< Back to FAIR Answers Index

Mormonism and science

Questions

It is claimed that Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect.
It is claimed that Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth.

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Answer

Latter-day Saints are not required to discard science in favor of religion. Many Latter-day Saints are heavily involved in scientific research without suffering a loss of faith. Not only do we believe that science is continually being updated, but that Gospel knowledge will be updated as well. As the 9th Article of Faith states:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

We acknowledge that we do not understand everything regarding the manner in which God created the earth, but we have been assured through revelation that at some future time we will be allowed to understand these things. Neither religion nor science knows everything, but revelation provides us with sufficient knowledge to obtain salvation. In religion, as in science, all should be constantly seeking for the "further light and knowledge" that comes from God.

Detailed Analysis

Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.^[1]
—Henry Eyring, developer of the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions: One of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry.

∗ ∗ ∗

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.
—Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:116.

∗ ∗ ∗

Latter-day Saints should strive to use both science and religion to extend knowledge and to build faith. But those who do so must guard against the significant risk that efforts to end the separation between scientific scholarship and religious faith will only promote a substandard level of performance, where religion and science dilute one another instead of strengthening both.

For some, an attempt to mingle reason and faith can result in irrational scholarship or phony religion, either condition demonstrably worse than the described separation.
—Dallin H. Oaks, Life's Lessons Learned: Personal Reflections (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2011), 58-59.

∗ ∗ ∗

Topics

Mormonism and the determination of truth

Jump to Subtopic:

Latter-day Saint approaches to science

Jump to Subtopic:

Book of Abraham > Theological Questions Regarding the Book of Abraham

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ

Summary: Critics have raised several theological issues with the Book of Abraham. These include questions about race, lying, the inclusion of a God with an erect phallus in Facsimile 2, its inclusion of multiple gods instead of a singular god, and its relationship to science.

Lying

Some have asked why God commanded Abraham to lie in Abraham 2:24. In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:34 says, "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." Why would God command Abraham to do something that would throw him down to hell?

There are two ways of approaching this issue.

Approach #1: Lying is Not Okay

The first approach to this question would start from the assumption that lying is not good. From there, it would seek evidence that Abraham actually did not lie to Pharaoh about Sarai being Abraham's sister instead of hish wife.

There is a case to be made that Abraham did not lie. Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson have laid out some evidence that might support this view:

One important thing to keep in mind is that Genesis 20:12 identifies Sarai as Abraham’s half-sister. “So it is at least possible that Sarah belonged to Abraham’s extended family and was thus considered to be his ‘sister’ in the sense of a near blood relative.” With this in mind, Abraham appears to have been using somewhat ambiguous terminology and not necessarily making an outright false statement. This ambiguous language may also have been playing on Mesopotamian legal definitions, but this point is debated.
Whether or not this tactic would have played well in a Mesopotamian context, it would have worked in ancient Egyptian, since in that language “a wife was often called the ‘sister’ (snt) of her husband, but not because they had the same parents: instead, the term was one of affection, indicating that the family relationship between husband and wife by marriage was as close as that between real brother and sister.” This appears to reinforce the point that Abraham could be viewed as taking advantage of an ambiguity that would have worked especially well in thwarting the murderous intentions of the Egyptians. “The custom of referring to one’s wife (hm.t) as one’s sister (sn.t)” in ancient Egyptian culture therefore takes on deep significance for this passage. “For an Egyptian audience, Abram’s calling Sarai his sister would not have precluded her being his wife.”
Finally, it is noteworthy that a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls called the Genesis Apocryphon depicts Abraham being warned in a dream of the danger he faced when traveling into Egypt because of Sarai’s beauty. This in turn prompted his equivocation with Pharaoh. While this text does not overtly say that God told Abraham to “lie” about his relationship with Sarai, it heavily implies that he was divinely forewarned of the situation. This harmonizes nicely with the account in the Book of Abraham.

Approach #2: Lying is Not Wrong in Some Circumstances

The other approach would be under the assumption that lying is not wrong under certain circumstances such as when one puts themselves or others in grave danger without the misrepresentation of truth. Abraham's story would naturally fit into that worldview.

