Mormons

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I guess I can appreciate the thought behind it when its there not to create conflict, I never had this problem with my parents, my mom is catholic and my dad episcapalien ( i dont no how to spell that) and I was raised catholic with my dad never goign to the episcopal church, but rather attendign catholc masses. He never converted to catholicism, but it worked out with my parents, so its hard i guess for me to picture something like that being a hard issue.

It can work with less demanding religions, unless one is extremely avid in their belief. The issue is with the LDS Church is that it is heavily family oriented, and requires a lot of its members. A member on average devotes at least 3 hours on Sunday for services, and frequently 2-3 hours one day a week for youth group support, most serve as a teacher of some sort, so lesson planning is needed, also once a month active members should go on visits to other members homes, service is promoted, so men tend to be aiding someone at least a few hours a month, there are a lot of things going on in a Mormon community. So if one of the partners is not active it effects the overall result for the ones that are active with the perception of possible loss.

mormons....

Originally posted by dave_kodak
mormons....

😆

daves....

regrets....😆

😐

😆

exactly

I decided to post a couple of articles dealing with Mormon views on science. The following posts will be decent overviews. They are in response to questions that had been posed by Mormons to the Leadership of our Chruch, and the responses given by an Authority in that leadership.

The Articles are old, published in 1960 I believe.

Evidences and Reconciliations - John A. Widtsoe

25. WHAT IS THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARD SCIENCE?
This question, frequently asked, is readily answered.

The Church, the custodian of the gospel on earth, looks with full favor upon the attempts of men to search out the facts and laws of nature. It believes that men of science, seekers after truth, are often assisted by the Spirit of the Lord in such researches. It holds further that every scientific discovery may be incorporated into the gospel, and that, therefore, there can be no conflict between true religion and correct science. The Church teaches that the laws of nature are but the immutable laws of the Creator of the universe.

This view has been held consistently by the Latter-day Saints from the organization of the Church. A revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1832, when science was yet in its swaddling clothes, declares:

And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand.

Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—...

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D. & C. 88:77, 78, 79, 118)

President Brigham Young frequently expressed support of the labors of men of science. For example, in one of his sermons he said:

I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood.... In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp.397, 398)

President Joseph F. Smith made similar statements:

We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.... True science is that system of reasoning which brings to the fore the simple, plain truth. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, pp. 1, 6)

The gospel and science have the same objective—the discovery and possession of truth—all truth. Hence follows the attitude of the Church toward science expressed at the head of this chapter. However, science has been content, until recently, to study the material universe, and to leave its findings without reference to their possible effect upon human conduct. The gospel on the other hand is primarily concerned with the manner in which truth is used in the spiritual field, that is, with human conduct. For example, science has discovered explosives of great power, and has shown how by their use rocks may be shattered or projectiles shot through the air, and has left this knowledge without comment as to its proper use. The gospel teaches that this new power be not used in warfare, for wars are evil, but that it be used in the peaceful arts of man. The gospel deals with right and wrong; science as yet has scarcely touched this field. The gospel accepts God as the author of all knowledge; science gathers facts and tries to interpret them, without reference to a Supreme Being. In short, the gospel is the more inclusive; present-day science, less inclusive. In the end, the two must become as one, for their common objective is truth.

The Church holds that the methods used by science to discover truth are legitimate. Indeed, all instruments and means developed for the exploration of nature are welcomed. The Church claims the right to employ, in addition, such processes as are peculiarly fitted to its search for truth in the spiritual domain, which in turn may become tools in the advancement of a future science freed from its present material bondage. In this wholehearted acceptance of science, the Church makes, as must every sane thinker, two reservations:

First, the facts which are the building blocks of science must be honestly and accurately observed. In science, as in every human activity, dishonesty, carelessness, or aberrations of senses or mind may be encountered. The Church expects science to present accurately observed and fully corroborated facts. Loose methods of study are not acceptable. Indeed, the vast body of scientific facts has been so carefully garnered that it may in the main be accepted without question.

Second, the interpretations of observed facts must be distinctly labeled as inferences, and not confused with facts. The human mind properly attempts to explain or interpret the phenomena of nature, the facts of observation. A pencil looks bent in a glass of water. Why? asks the eager thinking mind. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Why? Does the sun move around the earth, or does the earth revolve upon its axis, to give the effect of day and night? The answers to such questions are explanations or interpretations, really inferences, often called hypotheses or theories. These do not have the certain value of facts, for they usually change as new facts are brought forward. For example, with the knowledge at his command, Newton advanced the theory that light consists of particles; later, Young explained the phenomena of light as forms of wave motion; today with increasing knowledge both of these theories are questioned, and another one is in the making. Meanwhile, the phenomena of light remain unchanged; they are the same today as in the time of Newton. Occasionally, but seldom, an inference such as the cause of night and day becomes so well supported by discovered facts that it assumes the dignity of a fact. Most inferences, however, are in a condition of constant change, due to the continuing accumulation of new knowledge.

