ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Hoops]

You know, when I read Hoops' responses in this thread, I really think I know the Bible a lot better than she does.

Could she be a troll, intended to discredit Bible-believing Christians by making them look either mendacious or stupid?

Could be.

[_DrW]

Official doctrine or not?

Current apostle? check
No new revelation to contradict previous doctrine? check
Published by the LDS church? check

Sounds official to me!

Oh dear...

The global Flood is indeed official LDS doctrine for all the reasons Truth Dancer gave and I've never said otherwise. However, it's not a problem vis a vis science for all the reasons I've stated. In a nutshell, it boils down to the appearance that the Church will not allow science to drive official doctrine over traditional Christian thinking but it will allow science to drive a member's beliefs without censure where there is no modern revelation to back up tradition.

bcspace,

Thank you for your reply, which appears to be problematic to say the least. As with a great deal of Mormon apologetics, your explanation brings George Orwell's Doublespeak to mind.

First you agree with Truth Dancer's definition quoted above of what constitutes doctrine, and affirm that the global flood and (by your agreement with TD) Holland's Earth renting tale are official doctrine.

Then you explain that "Official Church Doctrine" will not deviate from traditional Christian thinking, even when such traditional thinking is in direct conflict with scientific fact.

You then state that individual members would be allowed to believe the science in such matters if they chose to do so, without censure, provided that there is no modern revelation to back up the Christian tradition. Thus your latest response implies that there is no problem if a Mormon chooses not to believe in a global flood or the cataclysmic renting of the Earth and formation of the Atlantic basin within the last 10,000 years.

Before my head explodes, let me summarize the apologetic process in play here:

1. Agree with Truth Dancer that Holland's tall tale is doctrine.

2. Ignore for the moment the fact that Holland and other LDS Church prophets, seers and revelators, and indeed modern revelation through LDS scripture, have affirmed a global flood (as well as the Garden of Eden, renting of the Earth. Tower of Babel, and Kolob).

3. State that Mormons need not actually believe in this nonsense unless affirmed by modern revelation (which turns out to be the case for all of it, since it is in "revealed" LDS scripture or taught by LDS prophets).

4. State (as you have many times in the past) that LDS doctrine does not conflict with science.

While this is typical Mormon apologetics, it must be quite embarrassing when it appears in venues where it can be commented upon by those who do not drink the Kool- Aid.

[_Chap]

You know, when I read Hoops' responses in this thread, I really think I know the Bible a lot better than she does.

Could she be a troll, intended to discredit Bible-believing Christians by making them look either mendacious or stupid?

Could be.

Considering Hoops' literary style - stressing content-free one-liners and accusations that opponents are ignorant of the facts, and a frequent failure to produce substance when effectively controverted - together with the political attitudes she is displaying on another thread at the moment, I would like to express my growing suspicion that Hoops is a bcspace sock puppet.

I may be wrong of course: but at present a lot of the evidence seems to point that way.

Well Hoops, or bcspace?

[_Hoops]

Considering Hoops' literary style - stressing content-free one-liners and accusations that opponents are ignorant of the facts, and a frequent failure to produce substance when effectively controverted - together with the political attitudes she is displaying on another thread at the moment, I would like to express my growing suspicion that Hoops is a bcspace sock puppet.

I may be wrong of course: but at present a lot of the evidence seems to point that way.

Well Hoops, or bcspace?

Could be.

[_jon]

DrW,

Here's how I see the official Mormon stance on science (based on this thread and from the experience of a lot of years attending Sunday School and General Conference's).

a. If Science agree's with the Church's current official stance/doctrine then science is to be believed.

b. If Science disagree's with the Church's current official stance/doctrine then science is not to be believed.

Mormon's are encouraged to select the one option which best suits any particular circumstance.

[_DrW]

DrW,

Here's how I see the official Mormon stance on science (based on this thread and from the experience of a lot of years attending Sunday School and General Conference's).

a. If Science agrees with the Church's current official stance/doctrine then science is to be believed.

b. If Science disagrees with the Church's current official stance/doctrine then science is not to be believed.

Mormon's are encouraged to select the one option which best suits any particular circumstance.

jon,

Over on the MADBoard (MDD), believers keep pointing out that whether or not one believes the Bible and the Book of Mormon where they conflict with science "is not important to one's salvation". If it were, they claim, questions about such belief would be included in the TR worthiness interview.

