How does science fit in with our doctrine?

[Guest tomk]

That is if the 'Earth' was here during the second creational periods; noting the obital length of time.

I don't know!

Abr. 3: 4

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

The star Kolob is closest to where God dwells, right?

Define "closest" ???

Which means a thousand years may not be equal to a day.

[Hemidakota]

The first creational period pointed out by the Prophet Smith failed at sometime during the animal creational period. He then explained, it was covered over with other fragments remains from other dead worlds. At that point, no one knows the exact location of the original planet or the orbital information to determine the exact age.

We do know, as you pointed out, from Abraham, what transpired during the second creation attempt by Deity.

So the exact age of the original earth and adding now the second try, is clearly unknown to us and science.

[DigitalShadow]

Science is the process of examining the world around us through observations and experiments. Religion is the process of answering philosophical questions through non-scientific means. By definition, religion requires a suspension of logic to accept, otherwise it would just be another branch of science.

Occasionally religious revelation and scientific knowledge come into conflict, to predend they never do is more than a little naive. In those instances you are to use your own judgement and reasoning skills (that God presumably gave you) to determine the truth for yourself. Whether the knowledge comes from scientific or religious methods, remember that both go through man and man is most certainly fallable. Examine the evidence (both spiritual and physical) and think for yourself.

[Misshalfway]

Science is the process of examining the world around us through observations and experiments. Religion is the process of answering philosophical questions through non-scientific means. By definition, religion requires a suspension of logic to accept, otherwise it would just be another branch of science.

Occasionally religious revelation and scientific knowledge come into conflict, to predend they never do is more than a little naive. In those instances you are to use your own judgement and reasoning skills (that God presumably gave you) to determine the truth for yourself. Whether the knowledge comes from scientific or religious methods, remember that both go through man and man is most certainly fallable. Examine the evidence (both spiritual and physical) and think for yourself.

I can only speak from experience. And my experience with religion and with the spirit of the Lord, does very much include logic.

I am not convinced that eternal truth and science are different things. Religion and science do conflict. And that is because one side, if not both in some cases, are wrong. But truth is like a room without walls all filled with light. If we could see and understand all, there would be no divisions or conflicts. One does not need to know it all to understand that somewhere someone does.

[Hemidakota]

Concur...

GOD’s knowledge, encompasses all field of academic studies based on our Telestial state and other known states HE resides, in its true light. There is no separation between science and religion [worldly dogma] between any fields. Conflicts come when opposing views crash.

Looking at three known states [Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial] given by the prophets, we cannot apply our known physical laws to the other states. As proven out by the Savior, when He walked across the water or told the Olive Tree to perish. He was not bound by this state or its physical laws as shown.

[HiJolly]

The first creational period pointed out by the Prophet Smith failed at sometime during the animal creational period. He then explained, it was covered over with other fragments remains from other dead worlds. At that point, no one knows the exact location of the original planet or the orbital information to determine the exact age.

I've not seen this quote/source/whatever-you-are-talking-about from Joseph Smith, and I've been doing a LOT of study on this very topic. Unless your source is Cleon Skousen?

Either way, can you cite where you get this from? I'd be most grateful.

HiJolly

[Guest tomk]

Science is the process of examining the world around us through observations and experiments. Religion is the process of answering philosophical questions through non-scientific means. By definition, religion requires a suspension of logic to accept, otherwise it would just be another branch of science.

Occasionally religious revelation and scientific knowledge come into conflict, to predend they never do is more than a little naive. In those instances you are to use your own judgement and reasoning skills (that God presumably gave you) to determine the truth for yourself. Whether the knowledge comes from scientific or religious methods, remember that both go through man and man is most certainly fallable. Examine the evidence (both spiritual and physical) and think for yourself.

Hey DS. :)

It depends upon your experiences in life.

I would say religion does not require a suspension of logic to accept, but rather a broadening of what sources of information we are willing to acknowledge. As I have said before, God's communication with us is extra-rational, not irrational or illogical. The mind of God is a paradox to the carnal mind. But just because it does not make sense to man does not mean that it does not make sense at all. It is our hubris that jumps to that conclusion.

2 Ne. 9: 42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

Sorry for saying so, but your expressed viewpoint is a good description of the problem. The only reason that religion and science come into conflict is our lack of understanding of God's ways, or our unwillingness to bend to His revealed truth (ironically in favor of a flawed scientific method).

I would tend to agree -- the problem resides in man. That is why humility and a willingness to change to align ourselves with God's will is so important.

[Hemidakota]

I've not seen this quote/source/whatever-you-are-talking-about from Joseph Smith, and I've been doing a LOT of study on this very topic. Unless your source is Cleon Skousen?

Either way, can you cite where you get this from? I'd be most grateful.

