Any Mormon doctrines that have adapted to science?

[Guest]

Link to Reddit thread.

I can't really think off the top of my head wear where (yeesh) Mormonism had a doctrine, science proved it wrong, and then later claimed that scientific theory/fact was Mormonism all along.

Am I wrong in thinking that Mormons tend to be progressive when it comes to learning? After all, the Glory of God is Intelligence. I'm not sure, but I'm thinking Mormons are generally less dogmatic than other 'isms out there...

V/R
Doc

[_canpakes]

Perhaps bcspace will be along any moment now to tell us how 'no death before the fall' meets this criteria.

[_moksha]

Science helps us expand our religious bubble of understanding. Right now there are Mormons who embrace evolution as the primary life creating tool of God, as well as Mormons that embrace the magic bolts of Creationism. So you might say, that we have big bubbles and tiny bubbles together.





Bcspace Pre-Adamite Medium Bubble

[_canpakes]

Bcspace Pre-Adamite Medium Bubble

Hey, looky at that. I think that I see God in the gaps. : )

[_bcspace]

Perhaps bcspace will be along any moment now to tell us how 'no death before the fall' meets this criteria.

Evolution and Death --> Garden State of No Death --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

What is it about a simple number line that you don't understand?

Plus you are forgetting that before the JFS/BRM non doctrinal bubbles of opinion, there was James E. Talmadge and B.H. Roberts; GAs friendly to science.

I can't really think off the top of my head wear Mormonism had a doctrine, science proved it wrong, and then later claimed that scientific theory/fact was Mormonism all along.

There is nothing about LDS doctrine that is in conflict with science.

[_sunstoned]

Perhaps bcspace will be along any moment now to tell us how 'no death before the fall' meets this criteria.

Evolution and Death --> Garden State of No Death --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

What is it about a simple number line that you don't understand?

Plus you are forgetting that before the JFS/BRM non doctrinal bubbles of opinion, there was James E. Talmadge and B.H. Roberts; GAs friendly to science.

I can't really think off the top of my head wear Mormonism had a doctrine, science proved it wrong, and then later claimed that scientific theory/fact was Mormonism all along.

There is nothing about LDS doctrine that is in conflict with science.

Your twisted logic basically throws every prophet, including Joseph Smith under the bus. Does your Bishop know you have apostate tendencies?

[_bcspace]

Your twisted logic basically throws every prophet, including Joseph Smith under the bus.

Any doctrinal examples? The 1931 statement already accepts the possibility of pre-Adamite races of man.

Does your Bishop know you have apostate tendencies?

I've had the pleasure of demonstrating the compatibility of Evolution with the doctrine on the Creation in Stake level meetings. I have freely admitted my disagreement over the Churches Global Flood doctrine in Church on Sunday.

Earlier this year, our Gospel doctrine teacher distinguished between a Global Flood and a Local Flood as if both were compatible with doctrine (not true). Yet no one blinked an eye and no one ran for the Bishop.

When I was a teacher (14-15 years old), I defended Evolution to my Quorum advisor and was hauled into the Bishop's office and queried over it. Presently, the Stake president sent word that I was a-okay.

What I haven't done is teach Evolution as LDS doctrine. Neither Evolution or Creationism is LDS doctrine. Neither conflicts with it either.

[_canpakes]

Perhaps bcspace will be along any moment now to tell us how 'no death before the fall' meets this criteria.

Evolution and Death --> Garden State of No Death --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

What is it about a simple number line that you don't understand?

Thank you; you've just restated your position to actually be 'Death before the fall, with a momentary intermission of no death, followed by death after the fall'.

This is quite a bit of gymnastics. Still, this is not the same idea as 'No death before the fall', a concept which is simpler and which does not include your exclusion.

There is nothing about LDS doctrine that is in conflict with science.

D&C 77 would stand as a simple example, with regard to the age of the Earth. You will, of course, seek to redefine 'day' or 'temporal', or state that we really do not know that the Earth is not actually 7K years old. That won't quite do the trick.

[_canpakes]

I have freely admitted my disagreement over the Churches Global Flood doctrine in Church on Sunday.

Earlier this year, our Gospel doctrine teacher distinguished between a Global Flood and a Local Flood as if both were compatible with doctrine (not true).

Why would you bother disagreeing with the LDS "Global Flood doctrine" if there are "no LDS doctrines that are in conflict with science"?

[_bcspace]

Evolution and Death --> Garden State of No Death --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

What is it about a simple number line that you don't understand?

Thank you; you've just restated your position to actually be 'Death before the fall, with a momentary intermission of no death, followed by death after the fall'.

If you actually look at the timeline, notice that there is no death before the Fall. I have highlighted it for you. Thus I can truthfully, logically, rationally, and without batting an eye state that Evolution is compatible with the doctrine of no death before the Fall.

It's almost as good as pointing out that Evolution, like LDS doctrine, teaches that like produces like and that one species always gives birth to the same species.