One interesting note that might support this view is that Joseph Smith's definition of lying likely differed from a modern one. This is important because we know that God speaks unto men after their language so that they can come to understanding (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24) and He would have given the translation of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, including passages like 2 Nephi 9:34, with his definitions in mind.

"Lying" today would be defined as "misrepresnting the truth." Joseph Smith's definition, however, likely differed from the modern one. The 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary defined lying as follows:

1. To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive, or with an immoral design.

Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Acts 5:3.

2. To exhibit a false representation; to say or do that which deceives another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

Lying is only such when morality requires that you tell the truth, according to Webster's. Under this definiton of lying, scriptures like 2 Nephi 9:34 can be easily reconciled with Abraham 2:24.

Mention of Plural Gods

Some critics have taken issue with the fact that certain scriptures in The Church of Jesus Christ's canon seem to portray only one God being responsible for the Creation of the earth (2 Nephi 2꞉14; Jacob 4꞉9; Moses 2). Others, like the Book of Abraham, portray multiple gods creating the earth (Abraham 4, 5).

Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Latter-day Saint doctrine views God as one, but not in the same sense as Nicene trinitarianism. Nicene trinitarianism sees God as a singular substance rather than three separate and distinct beings like Latter-day Saints. This is not a contradiction. It merely demonstrates that Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene Trinitarianism.

Min as God with an Erect Phallus

Some critics have taken issue with Joseph Smith's explanation of Facsimile 2, Figure 7. Critic Jeremy Runnells wrote:

One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7. Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…” It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex. Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure). In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne.

Runnells' concern displays an immaturity about sexuality and a lack of sophistication as to why God would be portrayed this way.

This attitude, reflected by some, is a good example of how our modern, sexually-obsessed society can easily misinterpret religious art. We see an erect penis in a drawing and think "pornography," whereas an ancient Egyptian would have seen one and thought of fertility, virility, and life. Hence, the depiction of Min with an erection was a sign of his life-giving ability. We have analogies in Northwest Semitic depictions of God. (El is both called and depicted as a virile bull in the Ugaritic texts, both because of his procreative powers and his greatness over the other gods.)

Another thing to keep in mind is the remarkable prevalence of syncretism between Near Eastern cultures, particularly in the exchange of religious ideas and iconography. We know ancient Hebrews and other Near Eastern people used a phallic God to depict “the God of the Bible” all the time. The Canaanite god Baal, for example, shares the same epithet with Yahweh ("cloud rider") in Psalm 68:4.

This concern, again, lacks sophistication and maturity about sex and ancient religion.

Race

One of the most troubling aspects to readers of the Book of Abraham is its apparent support for the The Church of Jesus Christ's historical restrictions on Black individuls from receiving the priesthood and entering Latter-day Saint temples.

Book of Abraham and the Historical Priesthood and Temple Restrictions

The Book of Abraham contains a passage in which the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh is described as being “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,” because of a “curse … pertaining to the Priesthood” associated with his descent from Ham (Abraham 1:26–27). Historically, some in the Church referenced this passage in efforts to justify the mid-19th- to late-20th-century policy that prohibited men of Black African descent from priesthood ordination and Black men and women from temple ordinances.

However, contemporary scholarship and historical analysis show that the Book of Abraham cannot be accurately cited as a doctrinal foundation for those racial restrictions:

Historical Use vs. Textual Content

While the Book of Abraham mentions a lineage lacking the right to priesthood, the text does not mention race, skin color, or Black Africans, nor does it provide any explanation for why that lineage was barred beyond its own ancient narrative context. The specific reasons for the priesthood exclusion in the policy are not found in the scripture itself.

Ancient Context of “Curses” and Inheritance

According to John S. Thompson’s analysis, the Book of Abraham reflects an ancient legal-cultural concept of cursing as disinheritance, not racial inferiority. In ancient Near Eastern legal language, being “cursed” could mean being cut off from inheritance — including priesthood rights — due to violation of covenant-related legal norms, and this status could affect descendants simply because they could not receive what an ancestor no longer held. This model, Thompson shows, was common in ancient legal traditions and is applied in the Book of Abraham without any reference to modern racial categories.