Dr. Albert Einstein, author of the relativity theory, speaks of scientists as men who seek solutions of the mysteries in the book of nature (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, pp. 1, 5). He insists that nature's mystery story is not only still unsolved but may not have a final solution. All that man can do is to collect facts, arrange them in an orderly fashion, and then to make them understandable by "creative thought"—that is, by the formulation of inferences, explanations, interpretations, hypotheses or theories, whatever the name may be.

In this particular do Latter-day Saints, in common with all thinkers, sound a warning to science. There must be a distinct segregation of facts and inferences in the utterances of scientific men. Readers of science should always keep this difference in mind. Even well-established inferences should not lose their inferential label. The facts discovered by an eminent investigator may be safely accepted; his explanations may be of doubtful value.

It is within recent time that Millikan and Compton, both Nobel prize winners, held widely differing explanations of the nature of "cosmic rays." And, recently, also, the discovery of the skull of a prehistoric ape with a set of human-like teeth has overthrown the inference that teeth are always true indications of the place of a fossil in the evolutionary scale. With respect to this latter matter, there was pathos in the remark of the famous anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith, that "This discovery has destroyed the finer points we anthropologists depend on for drawing the line between anthropoid and man."

In summary: The Church supports and welcomes the growth of science. It asks only that the facts of science be as accurately determined as human powers permit, and that confusion between facts of science and inferences of science be earnestly avoided.

The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth.

Evidences and Reconciliations - John A. Widtsoe

26. HOW TRUSTWORTHY IS SCIENCE?
Science is man-made. It consists of facts and the explanations of facts. Facts are gathered by man through his senses. Explanations are the products of the mind. Therefore, the trustworthiness of science may be measured by the accuracy of human senses and the clearness of human thought.

The senses of man are greatly limited. A beloved friend a few hundred feet away is but one of hundreds of indistinct, passing figures. The eye cannot see far, clearly. The common speech of man becomes but a confused murmur a short distance away. The ear cannot hear distant sounds, clearly. Far enough away the eye does not at all distinguish figures, or the ear, sounds. So with the other senses.

Further, no two pairs of eyes see exactly alike. No matter how careful and honest the observers are, the moon is not of the same size to them, nor the length of a measured stick. Knowing this, men of science make repeated observations of the same phenomenon, and then seek other observers to check the findings. Even then, the final result is only an average of observations made, approaching the full truth. Every competent scientist is aware, often painfully, of these limitations placed upon the senses of man.

Moreover, the eye is sensitive only to a small part of the wave spectrum. Above and below the visible spectrum are greater invisible fields. The ear can detect only a small span of sound waves. A more sensitive hearing organ would hear a universe of sound now closed to man. The unaided senses of man at the best can know only a very small part of the universe in which man dwells.

To increase the power of the senses, aids to the senses, instruments, have been devised.

However, all aids to man's senses, instruments made by human hands, lie under definite and often serious limitations. The accuracy of the telescope is decreased by distortions due to the nature of the glass of the lenses; there are disturbing reflections, refractions, and colored fringes that hinder clear vision. The most fundamental constants of science are not absolutely correct. The velocity of light, atomic weights, the force of gravity, and the many other constants from which the pattern of science is woven, are but approximations, often very close, to the true values. There is always a margin of error. The true scientist admits this, and works on with the powers at his command towards a higher degree of accuracy.

Scientific explanations, products of thoughtful reflection and reasoning upon observed facts, are often nothing more than shrewd guesses or good probabilities. That the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is an unchanging fact of human experience. In earlier days, and for centuries, it was held that this observation was due to the daily journey of the sun around the earth. Now, with new facts at our command, we explain night and day by the complete rotation of the earth upon its axis, every twenty-four hours. A straight stick placed in a glass of water looks bent. That is an age-old observation, the explanation of which has been changed several times. The nebular hypothesis long explained the origin of the solar system; now another inference holds sway. In the subatomic world of electrons new discoveries are made almost daily, and the explanations are in constant flux. Chromosomes now hold the center of the stage in the field of heredity, but the explanations of their relationship to the properties of life are the present guesses of the best scholars, which may be overturned tomorrow. Newton was only recently pushed out of his old place by Einstein. No scientific worker worthy of his task attempts to give a scientific explanation a higher standing than that of an intelligent guess, supported by existing facts. New discoveries may modify or upset the explanation (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics).

