- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Bruce in Montana wrote:
And then there is the idea that the fossil record, which amounts to about 2 pieces in a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle, is simply the remnants of a former creation. Good luck trying to find a “scientist” that will agree with that…I don’t blame them actually, the fossil record is all they have so they have to try (rather successfully if you go in any college classroom) to make it worth much more than it actually is.
Yes…you can talk to “these people”.
I am one…..talk away.
I will give this a shot. It is not a matter of science or any particular belief system. It is a matter of empirical evidence. If I observe something, that should be just as tangible and valid as a emotional experience telling me of truth. Using the fossil analogy you can claim that it is some minor pieces that have no importance but the empirical evidence does not support this conclusion. It is a matter of how the fossils are laid down and how they are grouped. And yes many animals have been entirely reconstructed from the fossil remains. Granted a very small portion of the animals that lived are recorded in fossil but those that are give a very detailed picture. It simply is not logical to say that this record is not valid. You can apply this same logical reasoning to many areas such as the flood, the age of the earth, and others. The empirical evidence all points to the reality that scripture in these areas is either incorrect or as I choose allegorical, but certainly not literal. Of course you can always take the position that God made the world with fossils intact, which many do, but I choose not to trust a God who would be so deceptive.
I certainly hope I wasn’t the sunday school teacher that suggested to Maple Leaf the idea that fossils and dinosaur bones may be a remnent of the unorganized matter God gathered together when putting together this earth. I came upon that idea independently (as I remember, anyway) many years ago when trying to justify what I learned about the earth in school and in church. I remember spouting that idea to friends and anyone who might listen and may have hung on to the idea past mission and in early SS teaching years. Ooops. I don’t think this was a unique idea, however. I think lots of people came up with this one. Isn’t it funny when that happens? You think you have an original idea only to find 174 other people also thought of it independently? The “Nephi Wise Man” idea was also one of my originals that turned out to be not so original (though I never considered Samuel and Lehi as part of that group). Anyway, what I wanted to bring up, and maybe this isn’t the right thread, is the idea (not one of my ideas) that in the Big Inning, God hit one out of the park and sent the world up up and away out of its orbit into where it spins now, taking with it all that it already developed and evolved. Equally silly on one hand, but plausible if you squint the right way and consider the relativity of dimensions, time, space, and coelacanths.
How we build our story of creation is a choice, and all the stories hinge on faith at some point, even the scientific ones. It is much easier to interact and deal with other people that realize this. Like the original point of this post, it is frustrating at times dealing with people who do not have a conscious understanding of their story building. It’s OK for people to believe in metaphysical creation. It might not be useful if they are a geologist or a biologist that also has to solve problems of physical science, but they are honestly just fine for the vast majority of people who do not deal with that stuff on a day to day basis.
There are important philosophical implications to being a child of God as apposed to a clever and overly evolved ape, or seeing the earth as a creation by a divine being as opposed to a random accident of the universe.
Old-Timer wrote:Good point, Bruce. Even as we criticize those who are certain, and even as we talk about nuances and moving through stages of faith, we still tend to speak in condescending tones when we speak of those things of which we, ourselves, feel certain.
It’s good to be reminded of that natural hypocrisy occasionally.
Thanks Ray. May I constantly be reminded of my own hypocrisy. I know I’m human and I posses it as much as anyone.
I like the way Henry Eyring (Mormon Scientist) approached the age of the earth. To him it wasn’t just the fossil record, he saw
multiplethings that pointed to an old earth and apparently he had no problem saying it was billions of years old. Cnsl1 – I love hearing your ideas!
Quote:it is frustrating at times dealing with people who do not have a conscious understanding of their story building.
This sums it up to me, regardless of the topic. But as Ray points out, very few people you encounter will question their own assumptions. If you have a questioning mind but the other person doesn’t, it’s going to be a pointless one-sided conversation. As the saying goes, “Don’t get into a skirmish of wit with an unarmed opponent.”
Quote:
“You can lead a Mormon to science, but you can’t make him think.” or “”God proves scientists wrong all the time.”
When Mormons say stuff like the above, I try to remind myself that is not the Gospel as I understand it. Then I re-read the following verses to remind myself that I do have a good reason.D&C 109: 7 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 88:118.
Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”
D&C 88:78-80
Be instructed in theory, principle, and law of all things that pertain to the kingdom of God, including things of heaven, earth, geology, history, current events, and probable future events, things of our country and countries abroad, and international events.
Moroni 7:19
Search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
In a Sermon on Sunday, July 9th 1843, Joseph Smith proclaimed himself a friend to all, having “no enmity against anyone.” He asked, “Why is it this babbler gains so many followers, and retains them?” He explained his secret simply: “Because I possess the principle of love.” Offering the world “a good heart and a good hand,” he declared himself “as ready to die for a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or any other denomination” as “for a Mormon.”
Narrowing the gap between Latter-Day Saints and those of other denominations, the prophet asserted, “we do not differ so far in our religious views.” He declared the Saints’ faith ready to receive the truths of all others: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may.”
Oh how could I forget: D&C 93: 36
The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
D&C 130: 18
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
D&C 88: 40
For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own
It was my understanding that Bruce R. McConkie was the one who made the “God merged old planets together and Dino-fossils come from those old planets” theory popular. He and his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith both believed this. Can anybody confirm this for me? I remember hearing from a valid source, but it’s been years. On this topic, I gave a guest lecture in a BYU history 201 class just last year, my topic being “the Bible as historical source.” I felt the same frustration this thread addresses. In an auditorium of about 200 students, I was very surprised to see that not ONE student would was willing to say the Bible
mightnot be 100% fact. Not one student would vary from the literalist-young earth theory in any measure! I was still TBM myself at the time. This lecture was a turning point for me. I thought I was mainstream LDS up to this point. That is when I started to realize that, though still TBM at that point myself, I had views that were not in line with the majority of the Church. I am sure, and hope, that there are many members who don’t dismiss logic. I don’t expect or even want everyone to interpret things the way I do, and I know there are TBMs we can talk about these things with. But if that lecture was any indicator (201 is a general education course, btw; so it makes a good sampling of typical BYU students, not historically-minded BYU students) the average BYU student certainly has no problem dismissing science if it is encroaching on their faith.
Very interesting thread. I believe that in a couple of Sundays, we’ll be dealing with the topic of “creation” in the Priesthood manual. I have not studied the manual, but am looking at offering a rebuttal of sorts to the expected onslaught of young earth baloney that will be spewed that day. Are there any websites from LDS scientists who back up the idea of evolution? I have been encouraged to read some quotes from Eyring’s father and from the Roberts-Smith debates, but are there current writings about it? Let me make it clear: I believe Adam was the father of mankind as we NOW know him and that God did indeed direct the creation, but I am a strong believer that man is a product of evolution. Your thoughts? Quote:I believe Adam was the father of mankind as we NOW know him and that God did indeed direct the creation, but I am a strong believer that man is a product of evolution. Your thoughts?
Yup.
That’s how I
**choose**to see it. Sounds totally reasonable to me too Tigger. I would add that it is possible even to hold multiple creation myths in your mind and heart simultaneously — using the one you need in the most appropriate setting.
Tigger wrote:Very interesting thread. I believe that in a couple of Sundays, we’ll be dealing with the topic of “creation” in the Priesthood manual. I have not studied the manual, but am looking at offering a rebuttal of sorts to the expected onslaught of young earth baloney that will be spewed that day. Are there any websites from LDS scientists who back up the idea of evolution? I have been encouraged to read some quotes from Eyring’s father and from the Roberts-Smith debates, but are there current writings about it? Let me make it clear: I believe Adam was the father of mankind as we NOW know him and that God did indeed direct the creation, but I am a strong believer that man is a product of evolution. Your thoughts?
Years ago I mentioned to the Gospel Doctrine teacher before class that I was prepared to provide a counter position on evolution, were anyone to ‘dis’ evolution during the lesson. The teacher didn’t bring it up, nor did anyone else, so it was a moot point. I thought it only fair to let the teacher know I would not be silent.As for the earth made from pieces of other earths, while this is true in a sense (our star is probably a 3-generation star, and is made from the exploded components of previous star/planets) yet the temple tells us that it was “matter unorganized” that this creation came from, so presumably fossils could not have kept their form as the process unfolded. The first I heard of the “other peices” theory was from Cleon Skousen in his book “
The First 1,000 Years“. I agree with you completely re: God, creation and evolution.
HiJolly
Tigger wrote:Are there any websites from LDS scientists who back up the idea of evolution? I have been encouraged to read some quotes from Eyring’s father and from the Roberts-Smith debates, but are there current writings about it?
Here’s a website for you:http://www.dhbailey.com/ Check the links, especially the “other papers” and the “Science Meets Religion” website at:http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org David is a top scientist in his field, BTW.
HiJolly
It’s great to see you pop in HiJolly! There are some really good posts by Steve P over on By Common Consent that deal with science and also evolution.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.