Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Conflicts with Science

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to MormonThink page "Conflicts with Science"

Blacks and the Priesthood

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

The Greek Psalter Translation

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the MormonThink article "Conflicts with Science" appears to take are the following:

• Critics assert that acceptance of scientific facts and a belief in God are incompatible.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The leaders of the church, as well as gospel doctrine teachers the world over, have taught that many Biblical events and beliefs that people have had for centuries are indeed true, historical events.

FairMormon commentary

• Correct. FAIR believes that these Biblical events are true, historical events as well.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The LDS church teaches that the flood of Noah was a literal global and worldwide event, and that the flood was the Earth's baptism...."we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." January 1998 Ensign, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry Our comment: How much clearer can you get? The Ensign article makes it extremely clear what the LDS position is on Noah and the Flood. [The Ensign articles are all approved by the First presidency and almost considered scripture.]

FairMormon commentary

• The only item at issue here is that the Flood waters "covered the entire earth." We do believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, built and ark and floated safely away during a catastrophic flood. Whether the Flood covered the entire globe, or whether it only covered Noah's world, it makes absolutely no difference.
• If everything in the Ensign were "almost considered scripture," then one would be required to accept John Sorenson's 1984 articles on a limited Book of Mormon geography, despite the fact that most Church members believe in a hemispheric geography.

Additional information

• Global or local Flood—How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Even the LDS apologists admit that the church clearly teaches that story of Noah was a real event and it was a global flood: Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  
• It is correct that this is likely never to change, since a belief in either a global or local flood does not alter the teaching that Noah was an actual prophet who saved his family from a catastrophic flood that wiped out all those with whom he associated.
• The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood — one limited to the area in which Noah lived — is the best explanation of the available data. People of either view, or neither, can be members in good standing.
• Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints can hold different views on the issue of whether Noah's flood was local or global. Members of any given LDS congregation may have of a variety of points of view, and many have no firm opinion one way or the other.
• A belief in either a global or local flood is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally.

Additional information

• Global or local Flood—How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
[A] brief summary of problems with the Global Flood: 1. Ice. 2. Genetic Diversity. 3. Worldwide distribution of species. 4. Fish and coral. 5. No room on the ark. 6. No geological record. 7.Where did the water go? 8. How did the carnivores survive? ....Critic's comment: The idea of a universal flood simply does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. How can an honest person deny his/her God-given intelligence and seriously believe in such an obvious myth? And setting aside the impossibilities of Noah's tale for a minute, are we really to believe that every single inhabitant of the earth (save 8 people) were all so absolutely wicked, including the children, that they all deserved to be killed? And who would want to worship a God anyway that would murder all but 8 of his children on earth because they had grown too wicked?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  Pay close attention to this bizarre contradiction: "How can an honest person deny his/her God-given intelligence and seriously believe in such an obvious myth?...And who would want to worship a God anyway that would murder all but 8 of his children..." The critic argues that you must by denying your "God-given" intelligence if you believe in God!
•   The author is using sarcastic reasoning  —The critic makes sarcastic claims that are intended to generate an emotional reaction.
  The argument "who would want to worship a God...that would murder..." isn't an argument against Latter-day Saints, but against a belief in any sort of supreme being. The critics simply don't want you to believe in God at all.
•   Believers not being honest  —Critics imply that if you do not accept their view, that you are "intellectually dishonest."
  The critic implies that the believer is dishonest for believing in the Bible.
• We agree that the evidence is against a global flood, which is why some believe that the flood was local in scope. This does not, however, place us at odds with the Church since we believe that Noah existed, that he was a prophet, and that he and his family were saved from a catastrophic flood by following God's commandments.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Implausibility of Sun getting its light from Kolob

FairMormon commentary

• There are plenty of metaphorical explanations that do not require one to ignore the obvious science. Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Sun receives its literal light from Kolob.

Additional information

• Relationship between Kolob and the Sun—The Book of Abraham states that “the sun [is said] to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power (Abraham Fac 2,Fig 5),” while astrophysics has shown that “The Sun shines ... because of thermonuclear fusion. It does not get its light from any other star.” (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Implausibility of no death before the Fall. The fossils of animals and plants that have lived and died on this earth are thousands and millions of years old. From ancient dead animals and plants, it takes millions of years for oil and coal to form.

FairMormon commentary

• Some LDS leaders have interpreted LDS scripture to teach that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam for all plants and animals. Others have seen pre-Fall death of plants and/or animals as compatible with LDS doctrine, with the doctrine of "no death" applying only to Adam and Eve within the garden, and not the wider physical creation.

