Is science the friend of Mormonism?

[_silentkid]

This question needs to be broken down a bit. Let's distinguish between 1)The results of science 2) the practice of science. And 1) Internet Mormons 2) Chapel Mormons. Note that the science under discussion is science which shares some kind of domain with religious teachings, i.e., pathology isn't relevant. And also note that science isn't so easily exhausted by two clean categories.

1A = friendly. IM's trust in the arm of flesh, and reconcile the results of science with scripture as needed.

1B = unfriendly. CM's distrust the results of science because in shared domains, it almost always contradicts the prophets, living and dead.

Second Amendment = unfriendly. IM's don't believe in doing science, they do not believe testable predictions and so on can be made to prove the scriptures. As they admit explicitly, they work backwards, assuming the scriptures are true and then seeking to reconcile that with results others, almost always non-Mormons, have obtained from doing real science.

2B = friendly. CM's believe the church can be proven with science down to the last iota. It's just most modern day scientists are too removed from the spirt and aspire to the praise of the world. If scientists would do their jobs right, they'd discover God's hand in creating Adam and Eve or vindicate the flood.

That's a great summary, grayskull. When I talk about science, I come at it from the perspective biology. My background is in biology, specifically molecular evolution and genetics. For this reason, I feel that science has pretty well debunked the creation myth, the flood myth, and in Mormonism specifically, the Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites myth. I like how you distinguished between different types of members and their differing perspectives.

Stephen Jay Gould described Science and Religion as two non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) because they use different ways of knowing (i.e. intuitive, faith based v. empirical evidences, reason and logic) to get at an understanding of truth. I'm not convinced that science and religion don't overlap. I think science can be used to test religious claims that fall into the realm of science. This is where the conflict between the two arises. As science uncovers more truths about nature that conflict with religious dogma, religious leaders either adapt or become more dogmatic. I believe that Mormonism is going currently going through this phase.

[_Mercury]

As I was perusing another thread, I came across this comment by bcspace:

I've always considered science to be the friend of religion, at least as far as the LDS Church is concerned. What many believers do unfortunately, is confuse nonscience presented as science with actual science.

I have heard this sentiment numerous times from LDS faithful (I'm not picking on bcspace here), especially during my time at BYU. I'm wondering where the validation exists for such a statement. Where has "actual science" verified any Mormon claim? I would like examples. Conversely, where has Mormonism (the friend of science) elucidated a scientific claim? From my perspective, "actual science" has been anything but friendly to Mormonism.

I was once told that science PROVED Mormonism true. My Grandfather told me that (and this is VERIFIABLE) "god lives 1000 years to every one of our years"...Kolob this, etc.

"It explains time before Einstein was around, therfore the Book of Mormon explained the nature of god in relativistic terms."

This is all b***s*** of course. The time shift is nowhere near that, even at near relativistic speeds.

To use this explanation lets invoke some Philosophy AND science:

1. Can god create an object so big that he cannot lift it?
2. The speed of light is the (currently known) speed limit.

AWhen approaching relativistic speeds, your mass increases. Infinite mass is not possible, but it appears that the slower you move, the less mass (more specifically the relativistic mass) you posess.

To obtain a constant ratio of 1:1000 years, the space relative to earths frame would have to be traveling at 0.999999499999875 X the speed of light. Lifes a bitch and so is physics because Joe pointed to a star and named it Kolob. Now, which star is irrelevant. Its a star, it doesn't matter whcih one it was.

So, Kolobs stationary relative to Sol/earth if we are to believe Joe.

Damnit joe had a knack for making himself look like a con man at every step, lying again and again, or at least listening to the voices in his head.

Not to mention DNA, Anthropologic disciplines and other endeavors, it looks like Science is consistently ruling against Mormonisms truth claims.

[_Fortigurn]

I think science is friendlier to the LDS church than many of the other religions out there - simply because of 'continuing revelation'. ;)

The doctrine of 'continuing revelation' is actually an example of the LDS church becoming friendlier to science, than science being friendlier to the LDS church.

[_asbestosman]

To obtain a constant ratio of 1:1000 years, the space relative to earths frame would have to be traveling at 0.999999499999875 X the speed of light. Lifes a bitch and so is physics because Joe pointed to a star and named it Kolob. Now, which star is irrelevant. Its a star, it doesn't matter whcih one it was.

So, Kolobs stationary relative to Sol/earth if we are to believe Joe.

What about General relativity? According to General Relativity there is a time shift in stationary gravitational fields as well. That means that time slows down near black holes and other massive objects. In fact time will stop in black holes past a certain point.

And no, I'm not saying that General Relativity has anything to do with the time on Kolob.

[_Mercury]

To obtain a constant ratio of 1:1000 years, the space relative to earths frame would have to be traveling at 0.999999499999875 X the speed of light. Lifes a bitch and so is physics because Joe pointed to a star and named it Kolob. Now, which star is irrelevant. Its a star, it doesn't matter whcih one it was.