Thus we have Mormonism's version of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" when it comes to science (evolution, global flood, tower of Babel, Book of Abraham, Native American DNA, Book of Mormon anachronisms, Kolob, "Reformed Egyptian", Jaredite transoceanic journey, Nephite transoceanic journey, angel Moroni, angel with flaming sword commanding Joseph Smith to commit adultery and the list goes on and on - and on).

It is hard to believe that this kind of doublethink is accepted as a reasonable policy, especially for a religion lead by men who claim to be in contact with God and know his mind and will.

[_jon]

DrW,

Here's how I see the official Mormon stance on science (based on this thread and from the experience of a lot of years attending Sunday School and General Conference's).

a. If Science agrees with the Church's current official stance/doctrine then science is to be believed.

b. If Science disagrees with the Church's current official stance/doctrine then science is not to be believed.

Mormon's are encouraged to select the one option which best suits any particular circumstance.

jon,

Over on the MADBoard (MDD), believers keep pointing out that whether or not one believes the Bible and the Book of Mormon where they conflict with science "is not important to one's salvation". If it were, they claim, questions about such belief would be included in the TR worthiness interview.

Thus we have Mormonism's version of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" when it comes to science (evolution, global flood, tower of Babel, Book of Abraham, Native American DNA, Book of Mormon anachronisms, Kolob, "Reformed Egyptian", Jaredite transoceanic journey, Nephite transoceanic journey, angel Moroni, angel with flaming sword commanding Joseph Smith to commit adultery and the list goes on and on - and on).

It is hard to believe that this kind of doublethink is accepted as a reasonable policy, especially for a religion lead by men who claim to be in contact with God and know his mind and will.

I wonder if they feel that medical science is not important to one's salvation...

[_DrW]

I wonder if they feel that medical science is not important to one's salvation...

As an apostate with a TBM physician for a son, I can tell you that medical science is well accepted by the LDS Church and its members. I think that this is the case for at least two reasons:

1. In the practice of medicine, one does not need to relate to science as a researcher does. As the word "practice" implies, physicians normally use science and technology rather than generate, create or invent it. This means that they need not adopt the logic and rationale upon which science is based into their daily activities and worldview to the extent required for basic research, research and and development or academic science.

2. Money. Sorry to say it, but my son has an income at 35, working essentially 4 days a week with 10 weeks of vacation a year, that I never saw until I was in my 50's, working full time as a senior executive with a generous overseas bonus package. I cannot believe the tithing that the Church makes off of that kid.

So, I would say that medicine is just fine. And so is dentistry. My sons went in Washington and would often talk about how the dental school there was jam-packed with BYU graduates.
___________________________

ETA: All three of my sons are TBM, have advanced degrees in science or medicine, and are able (so far) to live with the tremendous amount of cog dis that believing Mormons in the hard sciences are obliged to manage. When I look back at my journey out of Mormonism, I see that they are a bit behind for their ages. However, I have no doubt that two of them will make it out. The third one may not. Leaving would probably cost him his family at this point - and as the Church so cynically says (and I believe): Family First. With his family at risk, I would not encourage him to leave if he asked my advice on the matter.

[_Chap]

All three of my sons are TBM, have advanced degrees in science or medicine, and are able (so far) to live with the tremendous amount of cog dis that believing Mormons in the hard sciences are obliged to manage. When I look back at my journey out of Mormonism, I see that they are a bit behind for their ages. However, I have no doubt that two of them will make it out. The third one may not. Leaving would probably cost him his family at this point - and as the Church so cynically says (and I believe): Family First. With his family at risk, I would not encourage him to leave if he asked my advice on the matter.

What follows from this story?

The LDS church might be a great place to raise kids, so long as your kids are pretty credulous and uncritical. If they are bright and thoughtful, and if they are the sort who ask a lot of questions about the things their elders tell them, get them out as soon as you can.

Otherwise you risk finding that they eventually face the bitter choice of living what they believe to be a lie, or losing all the people who are dearest to them, plus a major chunk of their savings and future earnings.

[_jon]

Speaking of science...here is proof that the second coming is on it's way.

These signs of the Second Coming are all around us and seem to be increasing in frequency and intensity. For example, the list of major earthquakes in The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2004 shows twice as many earthquakes in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s as in the two preceding decades (pp. 189–90). It also shows further sharp increases in the first several years of this century. The list of notable floods and tidal waves and the list of hurricanes, typhoons, and blizzards worldwide show similar increases in recent years (pp. 188–89). Increases by comparison with 50 years ago can be dismissed as changes in reporting criteria, but the accelerating pattern of natural disasters in the last few decades is ominous.

So stick that in your collective pipe and smoke it Scientists!