A Hatred of Science is Killing the Church

[_The CCC]

Maybe you missed where the over-reliance on faulty peer review in science was discussed.
I don't have a problem with people believing in the FSM God.

[_DrW]

Maybe you missed where the over-reliance on faulty peer review in science was discussed.
I don't have a problem with people believing in the FSM God.

At least science has peer review. In religion, pretty much any kind of nonsense or evil goes. One's success depends mostly on their powers of persuasion, charm or charisma - not on fact or objective truth.

(And the FSM would prefer to be referred to as a Deity. The term "God" carries far to much baggage.)

[_The CCC]

I don't have a problem if some people want to believe FSM is a deity. by the way the LDS also have a form of peer review. Any doctrine must go before the general membership(peers) to establish it as doctrine.

[_DrW]

I don't have a problem if some people want to believe FSM is a deity. by the way the LDS also have a form of peer review. Any doctrine must go before the general membership(peers) to establish it as doctrine.

If you believe that the general membership of the LDS Church constitutes a credible peer group for the senior leadership (apostles and prophets), you might wish to consult a good dictionary. You will find something like this: evaluation of a professional work product by other (independent) professionals in the same field. Unless one is retained as a professional religionist, and paid a salary for services rendered, they can not be reasonably considered as a peer.

by the way, perhaps you could remind me of the last time a proffered doctrine was rejected.

My initial rejection rate as a peer reviewer was something like 20% - 30% and final rejection rate was something like 5% to 10%.

A peer review group that returns a zero percent rejection rate hardly qualifies as such.

[_Choyo Chagas]

It requires no tithing, sacrifice, or lifetime commitment to arbitrary strictures
...
Rahmen.

strictures?
=strict structures? --- newest entry in Bible dictionary of LDS.org ---

"Lenin freud lived, Lenin freud lives, Lenin freud is to live forever."

rahmen



rahmen?
the english equivalent of rahmenerzählung is "frame story"

A frame story (also known as a frame tale or frame narrative) is a literary technique that sometimes serves as a companion piece to a story within a story, whereby an introductory or main narrative is presented, at least in part, for the purpose of setting the stage either for a more emphasized second narrative or for a set of shorter stories.

Book of Mormon
maybe...

[_DrW]

It requires no tithing, sacrifice, or lifetime commitment to arbitrary strictures

...
strictures?

rahmen?

___________________________________
stric·ture
ˈstrik(t)SHər/
noun
plural noun: strictures

1. a restriction on a person or activity.
"religious strictures on everyday life"

synonyms: constraint, restriction, limitation, restraint, curb, impediment, barrier, obstacle.
"the strictures on Victorian women"
___________________________________

Rahmen

1. A brand of cheap, pre-packaged, freeze dried noodle. Add boiling water to make an inexpensive hi-carb meal.

2. Term used by faithful Pastafarians, in place of Amen, when acknowledging the noodly goodness of the FSM.
______________________________

[_Choyo Chagas]

thank you!


#538 of 750 Hungarian proverbs
A jó pap holtig tanul.
A good priest learns until his death.

[_The CCC]

I don't have a problem if some people want to believe FSM is a deity. by the way the LDS also have a form of peer review. Any doctrine must go before the general membership(peers) to establish it as doctrine.

If you believe that the general membership of the LDS Church constitutes a credible peer group for the senior leadership (apostles and prophets), you might wish to consult a good dictionary. You will find something like this: evaluation of a professional work product by other (independent) professionals in the same field. Unless one is retained as a professional religionist, and paid a salary for services rendered, they can not be reasonably considered as a peer.

by the way, perhaps you could remind me of the last time a proffered doctrine was rejected.

My initial rejection rate as a peer reviewer was something like 20% - 30% and final rejection rate was something like 5% to 10%.

A peer review group that returns a zero percent rejection rate hardly qualifies as such.

You've never heard of Bruce R. McConkie's ill named "Mormon Doctrine"?

Just found something that might interest you concerning BYU. LDS aren't as antiscience as you like to believe,
SEE https://news.BYU.edu/news/byu-named-one ... nnovations

[_Lemmie]

by the way the LDS also have a form of peer review. Any doctrine must go before the general membership(peers) to establish it as doctrine.

...by the way, perhaps you could remind me of the last time a proffered doctrine was rejected.

You've never heard of Bruce R. McConkie's ill named "Mormon Doctrine"?

In what way was McConkie's book an example of something subjected to and rejected by an "LDS...form of peer review" as you defined it?

Any doctrine must go before the general membership(peers) to establish it as doctrine

[_DrW]

You've never heard of Bruce R. McConkie's ill named "Mormon Doctrine"?

McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" was found on a bookshelf in the home of every faithful Latter Day Saint when I was a kid. It was practically considered one of the Standard Works - right along with Talmage's "Jesus the Christ".

From the first edition in 1958, to well into the 80s, McConkie was the "go to" reference for what Mormons were supposed to believe on all kinds of issues.

Then, much like "The Miracle of Forgiveness" that came later, folks began to realize what fundamentalist, dogmatic, intolerant, racist, sexist, and downright ridiculous, content was to be found between the covers.

If you think an essential 30-year process of rejection of a work never presented for ratification or a sustaining vote of the membership by the prophet of the Church is an example of effective peer review then, again, you have an insufficient grip on the subject matter at hand.