Alternate Angles to “Reflections of a Scientist” by Henry Eyring Sr.

I am not against the author, I’m with him in his overall thesis of the book which is that we should seek and embrace true science. I merely question whether much of our current science is true science.

-To begin, I loved this book and hope everyone will read it. You might not think that in that this essay is in debate with the book. I merely want to put out the platform that those who believe in science and religion don’t necessarily have to be whole hearted organic-evolutionists or big-bang-theoryists or man-from-apeists or old-earthists; however true those THEORIES may be. One may be familiar with several of the cosmological and philosophical explanations of the theories of the universe which are in fact NOT these theories, and much evidence is there to support them in their own arguments. I took a class on astronomy just a little while ago where we considered some of these, along with the other mainstream contemporary theories. While I’m not one to give a grand presentation on these alternate theories, I do feel that some of what I have to say is of value, and I must say, non-dogmatic.

–This is an interesting book, very compelling, he breeds tolerance for those of different ideas than your own within the realm of reason and toleration, even to a religious man, and even particularly to a religious man. But I have some very strong objections. Since Eyring is here bold about questioning the teachings of the prophets, I will here be bold about questioning his teachings, and receive the similar respect of a questioner. AKA, Eyring probably wants people to question his scientific theories. If we didn’t question him, we would not be very good scientists.

-But in this article, I will not limit my thoughts on the subject only to science, I will try to, as has been my area of scholarship, include other realms of consideration which can, and helpfully so, be brought into the contemplation of these issues.

-He does not consider the thieving men who, not being scientists, pushed the study of science into the field of evolution and that sort of thing, for their own purposes of discrediting religionists, showing that things happening very slow meant that no God needed to be involved. (See book “Using the Book of Mormon to combat the Falsehoods in Organic Evolution” by Clark Petersen)

-The authors point of view is that the miracles in the bible could have really happened, or not. He doesn’t care. He says they can be expressions or mistranslations for all he cares. He also gives the theory that they are higher laws being expressed. I suppose the author is right in all of this, but I think we are allowed more boldness in our belief of the events of the bible!

-Some historians, for example, and this is actually their current “decision” of what the facts are, discredit the prophet Job as being a true, historical character, who once lived like you and me, and classify him as an imaginary character. But then comes in the word of God in the D&C, when God tells Joseph to cheer up, as his lot is not yet as difficult as Job’s was. Would God do something so mean as to compare a person with a fictional character as basis for the persons’ need for fidelity in the face of trial? That would not be fair. That would be the equivalent of you chastening your children by saying, “Come on, Barney the Purple Dinosaur goes around loving people all day, why can’t you!?” So here we have one of ten thousand examples wherein the wisdom of man is foolishness unto God. (And for the further inquirer, no, I think Job not an alien from another planet, I think him a person of this earth subject to what we are, and that especially because of the scripture in modern revelation which reveals that any ministers to this earth, yes, any angels which visit and teach us here, will be those whom have lived out their mortality on this earth. (Even Jesus did his mortal life on this earth. The Father did his elsewhere in yonder earth creation of his father, but such is of no import, Father is over all, and even he abides the law of not ministering to this fallen earth, and has his son do the vast majority of those personal encounters.))

-When one takes the view of “you don’t have to belief anything that is not true”, which he presents in the text, though true, it’s very dangerous that you’ll get into hesitating obedience. How would such a person respond to something like, per se, the law of polygamy which God had the Saints practice in early church history? Would he regard that as a mere false opinion of the leaders of the church? That is an extreme example, but my point is that we must be able to follow council of our leaders even when we do not understand it. We pray for guidance, but we go forward with faith. The scripture says that this life is about walking by faith. He confesses that revelation is possible, that God can come and give instruction to man, but does he reject some of that instruction? I’m not saying that he necessarily does, but it’s with great care that one should take up these views; One interesting point on this topic is Hugh Nibley says the way to tell when a prophet is speaking as a men vs merely as himself, that one must decide for themselves. But the difficulty of this remains. Eyring seems to keep this discussion about science, and points out that little is mentioned of the topic in official scripture standard works, and thus says it could merely be a topic not very important for us, and hence we can go either way with it. But what about when the Lord speaks a certain instruction, though not frequently. Should we heed it, or brush it aside because of its infrequence? I don’t accuse the author of doing such a thing, but I point out that perhaps such a pitfall would be a powerful temptation to one who takes such views. If one is to put himself deep into the philosophies of man, he had better make well sure that he is simultaneously putting himself in deep in the philosophies of God. Let not the scientist be ignorant of the other dimensions of human experience, which, though harder to measure, must be addressed in the all-encompassing reality we call truth.

–he suggests manna doesn’t need to have come from heaven, but that it could have merely been something that fell off of a tree which they ate. The symbolism of the manna is that it is like Jesus Christ. It came from heaven miraculously to save the people from otherwise certain death. Same with Jesus Christ, he came from heaven to save the people. But if we take the scientific view that the manna was not from heaven, it seems to break down the whole purpose for all of this, as well as a multitude of other scripture symbols.