So, Kolobs stationary relative to Sol/earth if we are to believe Joe.

What about General relativity? According to General Relativity there is a time shift in stationary gravitational fields as well. That means that time slows down near black holes and other massive objects. In fact time will stop in black holes past a certain point.

And no, I'm not saying that General Relativity has anything to do with the time on Kolob.

That could work, Kolob would have to be a super massive black hole though. And "god" has to live by natural laws. Nothing escapes from black holes but magic space-god Juju supercedes that in the believing mind anyways.

[_bcspace]

I have heard this sentiment numerous times from LDS faithful (I'm not picking on bcspace here), especially during my time at BYU. I'm wondering where the validation exists for such a statement. Where has "actual science" verified any Mormon claim?

When has science debunked any doctrinal LDS claim? For example, the Catholics long held to the idea that the earth was the center of the universe whereas the LDS Church has never spoken against evolution.

[_Bryan Inks]

I have heard this sentiment numerous times from LDS faithful (I'm not picking on bcspace here), especially during my time at BYU. I'm wondering where the validation exists for such a statement. Where has "actual science" verified any Mormon claim?

When has science debunked any doctrinal LDS claim? For example, the Catholics long held to the idea that the earth was the center of the universe whereas the LDS Church has never spoken against evolution.

I'm walking out the door to do some shopping (Yay for movie night with my wife!) But I'll find a couple of rather choice quotes from some of our favorite prophets that . . . well to put it bluntly, throw this lie in your face.

[_bcspace]

When has science debunked any doctrinal LDS claim? For example, the Catholics long held to the idea that the earth was the center of the universe whereas the LDS Church has never spoken against evolution.

I'm walking out the door to do some shopping (Yay for movie night with my wife!) But I'll find a couple of rather choice quotes from some of our favorite prophets that . . . well to put it bluntly, throw this lie in your face.

I'd rather have pie, but I'll settle for an explaination of how a question can possibly be a lie. Or were you speaking of evolution? Choose wisely.

[_Bryan Inks]

When has science debunked any doctrinal LDS claim? For example, the Catholics long held to the idea that the earth was the center of the universe whereas the LDS Church has never spoken against evolution.

I'm walking out the door to do some shopping (Yay for movie night with my wife!) But I'll find a couple of rather choice quotes from some of our favorite prophets that . . . well to put it bluntly, throw this lie in your face.

I'd rather have pie, but I'll settle for an explaination of how a question can possibly be a lie. Or were you speaking of evolution? Choose wisely.

Since a question, obviously, can't be a lie (despite a questions ability to be misleading), I'd think it rather apparent I was talking about your comment about evolution.

Some of our teachers are anxious to explain how much of the theory of evolution, in their judgment, is true, and what is false, but that only leaves their students in an unsettled frame of mind. They are not old enough and learned enough to discriminate, or put proper limitations upon a theory which we believe is more or less a fallacy.

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from the lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

...do not mortgage your soul for unproved theories...[the notion that] god used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit is...false.

Heresy 3: Organic evolution is the process whereby all life on earth came into being, and man, as now constituted, is the end product of this process.
Commentary: This is the false view of many self-designated scientists. The tendency among them is to present Darwinian theories as established realities. These theories postulate the evolvement of all forms of life from lower orders over astronomically long periods of time. They assume death has always been present and that there never was a fall, and they make no provision for a plan of redemption and a resurrection of all forms of life.
Heresy 4: Evolution is the process God used to create all forms of life except Adam, who came by special creation; or Adam was the end product of an evolutionary system used by the Lord for his own purposes.
Commentary: These false notions, together with whatever variations of them happen to be in vogue at any given time, are simply an attempt, on the part of those whose faith falls short of the divine standard, to harmonize the specious theories of men with the revelations of the Lord. They pledge a superficial allegiance to religious truth and allow for a form of divine worship without forsaking the theories of men. They, of necessity, assume that death has always existed on earth, that it did not have its beginning with the fall of Adam, and that there must be some other explanation for all the revelations which say that the atonement ransoms man from the effects of the fall. When those who espouse this view talk of a fall and an atonement, they falsely assume such applies only to man rather than to the earth and all forms of life, as the scriptures attest.

Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book (Book of Mormon) to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc.

Babylon is the almighty governmental power that takes the saints of God into captivity; it is the false churches that build false temples and worship false gods; it is every false philosophy (as, for instance, organic evolution) that leads men away from God and salvation.

Sure, there has been no "official" statements made, however, given the words of the prophets (see above) many of which were published in the Improvement Era, the Ensign and other publications, I think you are going to be hard pressed to back up your claim that the Church doesn't speak ill of evolution.

[_Pokatator]

Bryan 1

BC 0