Lack of Original Doctrinal Application

Significantly, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used the Book of Abraham to institute or justify a race-based priesthood restriction in his lifetime, nor that early Church leaders immediately applied it to policy in that way. An article on the topic notes that even Brigham Young and other early administrators who supported the historical ban did not explicitly cite this text as the doctrinal source for the policy.

Modern Interpretations and Disavowals

Scholars and the Church’s own historical essays have clarified that the priesthood restriction was not formally rooted in a revealed, canonical doctrinal basis that is clearly articulated in the Book of Abraham. Interpretations tying the passage to Black Africans and racial characteristics emerged later under the influence of broader nineteenth-century racial theories, rather than from the scripture itself. Contemporary Church statements have disavowed past explanations that linked race to divine curse or inferiority.

Textual, historical, and contextual analyses indicate that the Book of Abraham does not support the historical exclusion of people of Black African descent from priesthood ordination or temple ordinances. Its ancient narrative about lineage and inherited blessings was later misappropriated by some as a justification for racialized policy, but objectively, the text does not articulate a racial priesthood ban nor provide the doctrinal grounding that such a policy would require.

Science

Two interesting questions were posed by Jeremy Runnells, author of the CES Letter, a document that is critical of the Church.

Newtonian Physics?

The first assertion from Runnells is as follows:

The Book of Abraham teaches an incorrect Newtonian view of the universe. These Newtonian astronomical concepts, mechanics, and models of the universe have since been succeeded and substantially modified by 20th century Einsteinian physics.
What we find in Abraham 3 and the official scriptures of the LDS Church regarding science reflects a Newtonian world concept. Just as the Catholic Church's Ptolemaic cosmology was displaced by the new Copernican and Newtonian world model, however, the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view has since been displaced by Einstein's twentieth-century science.
Keith E. Norman, an LDS scholar, has written that for the LDS Church:

It is no longer possible to pretend there is no conflict.

Norman continues:

Scientific cosmology began its leap forward just when Mormon doctrine was becoming stabilized. The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy. This new scientific cosmology poses a serious challenge to the Mormon version of the universe.

Grant Palmer, a Mormon historian and CES teacher for 34 years, wrote:

Many of the astronomical and cosmological ideas found in both Joseph Smith’s environment and in the Book of Abraham have become out of vogue, and some of these Newtonian concepts are scientific relics. The evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham reflects concepts of Joseph Smith’s time and place rather than those of an ancient world.

This charge was adequately addressed by Sarah Allen, quoted at length below:

The Book of Abraham does not teach a Newtonian view of the universe. It teaches a geocentric one. This means that the ancient cultures believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and stars revolved around it instead of the other way around. There are numerous articles written about this concept, demonstrating how and why Jeremy is wrong in his assertion. As we know, Heavenly Father teaches us new concepts according to our own understanding and language. This is what He was doing here with Abraham.
Jeremy appears not to have even read his own cited source, an article published in Sunstone Magazine in 1986. The article was written by a man named Keith Norman (whose expertise is in early Christianity, not science) who admits in the article that, when it comes to theoretical physics, “I am still struggling with books on the subject written for the layman.” Most importantly, the article isn’t even about the Book of Abraham or its cosmology. It argues that Einsteinian physics point toward “creation ex nihilo” as being the truth over the Latter-day Saint view that matter is eternal. Norman only cites the Book of Abraham one time in the entire article, when quoting a line about Kolob while speculating about a possible “solution” to his self-created dilemma:
Precisely because Mormons believe in a plurality of gods, we are logically led to speculate as to their locations or spheres of dominion. The astronomical assertions in the Pearl of Great Price may indicate that God rules within our own galaxy, the Milky Way: “Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest” (Abr. 3:9; cf. facsimile 2, esp. fig. 5). Does each God have his and her own galaxy or cluster of galaxies? The Milky Way galaxy alone has over 100 billion stars, quite enough to accommodate the phrase “worlds without number.” And ours is just average-sized as galaxies go, one of 100 billion. In other words, there are as many galaxies in the universe as there are stars in our galaxy.
The problem is, theoretical physics doesn’t support creation ex nihilo as proposed in this article. Now, physics is not my forte, so if I misstate anything here, I hope someone will correct me. But Stephen Hawking, easily the most brilliant scientific mind of our generation, stated this:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe after the Big Bang will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them.

