Considerations when saying that Mormons are Anti-Science

[_EAllusion]

DrW -

It's significant no doubt. I take it as a sign about how thoroughly acupuncture and related CAM therapies, like chiropracty before it, has managed to insinuate itself into academic institutions. If this were another board, I'd be talking about how this suggests fringe/pseudoscience more popular on the left represents a more significant concern than that found on the right. No one worth taking seriously is taking creationism seriously. The same can't be said of homeopathy, acupuncture, various nutrient fads, etc.

A while ago I was right with you until I started reading some of the primary literature. I was amazed at how clear the case for a specific placebo effect coupled with nonspecific effects like attentiveness to patients and relaxation really is. Part of the issue is that it is only relatively recent that researches have managed to create control groups that actually mimic acupuncture with sham needle designs.

Regarding the claim in your link, I do believe the conclusion of this paper is standard for testing the efficacy of treating nausea when a sham needle control is employed:

http://www.plosone.org/article/information%3Ad ... rticles%29

[_DrW]

How about St. John's Wort, Dr. W?

Appropriate use of natural products as medicines should not be considered pseudo-science.

In the case of St. John's Wort (extracts from which are used for treatment of depression), fox glove or digitalis (original source of the digitalin family of cardiac drugs, including digoxin and other cardiac glycosides used to improve heart function and control arrhythmia), taxol from the bark of the yew tree for treatment of cancer, and a host of others, we have identified some or all of the effective chemical components. We have a good idea how these molecules work in the body, and in some cases have learned to synthesize them or their analogs as ethical pharmaceuticals.

In the case of St. Johns Wort, the active components in the extract (such as hypericin) are believed to act as a serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (same mechanism as modern SSRI's such as Prozac). Other constituents in the extracts may have effect the re-uptake of other neurotransmitters such as GABA and dopamine.

________________________________

by the way: For those on this board who don't know me, I am not a clinician. I am a Ph.D. research neuroendocrinologist who left the field some time ago to become an energy entrepreneur and business owner. That is why my screen name is DrW and not Dr.W.

________________

Back to the OP - Please.

[_beefcalf]

After a period of inactivity in my youth, I became reactivated in the church and made the commitment to be faithful after reading Elder Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations.

Back then, as a young person, my biggest impediment to joining the church in full faith was that I was given to understand that LDS doctrine and theology were incompatible with organic evolution. There was some small snippet in Widtsoe's book which, to me, seemed to allow other points of view. I do not remember the passage, except that their was a portion where he outlined three separate ways of addressing the evolution/LDS theology question, and one of those three seemed to allow me the latitude to continue believing in evolution (which I knew to be factual) and also embrace the church (which I desired for numerous emotional reasons) without significant difficulty.

It was only within the last few years that I became fully aware of the tenuousness of this position.

It seems that, whatever position you might like to take on various aspects of scientific learning and conclusions, you will be able to shop around and find support from some Latter-Day Saint scholar or apologist who will offer up reasons why such a belief is fully-compatible with LDS theology. The age of the Earth: thousands versus billions of years, Evolution: micro versus macro, Noah's flood: global or local, literal or figurative...

But when we get down to it, it seems that the top 15 (FP & QT) in whichever decade they served, seem to have been fairly clear about these issues, almost universally tending towards biblical literalism. But they just sit back and keep their mouths shut about it, as if to avoid making waves.

It seems like it's ok to think this way or that way about evolution, and you have the latitude to believe in Job literally or figuratively. You might even be forgiven for having varying views on 'death before the fall'. But under no circumstances are you allowed to interpret the law of tithing as being 'figurative'. It rather smacks of 'believe whatever-the-hell-you-want, but don't you dare stop sending those tithing checks.'

[_DrW]

After a period of inactivity in my youth, I became reactivated in the church and made the commitment to be faithful after reading Elder Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations.

Back then, as a young person, my biggest impediment to joining the church in full faith was that I was given to understand that LDS doctrine and theology were incompatible with organic evolution. There was some small snippet in Widtsoe's book which, to me, seemed to allow other points of view. I do not remember the passage, except that their was a portion where he outlined three separate ways of addressing the evolution/LDS theology question, and one of those three seemed to allow me the latitude to continue believing in evolution (which I knew to be factual) and also embrace the church (which I desired for numerous emotional reasons) without significant difficulty.