-It seems that much science is presented which impresses the mind in this text and indeed does fascinate, but not much of it seems to explain the why of Darwinism, organic evolution, the big bang theory, evolution, and other controversial topics of contemporary mainstream science. Some of the science shown could possibly go towards this, but it’s QUITE reasonable to say that it could also go the other, or another, way entirely. One must beware of brainwashing when he has attended 25 years of education in the same society, especially one as fragile and politically loaded with ladder climbing and social prestige as this society is. It should be all too familiar to us how a cunning adult can load a child with unfair data only supporting his way of looking at things, while neglecting to show the child the debates on the other teams’ platform. So may it be with scientists, or any other field of study in the Babylonian society in which we live.

-This world is run on money as its premiere motivator, and that doesn’t exclude it’s dealings with science. The prince of this world is Satan, he has taken over and is running things quite his own way. We have got certain things under the table in our underground resistance efforts, like true Christianity and mechanics which allow us to build sky scrapers and other technological conveniences, but the fact remains that he is in charge of the mainstream flow around here. Jesus always taught that broad is the way that leads to death, but narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. This statement from the master should cause us to be skeptical of all major theories held by the world at large which are not expressly simultaneously taught in the Kingdom of God, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

-This article is not about a debate pertaining to weather the Church is true. It is addressed to those who already know (not merely believe) that it is. Those who wish to tangle with theories of weather the Church is false are not wanted here. Here we are scientists and lovers of truth, and we care not of your telling us that the sun is not shining at noon day when we have seen that it is. In brief: certain facts are beyond debate to those to whom they have been revealed. If I reveal what cards I am holding in a game to my partner, he then knows with certainty what my hand is. Similarly, God does reveal himself to persons. Just ask Joseph Smith. Just ask any of the saints who have received similar (though not necessarily in the same way) witnesses, like myself, and they will likewise confirm what they know to be true, despite all hell combining against them, even to the taking of their lives. Religion is a special thing, and God is a special thing. I have NOT had a a supernatural experience assuring me that contemporary mainstream science isn’t correct. No, I’m not one claiming to KNOW many of these answers. But I HAVE had a supernatural experience, which not even the air I breath, could persuade me otherwise, revealing to me that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. This is not to say that its leaders always speak as prophets; they themselves have confessed that they give their own opinions at times rather than always speaking the word of the Lord. But the fact remains, that this church is true. Cry about this all day if you like, but it’s not going to affect me. I have 10 trillion evidences toward its truthfulness, and 0 towards its falsehood. Amen, I need say no more, my soul desires no further explanation of the matter. One can argue and debate things all day long, but nothing can be said about a declaration of testimony of a human soul. We live in a day of psychological programing and brainwashing, but I stand a convicted soul, with no trace of doubt as to whether I’ve strayed off on some strange road; no hinting of the conscience that what I’ve become involved in may not be the best way when it comes to this the membership in a particular religion. There are no senses of my body requiring psychotropic drugs to suppress feelings which might be hinting that I should turn another way. There is no doublethink taking place here. I’ve learned no such technique (of suppressing knowledge a for knowledge b because knowledge b is politically correct). Nor am a phased by a memory of abuse in churches in the past. The soul of the human race, that spirit of freedom and independence, that spirit of cunning and intellect to stand alone upon one’s feet without the support of the mind of a neighbor, this is the force with which I am a fully committed, fully invested, fully involved member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

-Much evidence is coming out in contemporary scientific journals which opposes many of the traditional scientific views which Eyring states in his theory of science, such as the methods of Carbon dating; many chinks in that armor are coming out and revealing vulnerabilities. If one is willing to give controversial (anti-religious, humanist, Darwinian, otherwise morally-progressive) theories a chance, they should also give the other opinions a chance. We look at the scientific evidence the philosophers have come out with showing chinks in the chain of theories of evolution, including the half-life radioactive decay being too long for reproduction to the level it has supposedly evolved into; we look at how fresh lava flowing from a volcano is carbon dated to be millions of years old despite its newness; we look at the new theories in science suggesting that the speed of light won’t be constant when reacted with several other factors, which would destroy the timelines of the evolutionists. These things raise questions which are often stifled out of the conversation by the thieving men we spoke of earlier, who have hidden agendas for why they will and won’t publish certain scientific findings. Recall the treatise “Brave New World” which illustrated how it can be to the benefit of certain political rulers to stifle the progression and awareness of scientific studies in certain fields for political controlling purposes. Recall the instability factor recently determined by scientists.

