DiscussMormonism.com

Leigh's Law

Leigh's Law: Given a novel theory proposed by someone to resolve tricky religious issues, the fact that nobody else seems to have figured it out but the proponent of that theory, should serve as the biggest clue that it's almost certainly wrong.


1st Corollary: A member of a church that believes that its leaders are inspired and lead by God should be deeply suspicious of any theory put forth to resolve tricky religious issues, that is not actually believed in or taught by those same leaders.


Please feel free to discuss. Rake me over the coals if you want.

I'm thinking in particular here of my own father, and of BCSpace, both of whom have enough scientific understanding and knowledge to know there are serious problems with what LDS leaders have traditionally taught since the days of Joseph Smith, and science. They both have spent a lot of time mulling around for ways to explain this that leave the church still true, but which appear to resolve or avoid most, or even all of the scientific pitfalls. The biggest problem is that both of their solutions are their own invention. The Prophets, Seers, and Revelators don't agree. They believe something else.

Seriously, if you're a believing Mormon, what are the odds that BCSpace got it right and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have all missed the boat? What are the odds that Sethbag's dad is the one who has figured out how it all goes together, and the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve just don't get it?

Sethbag wrote:The biggest problem is that both of their solutions are their own invention. The Prophets, Seers, and Revelators don't agree. They believe something else.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you've captured the very essence of the "Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism dichotomy.

I know, that's true, but I felt the need to boil down the essence of the conflict in stark terms.

We've seen it so many times, and said it so many times, but what are the odds that Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and all the rest haven't been able to learn or discern the truth of these matters through revelation from God, but, say, Daniel Peterson has? Or BCSpace? Or my dad? Or anyone else?

To be an Internet Mormon, according to Shades' description of them, is intrinsically to believe in something other than what the rest of the church, including its leaders, actually believe, and yet to remain convinced that it's all still "true". Internet Mormons exist, but they are living, breathing, walking, thinking oxymorons. To be such is to believe in "true Prophets" who actually don't really know what they're talking about.

Think about it, you apologists out there.

Indeed. Just see all of William Schryver's Orwellian posts in the "Lamanite as political designation" thread.

The doublethink displayed there is downright scary.

I guess I agree with the principle but frankly, I have another perhaps complementary angle on it.

You see, I am starting to experience difficulty in pointing out to people that their religion doesn't jive with evolution. If they think it does jive then maybe that's for the best.

The reason is that religion isn't going away. It is only going to change one way or another. We need it to change in the right way (more pro-science and more accepting of metaphoric interpretations of scripture).
So the very fact the BCSpace accepts evolution make him/her feel more like an ally to me right now.
I am starting to feel that talking people out of any notion of God is less important than getting the public to accept science.
This is going to be a mess soon with more and more EV fundamentalists as well as Muslims seeking to deny evolution. These people have a plan (The Wedge).
They are infiltrating the universities. Then there is this stupid Ben Stein anti-evolution movie set to come out. I dispare of how things could go in this country.

I also feel like I need guys like Ken Miller as an ally. Ken is a Catholic apparently but he is on the front lines of the fight against creationism. He is a evolutionary biologist from Brown U.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

The Mormon church isn't going to die either. But what is unclear is whether the forces within the church that seek to embrace or preserve a kind of creationism will win, or whether the nominal evolutionist will win the day with a modified religion. The latter is the best we can hope for since, as I said, the Mormon church is here for the long term in some form.

Seriously, if you're a believing Mormon, what are the odds that BCSpace got it right and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have all missed the boat?

Who says the two are in conflict?

Leigh's Law

Making up laws like this is simply a symptom of.....

Fortigurn's Lazy Research

bcspace wrote:

Seriously, if you're a believing Mormon, what are the odds that BCSpace got it right and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have all missed the boat?

Who says the two are in conflict?

Leigh's Law

Making up laws like this is simply a symptom of.....

Fortigurn's Lazy Research

Wow, this coming from a professed TBM, who must believe that his leaders can, do, and did make up laws to support their claims.

Tarski, I'll comment on several portions of your email, but wish to make it clear that I'm not trying to argue or nitpick with you. I merely offer up some commentary on what you said, but not in an adversarial way.

Tarski wrote:I guess I agree with the principle but frankly, I have another perhaps complementary angle on it.

You see, I am starting to experience difficulty in pointing out to people that their religion doesn't jive with evolution. If they think it does jive then maybe that's for the best.

I see where you're coming from on this point, but I can't bring myself wholly to agree with it. I think that the existence of glaring intellectual or evidentiary deficits helps to make more stark the inherent shaky foundation of the whole belief system. To be sure, evolution (mainly in its conflict with the LDS doctrines regarding "The Fall"), things like Joseph Smith's personal behavior, etc. are all ancillary issues, but they serve as helpful signposts leading to the ultimate conclusion that the entire LDS cosmology is simply not true.

I will not be "pleased" if the church changes its teachings on problematic issues where science is concerned, if those changes help to make it more difficult for someone to find a basis on which to recognize the overall untruth of the LDS religion. It may be good that people more readily accept the science, but at the cost of having much of the evidence of the church's untruth being swept under the rug.

The reason is that religion isn't going away. It is only going to change one way or another. We need it to change in the right way (more pro-science and more accepting of metaphoric interpretations of scripture).
So the very fact the BCSpace accepts evolution make him/her feel more like an ally to me right now.

BCSpace seems to use his belief in evolution and his disagreement with the Creationists in a bid for "street cred" that belies his actual, overall belief system, which includes that a God certainly exists, that this God and Jesus visited Joseph Smith and ultimately used Joseph Smith as his deputy on Earth to erect a true system of religion and religious government on Earth, and that it is important for all human beings to learn of, and join, this organization, and to adopt its beliefs.

I believe this is a smokescreen. While I applaud BCSpace for his acceptance of the science of evolution, it is disingenuous of him to assert that this acceptance does not pose stark theological problems with respect of fundamental LDS teachings. The Fall of Adam simply cannot be reconciled in any reasonable way with the science of evolution and the apparent multi-hundred-million year old history of life on Earth - BCSpace's ludicrous 2Nephi22 loophole notwithstanding.

I am starting to feel that talking people out of any notion of God is less important than getting the public to accept science.

I am also very much of the opinion that people ought to be led to an increased acceptance of science. I have no wish, however, for the thorny conflicts with much of today's religions to be swept under the rug. The existence of these thorny issues, as seen by someone who has accepted science, provide helpful insights as to the untrue nature of the various religions, including the LDS religion.

I also feel like I need guys like Ken Miller as an ally. Ken is a Catholic apparently but he is on the front lines of the fight against creationism. He is a evolutionary biologist from Brown U.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

I certainly would not wish lose guys like Ken Miller as allies in the whole creationism vs. modern science disagreements (it's not creationism vs. evolution, for creationism deals with isues pertaining to almost every major branch of modern science, not just that of the biological theory of the origin of species). At the same time, I am unwilling to concede that thorny conflicts between religion and science don't actually exist, when they clearly do.

I don't want to lose BCSpace as an ally in terms of his support for evolution. However, I am unwilling to respect his claims that LDS teachings do not conflict with science. This is certainly not true, and I will not sweep it all under the rug just because he believes in evolution.

The Mormon church isn't going to die either. But what is unclear is whether the forces within the church that seek to embrace or preserve a kind of creationism will win, or whether the nominal evolutionist will win the day with a modified religion. The latter is the best we can hope for since, as I said, the Mormon church is here for the long term in some form.

I have a hard time "hoping" for a Mormon church that maintains its core claims of a divine mandate to be God's Kingdom on Earth, lead by a man who must be obeyed as if his words were the words of God (whether by my own mouth of the mouths of my servants, it is the same), while reconciling its past teachings with science to the point where a person growing up in the religion loses much of the evidence that could help him or her ultimately to see their way out of the false belief system. What you're wishing for is ultimately for the church to build a better mental trap with which to hold people. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I'm happy for the born-again Christians who go around claiming a 6,000 year old Earth, and decrying Harry Potter as a tool of Satan, and whatnot. All of that serves to make it more obvious to the general public that they are whackjobs, and so their belief system becomes, in many ways, self-limiting. Take away the more obvious problems dealing with reality, and their appeal could widen in terms of the spread of their other untrue beliefs.

BCSpace seems to use his belief in evolution and his disagreement with the Creationists in a bid for "street cred" that belies his actual, overall belief system, which includes that a God certainly exists, that this God and Jesus visited Joseph Smith and ultimately used Joseph Smith as his deputy on Earth to erect a true system of religion and religious government on Earth, and that it is important for all human beings to learn of, and join, this organization, and to adopt its beliefs.

Street cred? LOL! A little pop psychology Sethbagian style.

I believe this is a smokescreen. While I applaud BCSpace for his acceptance of the science of evolution, it is disingenuous of him to assert that this acceptance does not pose stark theological problems with respect of fundamental LDS teachings.

Poor Seth rambles on, oblivious to the fact that he has yet to show how I might be in error.

The Fall of Adam simply cannot be reconciled in any reasonable way with the science of evolution and the apparent multi-hundred-million year old history of life on Earth

How so?

BCSpace's ludicrous 2Nephi22 loophole notwithstanding.

Read: "Okay BCSpace, ya got me. But if I put my hands over my eyes then I can't see the evidence and therefore it does not exist."

Sethbag wrote:seriously, if you're a believing Mormon, what are the odds that BCSpace got it right and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have all missed the boat? What are the odds that Sethbag's dad is the one who has figured out how it all goes together, and the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve just don't get it?

I don't see the disagreement between science and the church as a dealbreaker as far as believing in God is concerned. I have no problem believing in God, and at the same time disbelieving the creationists. Evolution makes sense to me, within my personal framework of how God works.

The problem is the literal translation of a book dependent on the value of allegory and myth to teach eternal principles.