Dense matter existed before the Big Bang, according to Hawking, and because we can’t observe what happened prior to that event, it’s simply not defined in the theory. The Big Bang Wikipedia page states that, “The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, and…as an event [it] is also colloquially referred to as the ‘birth’ of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them…work.”
So, the universe existed in an initial state before the Big Bang happened, just like Hawking said. Because scientists can’t measure time and space prior to the Big Bang, some scientists say that it was “nothing,” but they don’t mean that word the way that Norman interprets it. They mean it the way that Hawking interprets it.
This theory Hawking was describing is called the “initial singularity” theory. Other theories have been proposed, like the "M-theory”/multiverse theory or the “loop quantum gravity”/LQG theory. Regardless of which theory you support, however, they all suggest that something existed before the Big Bang and thus, the universe was not created from nothing. It’s just that it was immeasurable and unobservable, so we don’t have the resources yet to fully understand it. It’s hard to define it accurately, so some scientists don’t bother to try.
Norman seems to have misunderstood what those other scientists were saying, and his article is a theoretical one based on that misunderstanding. The Big Bang theory does not support creation ex nihilo as Norman posits, and therefore, science does not disprove Latter-day Saint cosmology.
However, the main point is, none of that has anything to do with the Book of Abraham’s view of the universe. The article does not claim what Jeremy says it does…or what Grant Palmer says it does. Palmer was a former CES employee who lost his testimony, then published an anti-LDS book after he retired. One of his main sources for his assertion that the Book of Abraham teaches a Newtonian view of the universe is this exact article, using this exact same quote that Jeremy does. This tells me that Palmer’s book is likely Jeremy’s true source for this claim, as it did not come from the article itself. The article never makes the claim that the Book of Abraham’s cosmology is Newtonian.
Moreover, ancient cultures, like the Egyptians and the Israelites, also believed that creation came from something already existing, just like Hawking and other modern physicists do. The account of the creation given in the Book of Abraham aligns perfectly with that view, while the belief in creation ex nihilo was highly prominent in the 1800s. Rather than support the trending view in Joseph’s day as claimed, the Book of Abraham actually counters it.^[1]

Kolob Getting Light from Kae-e-vanrash?

Runnells articulated another problem with the Book of Abraham's supposed presentation of science:

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun receives its “light from the revolutions of Kolob.” We now know, however, that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion. The sun does not shine because it gets its light from any other star or any other external source.

Sarah Allen's next blog post, responding to Runnells, answered aptly:

