Is science the friend of Mormonism?

[_silentkid]

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.

[_moksha]

Science is all our friend, except when it disintegrates us.

[Physics Guy]

I actually agree that science is the friend of the Church, but not in the way most TBMs think. Instead, I think that science will eventually (er, make that hopefully) encourage the Brethren to abolish some of the more Flintstonian, backwards views and practices. In other words, science is "friendly" insofar as it encourages positive change.

[_Doctor Steuss]

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 fear I’ll be of very little help, but hopefully you’ll have compassion upon my shortcomings…

John A. Widtsoe wrote a book “Joseph Smith As Scientist” that covered some of the theology of Joseph Smith that was somewhat progressive when compared to scientific ideals of the time. It has been a couple of years since I read it (and my memory was greatly diminished by my LSD days), but off the top of my head, two things were: no creation out of nothing, and spirit is matter [this one requires some interpretive stretches to fit into scientific discoveries].

I don’t think that Mormonism has necessarily “elucidated a scientific claim,” but more that Mormonism is willing to appeal to science, and is science friendly. Well, actually let me re-classify that statement: I think Mormonism before Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie got their hands on it was willing to appeal to science, and was very science friendly.

Erich Robert Paul goes over the changing view of science in Mormonism a bit in his book “Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology” -- basically going over the chronology from Orson Pratt to the likes of B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, Joseph F. Merrill, and Richard R. Lyman; then moving up into the changing view brought about by the non-scientists that diminished the pro-science view in Mormonism (i.e. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie).

On a side note: Erich Robert Paul is also the author of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on “Science and Religion” (I don’t know if it’s available online).

From the dust-jacket of Erich R. Paul's book that I mentioned earlier:

[_Who Knows]

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

[_silentkid]

Dr Steuss: Thanks for the book information. I'll have to check out the one by Paul. One of the things that frustrated me most as a member was the number of members who would fall back on the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie when it came to religion and scientific claims (i.e. organic evolution, age of the earth, etc.). Smith and McConkie, in my opinion, are responsible for the change from a progessive, science-friendly church to a dogmatic, conservative institution. I think it was soon after the debates between B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith (re: pre-adamites and organic evolution) in the early 1930's that the church stated it would no longer take a stance on a scientific claim ("leave the science to the scientists"). I always liked the idea of a science-friendly church, but mainstream Mormonism seems to be moving away from that concept.

[_silentkid]

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

Yeah...continuing revelation always leaves the church a nice way to correct itself without ever admitting it was wrong.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Dr Steuss: Thanks for the book information. I'll have to check out the one by Paul.

You're welcome; and thanks for not railing me for not knowing more... Much of the book went over my head, but the pieces I was able to comprehend were good. Another pretty good book (it's more of the "faith promoting" variety though) is "The Faith of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring (father of Henry B. Eyring).

This wiki entry gives a brief background on Doctor Eyring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Eyring

And I totally agree with you on Smith and McConkie (especially when it comes to evolution).

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

Yeah...continuing revelation always leaves the church a nice way to correct itself without ever admitting it was wrong.

The Dude’s quote of Shades’ that he uses on MA&D always cracks me up when I read it.

Apostasy: When your church changes
Continuing revelation: When my church changes

[_Doctor Steuss]

I actually agree that science is the friend of the Church, but not in the way most TBMs think. Instead, I think that science will eventually (er, make that hopefully) encourage the Brethren to abolish some of the more Flintstonian, backwards views and practices. In other words, science is "frienly" insofar as it encourages positive change.

Ah, but Flintstonian ideals can potentially lead to a "gay ole time."

[_grayskull]

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.