"Science and Mormonism have nearly always been on very friendly terms"

[drumdude]

Even when the prophet himself told Mormons to get vaccinated, based on science, many Mormons balked.

At their own prophet.

So they don’t believe in science, and they don’t believe in God’s supposed prophet. What do they believe in?

It seems many Mormons have started worshiping Conservatism and charismatic right wing leaders. Probably because Mormonism decided to marry itself to them in the “culture wars” as a nearsighted attempt to influence American politics and policy to be favorable to the church.

[JohnW]

JohnW, nice to see you again.

Chronologically, the Book of Mormon begins at the post-flood and immediately post-tower period.

How do you see modern revelation adjusting to scientific knowledge about these two Biblical events? Is there a reasonable way for the Book of Mormon to survive the scientific consensus that neither Noah's Flood nor the confounding of the languages a few hundred years later has a scientific basis? Are you ready to jettison the historicity of the Book of Jared, and all that is later implied? Will church leaders follow the implications, and reveal ... what?

You bring up a good point. It is entirely possible that much of our "friendliness" toward science comes from what I sometimes hear LDS scientists call the "two-hat" method. They have a science hat and a religion hat. When acting as a scientist, they lean into scientific explanations and when acting in church, they lean into religious explanations. This method has always made me personally uncomfortable, but I probably use it nonetheless. I think it works for most LDS scientists because most of the time science and religion don't overlap all that much. When they do overlap, religion can give way to science when it isn't a central tenant of a person's religion.

I would argue that the above topics you bring up would fall into that category. Floods and Languages aren't central tenants of our beliefs. Does that mean I can jettison them? I don't think I'm quite ready to do that entirely. It works for me personally, because I can just say I'll worry about that later, maybe the type of later that means after death. The way modern revelation adjusts to this is to downplay the importance of these issues, as Fence Sitter mentioned above. Of course, there are issues on which the church may take a stand. I think we see evolution as an example of this. At first, the First Presidency felt strong enough about the topic to send out an official proclamation on Adam and Eve and Evolution. Later prophets may have not emphasized that as much. Although from my viewpoint, the Fall of Adam as a doctrinal concept is still being taught, and it could be argued it is still rather central.

[Marcus]

...With modern revelation we tend to be just a little more agile than many other churches. The membership expects changes in policy and even sometimes doctrine to adjust to the times.

Wow. Can you document this in any way? Because it really does not sound like the LDS church. Maybe PR for the LDS church, but not the reality.

[JohnW]

Even when the prophet himself told Mormons to get vaccinated, based on science, many Mormons balked.

At their own prophet.

So they don’t believe in science, and they don’t believe in God’s supposed prophet. What do they believe in?

It seems many Mormons have started worshiping Conservatism and charismatic right wing leaders. Probably because Mormonism decided to marry itself to them in the “culture wars” as a nearsighted attempt to influence American politics and policy to be favorable to the church.

I can only give you the perspective from my own ward and stake in California. Yes, we saw some of this regarding vaccination. The ones that were hesitant to get vaccinated lasted a little while. When the prophet came out and told members to get vaccinated, most of the people who were hesitant did finally get vaccinated. A very small percentage were holdouts. Funny enough, the members who were holdouts were on the extreme right and left. In California, it seems to me that, historically, anti-vaccination folks were all on the extreme left until just a few years ago.

This isn't a scientific study in the least. All I'm saying is that I saw a little of what you describe, but not much. I can't speak for wards in Utah or elsewhere. I expect that there may be places where extreme right politics dominates a ward or stake. I have heard stories stating as much, I have just never witnessed it personally. Regardless, I don't know if we can make the statement that a huge percentage of Latter-day Saints are worshipping at the alter of Conservatism or don't believe in their own prophet. Although I will agree with you that the trend is a little unsettling for me.

It used to be that I only had friends who left the church over liberal issues. I now have friends who have left the church over conservative issues. We seem to be loosing people on both the political left and right. I guess when politics becomes everything to a person, there are plenty of reasons to leave the church regardless of whether you are on the left or right.

[JohnW]

Mormonism and science are on friendly terms for a variety of reasons, none of which actually can be used as evidence of Mormonism.

Yeah, when we start using science as evidence for our theology, that is when we run into a lot of the problems you describe. It is a difficult thing. We as humans like to have reasons for what we do and believe. It is even better if these reasons are obvious to everyone. However, we as humans should balance that desire with the fact that some important things we do in life just don't have clear reasons for doing them. I personally try to find balance between making sure my decisions are well thought out while not being paralyzed when I need to make a decision for which things aren't entirely clear.

[JohnW]

It seems to me that if Mormon God were to be really friendly with science, the Mormon God would be inspiring his people to invent something that would simultaneously benefit society while affording an income sufficient for the Church's needs. Sure tithing is a religious tax that allows the faithful to show fealty to the master church. But, it seems contrary to what parents want to do for their children. Parents don't tax their children, but provide a way to have their children succeed, if possible.

Additionally, Mormon scientists aren't any better than other scientists. The Mormon god isn't "inspiring" them any more than any one else. Where are the Mormon nobel prize winners? They should be winning the prize every year, showing how great the Mormon god is. When I was young, I can't remember how many times the old would get up in testimony meeting or speak in sacrament meeting about how since the restoration, the Mormon god inspired inventions to aid in the work. They would talk about Farnsworth and the Television and Eyring and how great a scientist he was, as well as Widsow and Talmage. However, Mormons aren't any better at science than anyone else. It's as if there really isn't a Mormon god out there, except in the minds of the Mormon magicians who lead the church and hide the money.

My understanding of Latter-day Saint Theology is that God doesn't only bless his own people. There is a scripture somewhere that says rain comes on both members and non-members. This comes from the fact that everyone is a child of God. If God wants to bless his children and make their lives better through some invention, he doesn't restrict himself to just using members of the church. This explanation may not be satisfying, but that is what I was always taught.

[JohnW]

...With modern revelation we tend to be just a little more agile than many other churches. The membership expects changes in policy and even sometimes doctrine to adjust to the times.

Wow. Can you document this in any way? Because it really does not sound like the LDS church. Maybe PR for the LDS church, but not the reality.

I don't think I can document it. It is more of a hunch. If two entities are in a changing environment and one of them has built into the hierarchy a way to adapt, it would seem like all other things being equal, it would be better at adapting. Usually when we use the term "all other things being equal" it isn't actually the case, so I could certainly be surprised here. I'm not sure how one would go about measuring this apart from looking at history, which wouldn't be easy to show.

[Marcus]

Wow. Can you document this in any way? Because it really does not sound like the LDS church. Maybe PR for the LDS church, but not the reality.

I don't think I can document it. It is more of a hunch.

Oh, ok, thanks. PR it is.

[Gadianton]

f two entities are in a changing environment and one of them has built into the hierarchy a way to adapt, it would seem like all other things being equal, it would be better at adapting

You did see the graphic Morley posted, right?

[Morley]

I have thought a lot about the relationship between science and religion. With regards to Latter-day Saint theology, I agree that using the term "very friendly" is a stretch. What he might be intending to say is that LDS theology is friendlier to science than mainstream Christian religions.

John, given that opinion, how would you explain this:



https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... evolution/

I'm not sure I can explain that one. I think this will probably have to fall under my earlier statement that we have a mixed track record on actually accepting scientific principles.

If LDS theology is, by and large, "friendlier to science than mainstream Christian religions," then you should have a pretty easy time composing a list of the times Mormons have led their fellow Christians in accepting science. No?

I'm unable to come up with much of anything. Please help me out.