The Gospel vs. Science - Automatic Victory?

So I was listening to a talk on the radio the other day... it had the feel of a BYU devotional or CES fireside. I don't know who the speaker was, but they quoted (I hate when people do this, so I'm trying to track down the quote) Elder Maxwell on the subject of conflicts between science and religion. He said something about how the gospel embraces all truth, and that true science never conflicts with the gospel.

The speaker then went on to point out that our understanding of science is limited, but that the eternal gospel is unlimited. That, for him, when there is a conflict, it doesn't bother him for they will one day be reconciled.

All well and good. But here's my problem with the idea: While it's true that our knowledge of science (both individually, and collectively) is quite limited and imperfect. And it is true that the eternal gospel is limitless and complete and perfect. But, since when did we believe that our understanding of the gospel is complete and perfect? We don't! Continuing revelation is not just about establishing new quorums of Seventy and calling new Apostles. It's about revealing the Christ didn't, in person, actually go to the spirits in Prison, despite the fact that the Bible says he did. It's about eternal damnation not really meaning damnation of an eternal duration, but rather of an Eternal kind (being God's - where one of His chosen names is Eternal).

So revelation has, can, and will continue to change our understanding of the doctrines of the Eternal Gospel. So why, when a conflict arises, is there an automatic victory for the currently held belief in the church? Isn't it just as likely (ok, maybe the odds are not the same. They could be higher or lower) that the prophet will later reveal a change as it is that the scientific evidence will be overturned by newer research?

Modesty, Garments, & Nudity? - Part 2

To not be lost, catch the first part of the discussion of modesty in Part 1.

(My apologies, it's a bit late for coherent writing, but I wanted to finish this before time gets away from me.)

So, back to modesty. What is it really all about? I think it's about avoiding pride. If we look at it this way, the admonition to be be modest in our dress has more to do with dressing so as not to intentionally draw undue attention to ourselves, being "free from conceit or vanity." Wearing a swimsuit to church would be immodest, because it would serve to draw attention to myself. Going swimming in tuxedo would likely have the same result. It seems that it is all about our attitude in the clothing choices we make. The outcome we desire has an impact on the correctness of an action.

Modesty, Garments, & Nudity? Part 1

Wow... after reading over at MormonMatters about the mormon nudists, I've been doing a lot of thinking. I've also been scanning the bloggernacle for older posts having to do with modesty, nudity, and the garment. I have to say my thinking has undergone some interesting shifts over the last couple of weeks.

So what exactly is modesty? It's really interesting, considering the emphasis in the current church, that I wasn't really able to find anything in the scriptures on the subject. A quick search of the scriptures led to a single use of the word modest, in 1 Timothy, Ch 2. Here, the use seems to fall in line with the traditional definition of modesty, which has nothing to do with dress per say. It's about being humble. About avoiding what the Book of Mormon calls fine twined linens and costly apparel. About not being prideful.

Looking through the scriptures, I find lots of negative comments about clothing generally, and some neutral ones like admonitions not to worry about it. When it's not mentioned negatively, any positive views are often talked about only in reference to clothing the naked. Here, it seems, it's more about providing something to someone who is poor, no different than providing housing to the homeless.

Mormons: Don't We Want Further Revelation?

I just stumbled accross a survey done by Pew on Religion. They've got their findings nicely presented at their site. As I went through the questions, it was interesting to see how the different churches ranked for different things. It was also interesting to note that the Mormons seem to always be flanked by the Jehova's Witnesses, the Evangelicals, and the Catholics. We always tend to be at one extreme or another.

One question I saw as particularly interesting was number 11. It asked, "Should your church: A) preserve its traditional beliefs and practices; B) Adjust beliefs and practices in light of new circumstances; C) Adopt modern beliefs and practices; or D) other?"

68% of Mormon's went with preservation (A), 23% think we should adjust in light of new circumstances (B), only 3% want to adopt modern practices (C), while 6% went with other (D).

From an LDS view, I completely understand the repudiation (97% of us) of choice C... of course the church shouldn't just adopt "modern" beliefs and practices about everything. But really, only 23% for choice B? It seems to me to be by far the best choice for a church who believes in continuous revelation. Preserve traditional practices? What about polygamy? That was changed due to new circumstances was it not? (See Official Declaration #1) The entire argument Wilford Woodruff makes seems to be one of adjusting our practices in light of new and changed circumstances (laws enacted by congress, what he saw would happen if they didn't). What about adding to the quorums of the Seventy? Making the endowment videos? Changes to the endowment ceremony, and more recently to the initiatory?

