not disputing, mind. If you can understand that point, you have my respect. Looked at from a simple man-in-the-street point of view, the whole thing confers Pikachu Face upon one.

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It isn't the fact that scientists produce theory to help answer fundamental questions - it is the motivations behind the endless production of theories that I think is challenging for Sabine Hossenfelder, and not the process of science itself.

Sabine does complain a lot about junk science, and it's clear she thinks there are problems in how science is currently being done. 

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Her 2018 book Lost in Math, read to me as more of a philosophical discussion than anything else. Each chapter ends with a set of issues that were illustrated in the chapter. Chapter 8 ends with these:

Thanks for that. For some reason I was unaware of her book. I've just added it to my reading list.

On 1/2/2025 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

For those familiar enough with these kinds of discussions you can see a bit of a dialogue here with Thomas Kuhn. I think that in the larger scheme of things, there are many who would be uncomfortable with Hossenfelder's belief that the universe is not beautiful, that there is no unifying theory or symmetry - and just as importantly, that there is no design to it.

From a perfectly objective point of view, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, whether it's the beauty of one's beloved spouse, or that of the universe. 

But the universe is beautiful to me, at least. And there are some very highly intriguing bits of beauty that want explanation, yet have none. One of the very highly intriguing bits of beauty is the Fine Structure Constant. 

 

[Stargazer]

On 1/3/2025 at 4:39 AM, Calm said:

So he states there is evidence that crystals grow faster once one crystal takes shape and once one rat of a certain species learns a new trick, rats of the same species all over the world will learn the new trick faster.

I want to see this evidence.  As far as I can tell, the only research he shares on this was offspring learning tricks faster, not random rats in other places tested by other researchers.

I'd like to see that, too, for sure. 

Certain experiences I've had with the Spirit do have some general similarity to these notions. I was once told in advance who our new bishop was going to be. And not told by a person. I once knew weeks in advance that I was to be called to a particular church position. Again, no person told me. Aside from my own experience, I minister to our stake patriarch and his wife, and they told me that they were both told in a dream on the same night that he was to be called to be the patriarch, several days before the call was issued. 

In the Old Testament, in Genesis, and repeated in the Book of Ether, we are told that that suddenly people were broken into new languages. Now, I'm inclined to regard this as allegory, not literal history. But if it is the latter, how could that be, unless some agent moderated it (like the rats you mention)? 

The funny thing is, I think I could design an experiment to see if the rat-learning thing actually works. But I'll leave it to someone else to try.  

[longview]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s not the right wording. 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Nope. No “I”

I did not take the time to look it up. Hopefully the essence is understandable. 🙃

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I did not take the time to look it up. Hopefully the essence is understandable. 🙃

It is quite understandable now,  thank you for clarifying.  
 

The “I” makes a huge difference.  It requires Lucifer to be the one handing out fruit.  If there is no “I have been” but only “has been”, then it only requires fruit be handed out by someone or whatever that is meant to symbolize.

Without that, the rest of your conjecture about Lucifer doesn’t work.  It could be a possibility because the “has been” does not exclude him, it seems highly unlikely though.

Edited January 10, 2025 by Calm