The rising and setting of the sun, the bent stick in the pool are safe facts of experience. The exact length of the day or the degree of bending of the stick may not be determined with absolute accuracy by our poor senses. But such facts are immeasureably more trustworthy than the general explanations of such current, well-established facts. Facts of observation are generally more trustworthy than inferences by the mind.

Cocksureness in science is a mark of the immature, often self-deceived, worker with nature. Those who have moved man's knowledge and control of nature forward, and greatly, have always stood humbly before the inexhaustible ocean of the unknown which they are trying to explore.

Science is trustworthy as far as human senses and reason are trustworthy—no more. When the credentials of science are examined, the claims of religion seem more credible than ever. (Cook, The Credentials of Science, the Warrant of Faith).

Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower—but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all
I should know what God and man is.
—Tennyson

I have another question about Mormons. I know that you do not believe in the supernatural Regret because you have said so. Is this a Mormon teaching or is it unique to you?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I have another question about Mormons. I know that you do not believe in the supernatural Regret because you have said so. Is this a Mormon teaching or is it unique to you?

It is unique to me.

But then by not believing in supernatural, I am only stating that supernatural occurrences are merely occurrences that as of yet have not been possible to study. So I do believe in spirits, blessings, etc. I merely believe they are beyond our current understanding as to how to scientifically study them, not that they do not exist.

Was that clear, or was it still a little vague?

Evidences and Reconciliations - John A. Widtsoe

30. TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION BE ACCEPTED?

The answer to the above question depends on the meaning assigned to the word evolution. Among people generally, as well as by a group of scientists who should know better, the word is used with unpardonable looseness. Especially should the difference between the law of evolution and the theory or theories of evolution be stressed whenever the word is used.

In its widest meaning evolution refers to the unceasing changes within our universe. Nothing is static; all things change. Stars explode in space; mountains rise and are worn down; men are not the same today as yesterday. Even the regularities of nature, such as the succession of the seasons or of night and day, cause continuous changes upon earth. Everywhere, a process of upbuilding or degradation is in evidence. The face of nature has been achieved by continuous small and slow degrees. This has been observed by man from the beginning, and must be accepted by all thinking people. Darwin knew it no better than the peoples of antiquity. The law of change, an undeniable fact of human experience, is the essence of the law of evolution (H. F. Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin).

The great champion and amplifier of the doctrine of evolution, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, defined the law of evolution by saying, in substance, that whatever moves from the indefinite to the definite, is evolving; while that which moves from the definite to the indefinite, is dissolution or the opposite of evolution. Nebulae passing into stars are evolving; stars broken into cosmic dust are dissolving (Herbert Spencer, First Principles). When simple units are used to build up more complex structures we have evolution. When any structure is broken down into constituent elements, we have its opposite, dissolution. Evolution in this sense is the same as progression or growth.

From this point of view the law of evolution, representing eternal change upward, becomes a basic, universal law, by which nature in her many moods may in part be explained. Indeed, it has been one of the most useful means of interpreting the phenomena of the universe. The first and most notable deduction from the law of evolution is that, in the words of Spencer, "We can no longer contemplate the visible creation as having a definite beginning or end, or as being isolated" (Herbert Spencer, First Principles). That is, existence is eternal.

The noisy babble about evolution, often disgraceful to both sides, since Darwin wrote Origin of Species, has been confined almost wholly to speculations or guesses concerning the cause, methods and consequences of the law of evolution. The law itself has not been challenged. It is so with every well-established, natural phenomenon. Inferences are set up to explain observed facts. Such hypotheses or theories, which are often helpful, become dangerous when confused with the facts themselves. There are now many theories of evolution, all subject to the normal scrutiny to which all theories should be subjected; and until their probability is demonstrated, it is well to remain wary of them.

The foremost and best-known theory of evolution is that all living things on earth, whether fish, insect, bird, beast, or man, are of the same pedigree. All creation, it declares, has come from a common stock, from a cell formed in the distant past. Man and beast have the same ancestry. In support of this theory numerous well-established observations are presented. These may be grouped into five classes:

First, the fossil remains of prehistoric life on earth show that in the oldest rocks are remains of the simplest forms of life; and as the rocks become younger, more complex or more advanced life forms seem to appear. The scale of life appears to ascend from amoeba to man, as the age of the particular part of the earth's crust diminishes.