It was only within the last few years that I became fully aware of the tenuousness of this position.

It seems that, whatever position you might like to take on various aspects of scientific learning and conclusions, you will be able to shop around and find support from some Latter-Day Saint scholar or apologist who will offer up reasons why such a belief is fully-compatible with LDS theology. The age of the Earth: thousands versus billions of years, Evolution: micro versus macro, Noah's flood: global or local, literal or figurative...

But when we get down to it, it seems that the top 15 (FP & QT) in whichever decade they served, seem to have been fairly clear about these issues, almost universally tending towards biblical literalism. But they just sit back and keep their mouths shut about it, as if to avoid making waves.

It seems like it's ok to think this way or that way about evolution, and you have the latitude to believe in Job literally or figuratively. You might even be forgiven for having varying views on 'death before the fall'. But under no circumstances are you allowed to interpret the law of tithing as being 'figurative'. It rather smacks of 'believe whatever-the-hell-you-want, but don't you dare stop sending those tithing checks.'

A post with which I can completely agree.

[_moksha]

Moksha,

I stand ready to provide any number of examples of anti-science pronouncements by Mormon leaders (such as the one above by President Monson).

Ready to give a recitation of 8th Century Mormonism, eh? I imagine some of them are real doozys.

As you undoubtedly have heard, all of the members along the time continuum are men and as such can and do speak as men. I am taking my cue from President Hinckley's worry of what the Goyim will say if we paint ourselves into a corner with past embarrassing pronouncements over science. Certainly science will operate in the same way, being open to revision of positions with either overwhelming evidence or bad publicity.

[Guest]

Moksha,

I stand ready to provide any number of examples of anti-science pronouncements by Mormon leaders (such as the one above by President Monson).

Ready to give a recitation of 8th Century Mormonism, eh? I imagine some of them are real doozys.

As you undoubtedly have heard, all of the members along the time continuum are men and as such can and do speak as men. I am taking my cue from President Hinckley's worry of what the Goyim will say if we paint ourselves into a corner with past embarrassing pronouncements over science. Certainly science will operate in the same way, being open to revision of positions with either overwhelming evidence or bad publicity.

Moksha,

When are you going to face up to the fact that religion (especially Mormonism) and science are diametrically opposed undertakings?

You continue to describe them as if they were operating from the same footing. This is not the case. Science moves forward on evidence and fact. Religion contrives to subvert science with claims based on unfounded belief.

The quote from the 21st Century Mormon Prophet Thomas Monson in an earlier post on this thread frames the approach of Mormonism to science perfectly.

(At least I can agree with something Monson says. When Monson repudiates this statement in public, then we can talk about how Mormonism is not anti-science in the 21st Century.)

[_Joseph]

B. H. Roberts and James E. Talmage believed in Pre-adamites.

If we are to believe what joe the skirt chaser said about The Gospel encompassing all Truth then there is nothing to fear from science at all.

Trouble is that lds-inc does not believe in that at all.

[_moksha]

If we are to believe what joe the skirt chaser said about The Gospel encompassing all Truth then there is nothing to fear from science at all.

Trouble is that lds-inc does not believe in that at all.

In answer to both you and DrW, you are forgeting the fluidity of the LDS Church due to its foundation of receiving continually new relevation and inspiration. Besides, the Church will eventually follow the 21st Century Mormons due to the flow of the future.

[_jon]

If we are to believe what joe the skirt chaser said about The Gospel encompassing all Truth then there is nothing to fear from science at all.

Trouble is that lds-inc does not believe in that at all.

In answer to both you and DrW, you are forgeting the fluidity of the LDS Church due to its foundation of receiving continually new relevation and inspiration. Besides, the Church will eventually follow the 21st Century Mormons due to the flow of the future.

Continually receiving 'new' revealtion...
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. The only three 'revelations' received since Joseph Smith was killed in the gunfight at Carthage are a Joseph F Smith dream and two reversals of previously eternal and everlasting revelations (Priesthood ban and Polygamy).

Everything else is classed as Prophets speaking as men. Packer claimed the Family Proclaimation as a revelation in his recent conference talk but when published the word 'revelation' was specifically and deliberately removed.