DiscussMormonism.com

Many of you point to past Church claims that deny the true age of the Earth as well as evolution. However, you are being imprecise when you speak of this as being either the belief of all Mormons or even a solidified position of the LDS Church.

Here are some points for your consideration:

1. Only 8th Century Mormons subscribe to a young earth theory. These folks mean well even if they are suffering permanent damage from a brain cloud.

2. 20th Century Mormons have a much better understanding of the age of the earth and evolution, although they might not understand how an all encompassing process would hardly make an exception for Man. They also probably got stuck on Ezra Taft Benson, Cleon Skousen and white shirts.

3. 21st Century Mormons see science as a means to better understand God's handiwork and realize that science helps expand our boundaries. They can stick to the metaphysical claims of religion and leave the ghost stories to their 8th Century brethren.

4. The Church will not get stuck in the position of issuing potentially embarrassing definitive statements against science. Those questionable pronouncements of the past were said by Men who did not have the full light of an electron microscope.

Surely you jest on point 1 – “8th Century Mormons.” You know the time frame for the emergence of “Mormons” well.

Historically, it is the discoveries of science which challenge the dogmas of religious organizations. The evolution of religious doctrine(s) has always been slow and often painful, repressive, and even deadly for some who advanced the discoveries which they had made regarding the “age of the Earth.” Today, the age of the known universe, the documented universe to the present was/is beyond the confines of religious doctrines regarding that.

It is “science” that “expand our boundaries” in terms of what we know as a matter of discovered and established evidence. On the other hand, it has been and is to this day, religious dogma which restricts recognition of discovered, established evidence.

It is false claims of religion which are inherently restrictive of discovery through information and integration of that information which has produced enormous consensus in science. For example, it is medical science which has advanced the treatment and/or cure of disease once thought to be God’s punishment. All the electronic devices we now take for granted would have been regarded as some sort of “miracle” were they to have been presented a mere 200 years ago.

God notions are widely varied and contradictory as well. One man’s religion is another man’s fiction or just false claim. That there are well over a thousand groups which call themselves “Christian” and yet have different views demonstrates the failed reliability of each.

Those who make and have made discoveries in science ignore the doctrines of any of the religions we can identify. Of course any of the thousand Christian groups regard Muslim beliefs (doctrines) as wrong. Buddhists, Hindus, and numerous other religions regard their own religion as right and others as wrong.

But all of them, over time, tend to yield to the discoveries of science in physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, and more. Doctrines of religious myths have been set aside in favor of evidence supported conclusions.

That is not to suggest that many decades and centuries must pass before this occurs. It’s a slow process and various particular religious claims generally die slowly and hard. Why is that? It is because discovery which refutes religious claim of an established religious organization is discovery which is fought. The fight is for decades and centuries as well. The scientific discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe was not accepted by religious perspectives. The discovery that there are billions and billions of suns much like our own was not a discovery which pleased religious doctrine-makers.

The evolution of many gods to few gods to one God took many centuries of evolution in accumulation of information and evidence. And today, the recognition that God notions are inherently irrelevant is many decades or centuries away.

While “the full light of the electron microscope” is indeed a great scientific advancement, churches which issue “definitive statements against science” are destined to be overtaken by the tsunami which the research of open scientific revelation produces.

Historically, the process is slow.

JAK

Who needs science for anything but a 'yes man' for the great revelations of tubbytommy of the white and spacious building in Salt Lake City, repository of all that is true, just and wrong?

Joseph wrote:tubbytommy

Holy crap you're a dumbass.

Simon Belmont wrote:

Joseph wrote:tubbytommy

Holy s*** you're a dumbass.

Correction: Joseph may be disrespectful of Mormon sensitivities, but he is not a dumbass.

sock puppet wrote:Correction: Joseph may be disrespectful of Mormon sensitivities, but he is not a dumbass.

Well, he doesn't understand how to do a simple thing like use the quote feature, so, you be the judge.

Simon Belmont wrote:

Well, he doesn't understand how to do a simple thing like use the quote feature, so, you be the judge.

At least he does not stalk people like you do with him.

sock puppet wrote:Correction: Joseph may be disrespectful of Mormon sensitivities, but he is not a dumbass.

Corrected Correction: He's both.

"I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.”

-Thomas S. Monson, Science-Hater

beefcalf wrote:"I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.”

-Thomas S. Monson, Science-Hater

That he is opposed to pseudoscience makes him a "Science-Hater"?

Huh......