-Though the title of this book is not congruent with our conversation here, I refer the reader of this book to read this book which addresses who were the first promoters of evolution and what their hidden agendas were to get that into the public sphere of thought and curricula: “Using the Book of Mormon to combat the Falsehoods in Organic Evolution” by Clark Petersen. Another book, “Darwin’s Black Box” which shows many scientific loopholes in the theory of evolution. Also, a study of the philosophy of religion will point out many more of these scientific loopholes like an age of evolution which was supposed to take a certain long period of time according to the Darwin organic evolutionists, actually jumped and went blazing by much faster in the progression of its stage of life than could have been predicted, this stage being somewhere in the supposed evolution from amoeba to human. Another book about political or other social agendas getting into school curriculum is “None Dare Call it Education” by John Stormer.

-Recall that in all of human history, conspiring political rulers have sought control at all costs, and have come up with the most deceptive means of propagating such. They’ve come up with such clever lies. Recall that it would be ridiculous to think that the nature of men has changed merely because we have more technology now.

-Yes let us continue in good science, and let us try to promote our work. There are many examples of good science getting hushed by the power elites, such as engines which run on better fuel being banned. I’ve heard several engineers give lectures on this topic, and it’s quite evident that we don’t have quite the level of freedom of speech (to share our research of good science) as we thought we had.

-Look at the repercussions of some of the theories of contemporary mainstream science; the moral Darwinism plague has caused our women to hate men, and to drive them mad by not dressing modestly, then to throw them in jail when the men respond to their flagrant flirtations. Look at the lawyers who are taught that lying is merely a business technique used to attain the most beneficial results of a trade deal. Look at how these scientific theories justify these workings, and tie in so closely. Now it could be that much from these theories of contemporary mainstream science have much truth in them; much of it is mere theory, aside from the parts which they show in laboratories as being reasonably plausible; but speaking of another matter, it is true that Satan creates a counterfeit edition of every good thing which God does. He rips off the inventor, and twists things for his purposes. At any rate, weather the contemporary scientific theories are correct or not, I think we as a society aren’t good enough scientists in looking into where these things originated from, and not good enough scientists of holding our media accountable to truth rather than letting them use money to motivate which stories they do and don’t publish; we are too far into believing whatever authoritative figures, be they persons or companies such as media companies, as selling us, and yes I do mean selling. Why do so many scientists become atheist? Well, perhaps that’s another talking point from the devil, and perhaps many of our best scientists don’t, but the fact remains that we are going into a less and less transparent world because of the monopolies on the media market, the monopolies on which schools our children must go to, and other monopolies which we look the other way for whilst they’re being rooter further and further into our society. Brainwashing is a larger problem than most will admit. Let us establish a more free scientific community; I believe that at its current stage, the scientific community and establishment is too infant to be taken too seriously as it’s been so suppressed by politics. Give me a Millennium where the earth is governed by God, and liars are burnt to stubble, where ideas are not suppressed, then I’ll get more seriously into a study of science when I’m in an environment where my ideas won’t be crushed. Until then, yes, that time when souls are saved, I’ll focus on saving souls from hell. That is the clear priority from the prophets. That is the outline of their message constantly. Get the soul safe, and worry about the other stuff only secondarily. The conversation and research of science is an important part of all this, and to those of you who feel called upon to base your contributions primarily in this field, so be it. May God bless you in it. But I feel the devil is getting too many of us locked into this field which is so unstable, so fragile upon the whims of the rulers as to what we can hear of this. May those who chose to take science as their theme demand of themselves a sharp questioning of the mainstream, and a dedication to publish their findings even if it pushes them to the gutter, out of the schools and leagues, and into the underground black market of unpopular truth.

-By saying that there is higher priority on helping save souls than there is on progression of science, I’m not saying that those who choose to devote their lives work on science are of less importance than those who devote their lives work to saving souls. I’m rather saying that the majority should choose the latter. Both fields are honorable, but the one is in higher demand in our society than the other. I look forward to the day when such will not be the case, and more can be devoted to scientific research of the physical world. I shall be ever more thrilled to learn of such things in their purity! I delight in the little discoveries and uncovering of knowledge of the physical world we have even now! None can disputer that there are many beautiful things God has helped us figure out. But what I’m saying is that the main work to be done in this life is to prepare to meet God, and to help others in that process (the which helping others is actually a central factor in the preparations of the “prepared” person also). The other work (research of the physical world itself) is auxiliary.

-To those of you inclined toward the study of theology, literature, poetry, humanities and arts, languages, history, culture, tradition, antiquity among cultures, anthropology and the indigenous tribes, and all the powerful evidence they bring toward your conclusions, don’t let the mainstream contemporary scientists scare you away from bringing to light a critical portion of the conversation which, if neglected, would hinder the human race from the finding of truth all the more.

-While it’s true that we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to science, it’s also equally and perhaps more so true, or at least more important, that we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to religion! Go on believing, go on hoping, go on rejoicing, looking forward to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets about the glorious things which are going to come to pass in the near future, for verily prophets have testified with all boldness in the name of Christ of the major events to come in the near future which will be of such favor and beauty and holiness and glory to the righteous, and such woe to the wicked! Yes, press forward Saints, feasting upon the word of Christ.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *