NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority

[woot]

Don't get me wrong, in general I totally agree with you. For me when pretty "solid" science conflicts with a religious teaching, I just move on and figure somewhere somehow something was misunderstood.

On the other hand just because science is evolving and additional data is coming in doesn't mean that the science is then correct. Take global cooling about 20-30 years ago. Man was screwing things up so bad the earth was going to freeze. That was based on evolving science. Now the evolving science has taken us to global warming or have we moved to climate change. The Indians probably had the climate change science down pat.

Again, I believe in a form of evolution and don't know exactly how Adam and Eve fit in. However, I am not one who believes so called "science" has all the answers.

This is a myth. Yes, there were a few papers that hypothesized a global cooling trend, but they were a very small minority. Even at the height of the cooling hypothesis, warming papers outnumbered cooling papers 10 to 1. Even if the myth of a global cooling consensus were true, it would still be an example of the scientific community changing its mind as more data became available, which was the Dude's point.

It will always be a mistake to see a single scientific paper and assume that the truth has been established, just as it will always be a mistake to discard a solid scientific consensus for any reason other than new and extremely convincing data. As a rule those who reject scientific consensus do so for bad reasons.

[SeattleUte]

religion and science

[Uncle Ted]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone post a link to any church produced document (lesson manual, GA book, CES course, movie, video clip, online resource, etc.) that discusses Joseph's polygamy? I'm really just curious if one exists.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/12/t...amily?lang=eng

In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith. Nearly a year later, Joseph Smith dictated the general revelation about the eternity of marriage and the nature of plural marriage, and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed. Thus, Newel’s desire to have the word of the Lord has blessed the entire Church by preserving what is now Section 132 [D&C 132] in the Doctrine and Covenants. ¹¹

^{Of course this article was written by D. Michael Quinn so maybe it doesn't count.}

[Moliere]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/12/t...amily?lang=eng

^{Of course this article was written by D. Michael Quinn so maybe it doesn't count.}

Nice find. Being in the Ensign counts.

[Harry Tic]

Nice find. Being in the Ensign counts.

I think that we'd find that, if we were all more careful readers of the Ensign, most of the difficult issues raised on this board have been thoroughly addressed in its pages. Heck, if SU had read the Friend more diligently as a kid instead of just trying to get his picture in "Friends in the News," he'd be a Stake President by now.

[DrumNFeather]

Mattson's situation made Real Time with Bill Maher this week. Maher sort of took it to the extreme saying that he agreed with Mattson that Mormonism was just a bunch of nonsense (pretty sure Mattson didn't say that).

[Indy Coug]

Someone needs to get Maher on CS.

[Uncle Ted]

Someone needs to get Maher on CS.

OK, here you go... (skip to around the 4m mark)

[Moliere]

Someone needs to get Maher on CS.

He isn't already? http://www.cougarstadium.com/member.php?1279-calicoug

[woot]

I recently ran across this comparison between the original and current versions of D&C section 8. All things considered, the church did an admirable cleanup job. (See the short passage highlighted in yellow)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/160000153/...ants-Section-8

[pellegrino]

I recently ran across this comparison between the original and current versions of D&C section 8. All things considered, the church did an admirable cleanup job. (See the short passage highlighted in yellow)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/160000153/...ants-Section-8

I believe that was done under the direction of Joseph himself, not the contemporary church. What you're looking at is the passage from the Cook of Commandments (1833) to the Doctrine and Covenants (1835). Not that it excuses anything, but it's important to realize that we have always wanted to portray ourselves in the best light possible, which has resulted in revisionist tendencies.

[Northwestcoug]

One wonders why God's revelation needs editing in the first place...

[Harry Tic]

One wonders why God's revelation needs editing in the first place...

You'd have to have some incredibly restrictive views on what counts as revelation to think that genuine revelation excludes the possibility of editorial changes. When you're talking about rendering in human language something which presumably exceeds language, it would be more surprising if you didn't need to edit and revise.

[Indy Coug]

You'd have to have some incredibly restrictive views on what counts as revelation to think that genuine revelation excludes the possibility of editorial changes. When you're talking about rendering in human language something which presumably exceeds language, it would be more surprising if you didn't need to edit and revise.

When Christ visited the Nephites, there was one or more times where what he shared was simply too difficult to articulate in writing.

[Moliere]

You'd have to have some incredibly restrictive views on what counts as revelation to think that genuine revelation excludes the possibility of editorial changes. When you're talking about rendering in human language something which presumably exceeds language, it would be more surprising if you didn't need to edit and revise.

There's a pretty big difference (at least in the current church) between the PH and a divining rod. I'm not sure that's just a matter of rendering, or at least it's not the way we are instructed in revelation today.

That's not even the biggest editing issue pertaining to the PH in the D&C. Isn't there a revelation that now contains a reference to the appearance of Peter James and John, which reference didn't exist in 1833?