If a GA says that we'll never go to the moon, don't we adjust that belief when 1969 rolls around and Neil Armstrong proves otherwise? If BRM says blacks will never have the priesthood, don't we change that belief, and the practice of not ordaining them (or endowing them, sealing them, preaching in Africa, etc.) when new circumstances arise (i.e. Pres. Kimball - See OD #2)?

For me, the having C listed as an option (adopting modern practices) softens B considerably. B seems to be an ideal choice for the latter-day saints. Where does this desire to preserve historical practices come from? Why would we value them over the new? I guess I just don't see the value in or have a desire for the Church to try to preserve traditional beliefs/practices just because they're traditional. If male/female societal rolls are simply tradition, lets have away with them. If they're an intrinsic part of our eternal being, then let's uphold them.

Or are we (68% of us) just terrified of someone misinterpretting us as meaning C, that we move past B and all the way to A, just to make sure?

Scriptures... A few thoughts

Sorry everyone... it's been a while.  But I'm back from break, and things should get back to normal now.

For Christmas I recieved a copy of the "Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow," from Desert Book's Gospel Scholars Series. So far it's been a pretty good read, and I've enjoyed it.  I thought today I'd just share some thoughts on some things I read yesterday, about the scriptures.

First, a quote from Elder Packer: "If [you] are acquainted with the revelations, there is no question -- personal or social or political or occupational -- that need go unanswered.  Therein is contained the fulness of the everlasting gospel.  Therin we find principles of truth that will resolve every confusion and every problem and every dilemma that will face the human family or any individual in it."

Wow!  That's a gigantic claim about the contents of the scriptures.  I'm not entirely sure how to take it though.  Is he saying that in the scriptures we will find the answers to every question we might ever face?  Do they contain information about particle physics etc?  Or is he saying that in them we find the means to obtain such information, such seeking learning by study and faith, and out of the best books?  If this is the intent, I think the statement is a bit of hyperbole.

------------------------------------

A quote from Pres. Lee:  "I say say that we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures.  If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren't able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false--it is as simple as that.  But the unfortunalte thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves.  I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers of today."

Now, I really liked this quote.  I think that if we, as a church, did a much better job in learning what is actually written in scripture, we'd be much less liable to buy into a lot of speculation that gets thrown around in the church, and accept it as doctrine.  But, I am curious as to how this fits in with a quote from the next page in the book from Brigham Young:

Wilford Woodruff tells a story of when there was some discussion in a meeting in the early church as to the place of the written scripture vs. the living oracles, and whether the prophet and church leaders should be limited by what's in the scriptures.  Brigham youn stood up and said, "There is the written word of God to us, concering the work of God.... And now, when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation.  I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."  Then Joseph got up and said, "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth."

So I guess my question is, how does the quote from Pres. Lee relate to that of Brigham Young, especially as it relates to the general authorities, or even "a man bearing the Holy Priesthood." Does the word of an Apostle supercede canonized scripture?  Does it do so only if it's a statement from the First Presidency and Quorum of the the Twelve? From either?  

For example:  I don't suppose I can think of an Apostle who enjoyed speculating, and preaching it as definitive truth, more so than Elder McConkie. So what of it?  Should he have followed the council of Pres. Lee, limiting himself rather than proclaiming that there was no death before the fall, or that any who imagine that God might progress in actually learning new things must be as smart as a bit of primordial goo? Or should we as a church accept his word, as a living oracle (well, living at the time), even though there's no definitive doctrinal answer in the scriptures? (I'm not just talking about these two issues... there's tons of them, so I'm not looking here for a discusssion of the progression of God)

And I guess a final dimension the this problem would be one in which the prophets disagree.  Evolution, for example.  We have different Apostles with very conflicting views on the subject.  Why don't they stick to the council of Pres. Lee and leave the thing unanswered?  Should they?  Ultimately, that is what the First Presidency did, telling the general authorities to leave the subject alone, leaving geology, biology, etc to the scientists of their respective fields, and the church to the subject of saving souls.

(I've got to get to class now, but I'll try and get some references in here for all who might like them in the very near future.)