Customer Reviews

Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Erich Robert Paul's _Science, Religion and Mormon Cosmology_ is a scholarly history not meant for the feebleminded, nor for those unfamiliar with the history of science and extensive LDS theology. Paul's book is intentionally geared for the intellectual audience and is a difficult read for those only interested in scriptural debate and might therefore disappoint the reader who has an incomplete comprehension of scientific history or LDS theology. This is one book that cannot be taken lightly and may be too heavy for some to handle. A word of warning to those only interested in reading a scriptural explanation, for this book is a substantial contribution to the library of Mormon intellectual history and not a simple reiteration of scriptural quotes. Without even a basic understanding of the argument that science and religion are non-combative, the reader will not comprehend the author's conclusions. Likewise, if the reader intends to find Mormon interpretation of scrip! ture or any discussion about the historicity of the Book of Mormon or other scripture, s/he will be disappointed. This book belongs to a category not among LDS church books but rather to an intellectual elite often criticized by those hoping to find an academic basis for their religious assertions concerning science.

Paul analyzes the complex relationships between science and LDS theology in a historical perspective, which allows the reader to to understand the cultural settings in which the relationships of science and religion have formed. This approach is critical to understanding the perceived conflicts between science and LDS theology. This may also help in understanding that the actual dilemma is more of a construct than real, which has come from the incomplete comprehension of science and theology.

In the first section entitled "Issues in Science and Religion," Paul is successful in showing the tentative character of modern science. In the second sect! ion, "Mormonism and Cosmology," he has focused on the influ! ence of LDS thinkers and leaders. Because the book's subject matter is quite dense, one might easily become disenchanted with Paul's chosen course of argument. This is especially true for Latter-day Saints who believe that the end of science will reveal the `end all be all' of what and how it all happened, and therefore they will become defensive at such comments as "there is no conflict between `true science' and `true religion'." It is necessary to understand that this is exactly Paul's thesis and he carries out a well-organized discussion of such.

The Latter-day Saint who is more focused on the linear argument of science and religion, specifically that encompassed in the Church Educational System, will find this book not to their liking. However, this is not to suggest that they might not find it interesting and despite any personal differences of opinion with the author, they may find it quite provocative. This book, since the time of its publication, has ended ! up on syllabi at many universities including Brigham Young University. Thus, Paul has succeeded in permeating the intellectual community with his comprehensive views exactly as he intended.

Christina Schreiber

As an LDS (Mormon) evolutionary biologist I found this a valuable contribution to understanding the history of scientific thinking in the Mormon community. The book is well written, researched and complete. I especially enjoyed the chapters that put early Mormon thinking in the context of debates between religion and science occurring in Europe and America after the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species". I was surprised that some of the other LDS reviewers of this book were not aware that the Church has no official stand on the theory of Evolution (See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on Evolution). As Galileo put it best: The scriptures teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Paul is to be congratulated on a fine work.

Throughout Erich Robert Paul's text is the permeating influence of his perception that religion and science are fundamentally noncombative. Many readers will find his commitment to this thesis overbearing, and often the source of error in his presentation and conclusions.

The promotional information claims Paul's book will become a standard reference. However, I found it incomplete and something of a disappointment. This is not a general book about Mormonism and science. There is no discussion about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or its scientific validity. Neither is there any discussion about the historicity of the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Moses. You will not find within its pages any discussion of the Mormon doctrine of a universal flood. Neither will you find any mention of a literal confusion of tongues, or recent (thousands of years ago) separation of the continents. (See, for example, the January 1998 issue of _The Ensign_.)

Admittedly, the author explains that he has limited the scope narrowly to an examination of Mormon cosmology. Even within this scope, however, the text is incomplete. There is no mention, for example, of the Mormon doctrine that God created the earth in another part of the universe, and moved it to its present orbit only recently after Adam's fall. This omission is especially surprising since the Pearl of Great Price, from which Paul draws much of his discussion, teaches this doctrine. It was also preached by Brigham Young, and has been promoted of late by the Church's official magazine. (See, for example, the March 1997 issue of _The Ensign_.)