Second, each group of living things has much the same bodily organization. In the case of mammals, all, including man, have similar skeletons, muscular arrangements, nervous systems, sense organizations, etc. In some species the organs are merely rudimentary—but they are there.

Third, the embryos of man and higher animals, in the earlier stages, are identical, as far as the microscope can reveal. This is held to mean that embyronic development summarizes or recapitulates the stages of man's development through the ages of the past.

Fourth, all organic creatures may be so grouped, according to structure and chemical nature, as to show gradually increasing relationships from the lowest to the highest forms of life. Similarities in blood composition are held to indicate nearness of kinship. The blood of the great apes is very similar to the blood of man.

Fifth, it has been possible, within historic times, to domesticate many animals, often with real changes in bodily form, as the various breeds of cattle, sheep, or dogs. Besides, isolated animals, as on the islands of the sea, have become unique forms, differing from those on connected continents.

These facts, so claim the proponents of the theory of evolution, all point to the common origin, and an advancing existence, of all animal forms on earth. To many minds these observations, upon which in the main the theory of evolution rests, are sufficient proof of the correctness of the theory of evolution. It is indeed an easy way of explaining the endless variety of life. All life has grown out of a common root. The ease of explaining the origins and differences among life forms has won much support for the theory of evolution (Sir Arthur Keith, Concerning Man's Origin, and Darwinism and What It Implies; H. H. Newman, Evolution Yesterday and Today).

Yet, at the best, the doctrine of the common origin of all life is only an inference of science. After these many years of searching, its truth has not been demonstrated. To many competent minds it is but a working hypothesis of temporary value.

Many weaknesses in the theory of evolution are recognized by its adherents. Two are especially notable.

First, many reported similarities are far-fetched and not well enough established to be acceptable as the foundation of a world-sweeping theory. It is surprising how many such cases have been found. (Douglas Dewar, Man a Special Creation; Sir Ambrose Fleming, Evolution or Creation; E. C. Wren, Evolution, Fact or Fiction) Moreover, many actual similarities may be interpreted in more than one way. The theory of a common origin is only one of several possible explanations of the mass of biological facts.

to be continued...

Continued...

Second, the theory fails utterly to explain the emotional, reasoning, and religious nature of man, which distinguishes him so completely from the lower animals. One defender of the theory declares that the brains of man and monkey are identical anatomically, but that the larger size of the human brain accounts for the higher intelligence of man. This suggestion falls to the ground in face of well-known facts such as that the ant shows greater intelligence than the cow. Many notable advocates of the theory, such as Darwin and Huxley, have stood helpless before the mental, emotional, and moral supremacy of man over the ape, the animal most like man in body. Conscience is peculiar to man. Evil, sin, goodness, truth, love, sacrifice, hope, and religion separate man from the highest animal by a gulf not yet bridged by any scientific theory.

The doctrine of the common origin of life on earth is but a scientific theory, and should be viewed as such. Clear thinkers will distinguish between the general law of change or evolution accepted by all, and the special theories of evolution which, like all scientific theories, are subject to variation with the increase of knowledge. Honest thinkers will not attempt to confuse law and theory in the minds of laymen. The man, learned or unlearned, who declares the doctrine of the common origin of life on earth to be demonstrated beyond doubt, has yet to master the philosophy of science. The failure to differentiate between facts and inferences is the most grievous and the most common sin of scientists.

This is the trend of thought in the best scientific circles. In the words of Professor Punnett of Cambridge University, scientists "still hold by the theory of evolution, regarding the world of living things as dynamic, and not a static concern." But the interpretation of Darwinism has changed greatly. The theory of evolution "is released today from the necessity of finding a use for everything merely because it exists." More interesting, the glib talk about changing species is subdued. "Species are once more sharply marked off things with hard outlines, and we are faced once more with the problem of their origin as such. The idea of yesterday has become the illusion of today; today's idea may become the illusion of tomorrow" (Punnett, "Forty Years of Evolution Theory," in Background to Modern Science). That is the spirit of science. By slow degrees, among many changes, accepting, rejecting, striving, it may in the distant future reach the correct understanding of final causes.

The majority of the advocates of the theory that all life came from one stock believe that the primeval cell originated by the chance assembling under favorable conditions of the constituent elements of cellular substance. That means that life is only an accidental intruder into the universe. The immediate logical weakness of this view is that if life on earth began by the fortuitous assembling of inorganic materials in a slimy, primitive pool, other equally favorable pools for the generation of life may have existed, thus providing more than one origin of life.