HiJolly

If you seen Nibley's office, then you pretty much seen my office space...stacks and stacks of material.

At home, I have hundreds of books from my early days church collection, beside the wifes love story version. Then we have over 6,000 electronic stored copies and still counting, of various books, church articles, conferences, speeches, earlier works, and so forth. Amazing, in the age of computing, our library of knowledge is endless but limited on storage space. Now I am on the new Joseph Smith website, trying to retract the latest releases articles, diaries, and anything he quoted.

Give me time to retract the information. I think I may of posted one time already but who knows where to look.

[Hemidakota]

Hey DS. :)

It depends upon your experiences in life.

I would say religion does not require a suspension of logic to accept, but rather a broadening of what sources of information we are willing to acknowledge. As I have said before, God's communication with us is extra-rational, not irrational or illogical. The mind of God is a paradox to the carnal mind. But just because it does not make sense to man does not mean that it does not make sense at all. It is our hubris that jumps to that conclusion.

I for one am grateful for worldly science and those contributions made in this world. For me, it is a mere stepping stone or jump point to seek an higher answer.

[Guest tomk]

I for one am grateful for worldly science and those contributions made in this world. For me, it is a smere tepping stone or jump point to seek an higher answer.

Yes!!

I am grateful for what science contributes!!

The images returned by Hubble have been amazing. They increase my awe of God, they do not diminish it.

I see science as "one way" man can come to understand just what an amazing Being God is!

[DigitalShadow]

Sorry for saying so, but your expressed viewpoint is a good description of the problem. The only reason that religion and science come into conflict is our lack of understanding of God's ways, or our unwillingness to bend to His revealed truth (ironically in favor of a flawed scientific method).

And I am sorry for saying so, but I believe your expressed viewpoint is a better description of the problem. The scientific method is flawed? How exactly is it flawed in your expert opinion?

From Wikipedia:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Using this method humans have created all the modern luxuries you now enjoy and you casually dismiss it as "flawed" because some of the conclusions it produces do not fit in with your world view?

What do you propose as the new way of gaining knowledge in this world? Find your local preacher, listen to him, read his proposed scriptures and then pray about it until finally get warm fuzzy feelings telling you he is right? If praying is such an accurate method, why can't someone who has had no contact with missionaries or preachers simply pray and get consistent results?

Science is constantly looking to expand our knowledge with observations, experiments and theories always taken new information into account, regardless of preconceptions we may have. The scientific method is what led us out of the superstitious dark ages where people were declared to be witches and of the devil because they were different in some way.

I'm sorry but simply "asking God" and then following the answer you receive requires a suspension of logic given the number of people that ask God and get inconsistent answers and the number of man-made religions that have existed throughout the years.

Religion and science conflict because they require two different ways of thinking to work and there is no way to follow the scientific method to religious conclusions. Let's try really quick.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations.

Which religion (if any) is correct?

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

There are a lot of smart people in the LDS religion, let's go with the theory that it is correct.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

Assuming the church is true, anyone honestly seeking God will receieve the truth.

4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.

I have attempted to personally ask God which church is true in order to find out which church is true. God has remained silent and either does not exist or refuses to answer. Furthermore many of my fellow man claim to talk to God and that he gives an entirely different message to them.

You can justify the results any way that you want and claim that God does not work that way and that I just need more faith before God will share the truth with me, but thousands of years ago people were just as sure that Zeus existed which leads me to believe that if you have enough faith in anything, you will get warm fuzzy reaffirming feelings that it does exist. While there is nothing wrong with believing those feelings, it is far from a logical endeavour.

Okay rant over. Sorry but I'm just a bit sensitive to people mocking science right now and I'm tired of all the misconceptions about the scientific method floating around this thread.

[Hemidakota]

Let me caution those who are non-members to place a disclaimer first: this site does not constitute doctrine for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and places it first priorities on the basic Gospel principles. As we learn the basics first, overtime we can grow and learn by personal revelation through the Holy Spirit and by the hand of Deity.

Earth Creations references:

Joseph Smith quoted:

"This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broken up and remodeled and made into the one which live." [Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, pg 60]

"This earth will be rolled back into the presence of God and crowned with Celestial Glory", [Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, pg 60]

B.H. Roberts quoted: "The Prophet Smith is credited with having said that our planet was made of the fragments of a planet which previously existed' some mighty convulsions disrupted that creation and made it desolate. Both its animal and vegetable life forms were destroyed."