Additional information

• Death before the Fall—Does LDS doctrine hold that there was no death before the Fall of Adam? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Age of the Earth. D&C Sec.77:6 (emphasis added) Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals? A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during theseven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed? A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh. -- Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 77 (1832)

FairMormon commentary

• The language in our scriptures from which such dating of the "age of the earth" is drawn is not intended to provide the kinds of scientific information that some people insist on having. The best answer to questions about the date of Adam or the age of the earth is simply that we have no revealed knowledge on the topic. It is also important to bear in mind that having or not having such information is not crucial for our salvation.

Additional information

• Age of the Earth—Do Latter-day Saints believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Why does Doctrine and Covenants section 77 say that the history of the earth covers only seven thousand years? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
[T]he quotes given above by the prophets since Joseph Smith's time show that the LDS Church clearly taught that the earth was only thousands of years old instead of billions of years old for all of the 19th century and much of the 20th century. The quotes in the Doctrine & Covenants are canonized scripture and cannot be discarded so casually as many LDS apologists like to do. Many gospel doctrine teachers still teach that the earth isn't nearly as old as scientists say.

FairMormon commentary

•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  LDS apologists do not treat the scriptures casually, nor do they discard them.

Additional information

• Age of the Earth—Do Latter-day Saints believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Why does Doctrine and Covenants section 77 say that the history of the earth covers only seven thousand years? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Belief in Evolution

FairMormon commentary

• The Church's response: Official statements regarding organic evolution===
  • First Presidency letter, "The Origin of Man" (November 1909) This was reprinted in 2002 (“The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26)
  • First Presidency statement, "Words in Season" (December 1910)
  • First Presidency letter, "'Mormon' View of Evolution" (September 1925)
• Despite the fact that the Church has no official position on evolution beyond those expressed by the First Presidency, some general authorities and lay members have considered evolution to be at variance with scriptural teaching. This view is well summarized by Elder Bruce R. McConkie's statement, "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution."^[1] Other authors, including Joseph Fielding Smith, held similar views.

Other Church authorities and members have seen much of value in evolutionary theory, even if they have not endorsed every aspect of it. Examples include James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and LDS chemist Henry Eyring.

Additional information

• Evolution—How does the Church reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of Adam? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Implausibility of Adam and Eve being the First Humans

FairMormon commentary

• There has been a great deal of controversy among Church members over the issue of pre-Adamites. Some general authorities accepted their existence, while others completely denied it. The most famous disagreement was between Elders B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith.

Additional information

• Pre-Adamites—There is scientific evidence of human habitation for many thousands of years. How do we reconcile this with the idea that Adam lived approximately 6,000 years ago? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
From the FAIR apologists Like the FARMS apologists, the FAIR apologists also seem to be at odds with the church teachings. Most FAIR apologists accept the data supported by science to agree that there was no global flood. Our response to FAIR: You could probably believe whatever you want about anything taught in the LDS Church and they are not going to kick you out of the church. Of course believing in the story of Noah isn't one of the temple recommend interview questions. That isn't the issue. It also doesn't doesn't mean you can dismiss the huge problems this creates for the church if the story of Noah and a global flood isn't true as the church teaches.

FairMormon commentary

• The critic is assuming that the entire story of Noah is a fiction. Latter-day Saints (including those who are members of FAIR) believe in the story of Noah. We believe that Noah existed, that he was commanded to build an ark, and that he and his family were saved from a catastrophic flood by doing so. FAIR is not at odds with church teachings regarding Noah.
• The only thing at issue is the scope of the flood, and differences in belief on that point are not essential to salvation. So what if Church leaders believe that the Flood covered the entire globe? So what if some believe, based upon scientific evidence, that the Flood was local in scope? It simply makes no difference to the teachings in the Church that Noah was a prophet, and that he did as God commanded him.

Additional information

• Global or local Flood—How do we deal with the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood? How can the scriptures and prophets teach of a worldwide flood, when this contradicts the evidence? The biodiversity of plants and animals on the earth could not have occurred within the span of a few thousand years. Did the continents separate during the flood of Noah? Doctrine and Covenants 133:23–24 seems to imply that they did. How do we reconcile this to scientific fact? Didn't Brigham Young, John Taylor and Orson Pratt teach that the Flood was the baptism of the Earth? (Link)