Those who insist that all life on earth has come from one source are almost obliged to rule God out of the picture; for, if a Supreme Being is allowed to create a living cell in the beginning, He may at will create other life at different periods of time. Even believers in God who accept the theory of evolution as a final explanation of the origin of life forms, are inclined to insist that the theory represents God's only method of creation. Nearly always, those who so believe refuse to admit that any other process may also be in operation. They would limit God to one method of operation. Fettering God, or unbelief in Him, or making Him merely a universal super-force, have been usual companions of the theory of evolution (W. W. Keen, I Believe in God and Evolution).

Latter-day Saints accept every scientific fact, but rate theories based upon the facts as human explanations of the facts, likely to change as new facts appear. They do not deny that an evolutionary process, a reflection of the gospel law of progression, may be one of the methods of the Lord's labor in the universe. That does not mean, however, that the Almighty cannot perform other acts of will for the promotion of His plan, as, for example, the special creation of man. God is a purposeful Being; whatever is on earth or in heaven has been designed for the accomplishment of the divine purpose—the welfare of man. The spirit of man, itself intelligent, purposeful, is an eternal pre-existent being. He reaches beyond the confines of earth. He was with God before the earth was made. The theory of evolution does not explain the external man.

Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints. The evidence for God is yet greater than for the chance creation of the earth and its inhabitants. Mind and thought shape a work of art from the marble block. More marvelous than any human work of art is man. However he may have risen to his present high estate, it has been by the operation of mind and thought. That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man. The great law of evolution may have many forms of expression, far beyond man's present comprehension.

In fact, the whole squabble about evolution centers upon two questions. Did life on earth come by chance or by divine will? If by divine will, is God limited to one process? These questions are as old as history. The ancients asked them; and those who come after us will ask them.

Here, then, is the answer to the question at the head of this chapter: The law of evolution or change may be accepted fully. It is an established fact so far as human power can determine. It is nothing more or less than the gospel law of progression or its opposite. Joseph Smith taught that men could rise towards Godhood only "by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace; from exaltation to exaltation." Modern revelation also says, "For I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth" (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 3:5), and further that each creation "remaineth in the sphere in which I, God created it" (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 3:9). This last statement suggests limitations placed upon development under the general law of progressive change. The theory of evolution which may contain partial truth, should be looked upon as one of the changing hypotheses of science, man's explanation of a multitude of observed facts. It would be folly to make it the foundation of a life's philosophy. Latter-day Saints build upon something more secure—the operation of God's will, free and untrammelled, among the realities of the Universe.

Thanks, I actually got some of that when I took my evolution class at BYU. Widtsoe and Talmage both took favorable views on evolution, while Joseph F (or Fielding, I always get those 2 mixed up) Smith was adamantly against it. Both sides wrote on the issue, but the official stance was that there was no stance. If I remember right there were actually 2 official statments that mentioned evolution, and all they really did was affirm that God is our Father and that Adam was our progenitor. They said something to the effect that it has not yet been revealed exactly how God went about his work of creation, specifically the creation of the human body.

Yeah, that is agreed.

I would say it [evolution] needs to be studied at very intently by members of the Church.

Well, I think that if you're going to express an opinion on anything a little research is in order, but as far as salvation goes... How much is the how really going to affect it? It's the why and what that's really important.

Agreed, with the why being of utmost, at least as far as our actions go.

One of my favorite member of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Seventies.

Quotes from J. Golden Kimball:
"Cut me off from the church? They can't do that! I repent too damn fast."
"I may not walk the straight and the narrow, but I sure in hell try to cross it as often as I can!"
"I love all of the brethren, but I love some a hell of a lot more than I do others."
"I don't know how the people of St. George can stand the heat, the Indians, the snakes and the flooding Virgin River. If I had a house in St. George and a house in Hell, I'd rent out the one in St. George and move straight to Hell."
"This city (Brigham City) looks like hell. You need to clean things up, mow the grass, paint your houses and barns. And you sisters, you could stand a little paint yourselves."
"Young men, always marry a woman from Sanpete County. No matter what hard times you experience together, she has seen worse."
"I understand you brethren can't go on missions because you swear too much. You can overcome it. Hell, I did.' ....

Originally posted by docb77
Well, I think that if you're going to express an opinion on anything a little research is in order, but as far as salvation goes... How much is the how really going to affect it? It's the why and what that's really important.

The how gives us a better/more detailed understanding of the why.

i love mormons...they're always so cheery...even when i answer my door after crawling out of bed...rubbing my eyes....crusty day old pants riding up the crack of my ass and a big dose of morning wood....nothing phases them....great bunch

😖 😆