'God, Man, and the Universe', page 335, Hyrum L. Andrus

'The Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity', B.H. Roberts, pg 279-280

'Foundations Stones of the Earth', The Contributor, Volume 11, 1890, No. 4

The Contributor, Volume 10, 1899, No. 7

Mediation and Atonement, pg 164 -165

CDG, pg 271 [Joseph Smith quote]

There are additional 32 books references, 4 from BYU Library articles snippets, 3 from Nibley articles [his thought on this subject]. But at least you can see the references and what transpired. Interesting since it can aid the science community and LDS expand their own knowledge. Searching for an accurate time line really has no relevance right now. We simply have to wait if we want to know how old this earth really is...

However, for others, read it, ponder what was digested, experimented on the words [Alma spoke of this], thus with an own formulated answer, approach Deity to see whether or not your answer is correct through prayer; the Holy Spirit will confirmed the truth.

[Guest tomk]

How exactly is it flawed in your expert opinion?

I never said I was an expert.

I believe the "flaw" is that science does not include God in their searching.

Using this method humans have created all the modern luxuries you now enjoy and you casually dismiss it as "flawed" because some of the conclusions it produces do not fit in with your world view?

Some of the conclusions, yes, are not necessarily in harmony with God's revealed truth.

My "world view" is that the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.

My foundational belief is that even an aetheist who is a scientist is still powered by God and inspired by God.

What do you propose as the new way of gaining knowledge in this world?

Follow the scientific method, but include God. Ask Him for inspiration.

If praying is such an accurate method, why can't someone who has had no contact with missionaries or preachers simply pray and get consistent results?

They can. Look at Joseph Smith's journey. He was not taught by the missionaries, but by God Himself.

Our missionaries teach what we believe God has revealed, but the Holy Ghost is the one who does the witnessing to the soul.

Science is constantly looking to expand our knowledge with observations, experiments and theories always taken new information into account, regardless of preconceptions we may have. The scientific method is what led us out of the superstitious dark ages where people were declared to be witches and of the devil because they were different in some way.

I said I am grateful for science. My suggestion that the scientific method is "flawed" was not to say that it yields no fruits AT ALL, or that it does not benefit mankind at all. I believe God expects us to use our brains -- just not to the exclusion of seeking His inspiration and input as well!!!

I'm sorry but simply "asking God" and then following the answer you receive requires a suspension of logic given the number of people that ask God and get inconsistent answers and the number of man-made religions that have existed throughout the years.

I am sorry if I misrepresented the scientific method.

I seek to have as much tolerance for those who misrepresent what I believe as well!!!

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations.

Which religion (if any) is correct?

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

There are a lot of smart people in the LDS religion, let's go with the theory that it is correct.

This is ONE way to look at it. I would not use "smarts" as my criteria, though.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

Assuming the church is true, anyone honestly seeking God will receieve the truth.

True! It is between YOU and GOD. I can only speculate as to why you say God is not answering you.

4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.

I have attempted to personally ask God which church is true in order to find out which church is true. God has remained silent and either does not exist or refuses to answer. Furthermore many of my fellow man claim to talk to God and that he gives an entirely different message to them.

You can justify the results any way that you want and claim that God does not work that way and that I just need more faith before God will share the truth with me, but thousands of years ago people were just as sure that Zeus existed which leads me to believe that if you have enough faith in anything, you will get warm fuzzy reaffirming feelings that it does exist. While there is nothing wrong with believing those feelings, it is far from a logical endeavour.

It is extra-rational, not illogical or irrational.

Okay rant over. Sorry but I'm just a bit sensitive to people mocking science right now and I'm tired of all the misconceptions about the scientific method floating around this thread.

It's okay.

I hope I have helped.

[DigitalShadow]

By the time I was done with that rant I realized I was being a bit harsh which is why I apologized at the end, but I still think that it is not a "flaw" that the scientific method does not include a step for asking what God thinks, it is a willful omission that improves method in general.

If every scientist stopped to ask what God thought and let that affect their findings, you would have a mish-mash of conflicting religious ideology supporting whatever the scientist initially thought rather than the conclusion that the results pointed to. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove all preconceptions (including God) and objectively test theories for their accuracy. Throwing God into the method practically negates the whole thing because there are millions of people who believe they are talking to God but getting conflicting messages... there is no reliable consistent way to "talk" to God and so it doesn't belong anywhere in science.

[Hemidakota]

Lack of faith is a major issue in the church and outside.

I can only imagine if Einstine or Tesla were members of the church and were obedient to the gospel, how far both fields would be now.

[DigitalShadow]

I can only imagine if Einstine or Tesla were members of the church and were obedient to the gospel, how far both fields would be now.

Exactly where we are right now? As far as I know there is no correlation between theism and scientific aptitude. In fact I've heard of studies that more scientists are atheists than in the general population but I would gladly retract my statement if you could point to any evidence to the contrary.

[Hemidakota]

Both men believe in a supreme being. At what point you can claim they were Atheists is nonsense. Notably, take a closer look in Einstein Biography past and his view on the universe organization and grandeur. I still have the book somewhere in my house. Both men I have deep respect for...some others that I failed to mention are great men of the world.