Paul limits his discussion of Mormon cosmology almost exclusively to the concept of "worlds without number," and intelligent extraterrestrial life. He paints a picture of early America with widespread public discussion about astronomical pluralism and its challenges for Christian orthodoxy. One can almost feel the excitement of the debates and imagine the young Joseph Smith's mind racing with! new ideas. Reading Paul's description, we see Joseph Smith's new religion incorporating solutions not only for theological debates about baptism by immersion, but also for the latest discussions about ancient Hebrews populating the Western Continent and extraterrestrials on planets orbiting other suns. It comes as a surprise that after describing such a clear picture of Mormonism borrowing from local debates, customs, and ideas that Paul ends the chapter by saying:

"The idea that Joseph Smith may have borrowed from cultural sources cannot, of course, be totally discounted -- or confirmed." (See page 92).

Although Paul tries to focus strictly on aspects of Mormon cosmology, he felt obligated to discuss the church's acrimonious relationship with evolution, devoting over 20 pages to the debate. In discussing Mormonism and evolution, however, he has provided a rather biased point of view. This may result from his obvious association with Mormon apologists, many of whom participated in reviewing Paul's book. It is particularly disappointing that Paul spends so little time actually examining the content of Mormon scriptures, what they mean, and how they relate to evolution. Instead, he focuses an inordinate amount of attention upon the opinions of Mormon apologists, often to the exclusion of the public preaching of Mormon priesthood leaders, leaving the reader with a skewed view of the relationship between Mormonism and evolution.

Paul devotes considerable volume to discussions of four Mormon intellectuals (Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, John A Widtsoe, and Joseph F. Merrill) and how they dealt with their religion and its relationship with science. However, he virtually ignores the work of Marvin and Garfield Cook, in their book "Science and Mormonism" (Salt Lake City, Deseret News Press, 1967). This book, widely read among Mormons, attempts to reconcile science with the mostly literal, creationist-style arguments used by most Mormons. It seems surprising that Paul mentions their views (which were! arguably as influential as those of Pratt, Roberts, Widtsoe, and Merrill) only briefly in a terse paragraph in the bibliography.

Repeatedly, Paul asserts a non-literal and often ambiguous interpretation whenever Mormonism collides with science. For example, he believes Mormonism is compatible with the idea of death before Adam's fall. However, he never explains how to bring his view into alignment with Mormon scriptures such as 2 Nephi 2: 15, 22, which clearly state that there was no death before Adam's fall (and has been interpreted that way by Mormon prophets). Paul does the reader a disservice by simply stating that Mormonism is compatible with evolution (something with which most Mormons would disagree) without offering a rational interpretation that brings Mormon scriptures and science into harmony.

Paul's apparent eagerness to accommodate Mormon theology sometimes leads him to make extreme and unsubstantiated statements. For example, on page 157 he says:

"There is no real conflict between the Mosaic account of the creation and the nebular theory which is the most widely accepted among the prominent scientists." (See page 157.)

In reality, Joseph Smith taught the earth was created before the sun from the leftover components of destroyed planets. This is in profound disagreement with modern astronomical theory which says that material thrown out by super nova, and not recycled planets, is the raw material that formed the earth.

The book's final chapter deals with extraterrestrials and their relationship with Mormon cosmology. This chapter has the most science, and also deals most honestly with ideas within Mormon theology. Although not clearly stated, Paul seems to lean toward a view of directed evolution. The chapter on extraterrestrial life uses several tautological arguments. For example, on page 209 Paul says:

"Therefore, the likelihood of other civilizations having already broadcast seems quite large, assuming both the existence of such civilizations and the possibility ! that they have been transmitting for long periods of time."

Unfortunately, arguments such as these represent the rule, rather than the exception. Overall, however, I found the book interesting and worth my while. Though if I had it to do over again, I probably would not have purchased the book unless it was available in paperback, and 1/2 the current price.

Duwayne Anderson