Thanks for your participation...:)

[Guest tomk]

By the time I was done with that rant I realized I was being a bit harsh which is why I apologized at the end, but I still think that it is not a "flaw" that the scientific method does not include a step for asking what God thinks, it is a willful omission that improves method in general.

If every scientist stopped to ask what God thought and let that affect their findings, you would have a mish-mash of conflicting religious ideology supporting whatever the scientist initially thought rather than the conclusion that the results pointed to. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove all preconceptions (including God) and objectively test theories for their accuracy. Throwing God into the method practically negates the whole thing because there are millions of people who believe they are talking to God but getting conflicting messages... there is no reliable consistent way to "talk" to God and so it doesn't belong anywhere in science.

DS:

I consider you to be a friend, and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs! I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'll monitor this thread until it seems dead and if I have something more to contribute before then I'll chime in.

Thank you,

Tom

[DigitalShadow]

DS:

I consider you to be a friend, and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs! I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'll monitor this thread until it seems dead and if I have something more to contribute before then I'll chime in.

Thank you,

Tom

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

I consider you a friend as well, and while I know we don't usually agree on issues, I enjoy our discussions :)

[DigitalShadow]

Both men believe in a supreme being. At what point you can claim they were Atheists is nonsense. Notably, take a closer look in Einstein Biography past and his view on the universe organization and grandeur. I still have the book somewhere in my house. Both men I have deep respect for...some others that I failed to mention are great men of the world.

Thanks for your participation...:)

Read over my post carefully and show me exactly where I say either of them were atheists. All I'm saying is that as far as any studies I've seen have shown, theism and devoutness to whatever God they choose to worship has little to no impact on aptitude for science. You can point out famous atheist and christian scientists all day and it doesn't mean anything other than that some people believe in God and some people don't and their belief doesn't have anything to do with their scientific endeavors.

You also made no comment on the meat of my post other than misinterpreting it, if you have contrary evidence, I'd honestly love to hear it :)

[Hemidakota]

Yes, reread it and apologized.

Outside the church science community, without personal contact with those individuals, I would be speculating on a person character and his beliefs was used.

[Hemidakota]

DS:

I consider you to be a friend, and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs! I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'll monitor this thread until it seems dead and if I have something more to contribute before then I'll chime in.

Thank you,

Tom

The world versus the believer. Wonder what the prophets must of felt when they view the Heavens through spiritual eyes and told about it to others. Never changes from one generation to another.

[DigitalShadow]

Yes, reread it and apologized.

Outside the church science community, without personal contact with those individuals, I would be speculating on a person character and his beliefs was used.

Sometimes I look back and think about Newton, Einstein and Tesla and imagine how much more they could have accomplished if they weren't confined to thinking within the bounds of religion. Then I laugh at myself for presuming to know what magic combination produced such genius and being so arrogant as to think that I knew how to improve upon it. :)

[Hemidakota]

Now that was arrogant statement on your behalf, knowing the real gospel of Christ is not to be 'lumped' with the worldly religions or man-made dogmas. I do see you are completely ignorant how 'inspriation' is given to men. Whether the 'Light of Christ' is given to a member or not, it is to be used for the benefit of all. However, "I testify to you, there is NOTHING in this world that has not been done in another world." There is not a direct association of authorship as we can call it but given to those by the Light of Christ to progress man.

Now, we could debate on doctrine on this very topic [inspiration] but seeing your own pride is revealing; for me, just plain stupid at this point.

"Now when a man professes to be greater than it own creator, the creator will eventually remove the man from his high-foot stool."

[DigitalShadow]

Now that was arrogant statement on your behalf, knowing the real gospel of Christ is not to be 'lumped' with the worldly religions or man-made dogmas. I do see you are completely ignorant how 'inspriation' is given to men. Whether the 'Light of Christ' is given to a member or not, it is to be used for the benefit of all. However, "I testify to you, there is NOTHING in this world that has not been done in another world." There is not a direct association of authorship as we can call it but given to those by the Light of Christ to progress man.

Now, we could debate on doctrine on this very topic [inspiration] but seeing your own pride is revealing; for me, just plain stupid at this point.

"Now when a man professes to be greater than it own creator, the creator will eventually remove the man from his high-foot stool."

And saying that if only they followed the Gospel more, they would have accomplished more is just as arrogant of a statement, glad we agree.

I hate to break it to you, but all religions are man-made and all religions claim to be divinely inspired. Saying that yours is so special that it can't be 'lumped' with others is a statement out of arrogance and ego. Whether one or more of them truly is divinely inspired is purely a matter of opinion and calling someone stupid for accepting or rejecting a particular religion is a rediculous claim.