No, Facsimile 2, Figure 5 states that it “is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from the revolutions of Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash…the governing power….” Joseph didn’t state that “the sun receives its light from the revolutions of Kolob.” He wasn’t making any kind of grand, prophetic, cosmological declaration about the way the universe works. He stated pretty clearly that those words were said by ancient Egyptians. That was their way of describing the universe according to their understanding. It was not Joseph’s. While he was teaching them astronomy, Abraham was likening gospel truths to concepts that the Egyptians already understood. It doesn’t have to be accurate to our understanding today to have made sense to them.
And, as Jim Bennett points out, we don’t know what “the medium of Kae-e-vanrash” is. Who are we to say that doesn’t involve thermonuculear fusion? Why can’t Kae-e-vanrash be God setting in motion the process of hydrogen atoms combining to create energy? Just because ancient Egyptians had no concept of nuclear reaction doesn’t mean they were completely wrong about everything. There is much we don’t know yet about how the universe works and what God’s role is in governing it. What we do know are just drops in the bucket compared to the light and knowledge we’ll gain in the eternities. Dismissing this concept out of hand as nonsense—especially when you don’t seem to understand the actual point being made about God channeling His power through various mediums in order to govern the universe—is shortsighted.
Take into consideration that Kolob is a metaphor for Jesus Christ. Joseph essentially stated that the sun borrows or obtains its light from the Son. D&C 88:6-13 teaches us that the Light of Christ is in the sun and the light of the sun and the power by which it was made, and in the moon, and stars, and earth, and all of us and all things, filling the immensity of space, giving life to all things, governing all things, and is the power of God who sits on His throne in the midst of all things and in the bosom of eternity. It’s Priesthood power. Since Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and Jehovah is the one who formed the universe under God’s guidance and direction, through the power of the Priesthood, of course the sun got its light from Christ. That doesn’t mean it can’t also get its light from thermonuclear fusion. That is simply the means through which Christ provided the sun with its light. All things are governed by the power of God, including nuclear reactions.
In Abraham 3, the discussion begins with Jehovah teaching Abraham about the governing order, using astronomy as a metaphor. Kolob is the greatest of all, and then the power gradually lessons as it descends down the line. The sun is greater than the moon, which is in turn greater than the stars, etc. It’s the same gradation we see in the Three Degrees of Glory: the Celestial Kingdom has a higher glory than the Terrestrial Kingdom, which in turn has a higher glory than the Telestial Kingdom. The Kingdoms are defined by their proximity to Christ and the Father, just like the description of the universe Jehovah gives Abraham.
It’s here that “[t]he conversation between Abraham and the Lord shifts from a discussion of heavenly bodies to spiritual beings. This reflects a play on words that Egyptians often use between a star (ach) and a spirit (ich). The shift is done by means of a comparison: ‘Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; … as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other’ (Abraham 3:17–18). In an Egyptian context, the play on words would strengthen the parallel. … The Egyptian play on words between star and spirit allows the astronomical teachings to flow seamlessly into teachings about the preexistence which follow immediately thereafter.”
The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual sums all of this up nicely:

Abraham learned that wherever there are two stars one will be greater than the other, and that there are other stars greater than those two, until Kolob, which is the greatest of all. He learned that it is not size that makes one star or planet greater than another, but rather its proximity to Kolob. So it is with the children of God—their greatness and glory will depend upon their proximity to the Creator, Jesus Christ, who is “nearest unto the throne of God,” “the great one,” “the first creation,” and is “set to govern all those which belong to the same order.” Thus the great star, Kolob, is a symbol of Jesus Christ.
As we draw nearer to Christ, the more of His power will reach us and the greater we can become. This was the concept that Joseph was teaching us, using the facsimile as an illustration, and what Abraham was trying to teach the Egyptians. Neither of them was giving us a physics lesson.^[2]

↑ Sarah Allen, "The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 17: CES Letter Book of Abraham Questions, Section H," FAIR Blog, October 15, 2021, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/15/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-17.
↑ Sarah Allen, "The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 18: CES Letter Book of Abraham Questions, Section I," FAIR Blog, October 20, 2021, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/20/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-18.

Book of Mormon topics related to science

Jump to Subtopic:

Book of Mormon archaeology

Jump to Subtopic:

DNA and the Book of Mormon

Jump to details:

Latter-day Saint attitudes toward science

Jump to Subtopic:

Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that men would never walk on the moon

Jump to details:

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

V

Articles about Brigham Young

Did Brigham Young actually teach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?

Brigham Young speculated that the moon and sun were inhabited: he was clearly expressing an opinion

Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited,

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham is clearly expressing an opinion, and there is no evidence that he is making a prophetic declaration concerning extraterrestrials. He even goes out of his way to indicate that this is what he "rather think[s]," and asks his congregation to consider what they think. He also says that he would want to know if an idea he has is false—even including his religion. These are not the sentiments of a man convinced he must be right by divine gift of prophetic omniscience.

It is particularly ironic that Brigham's remarks were focused on the fact that no one knows much about anything, and so humility is appropriate on most questions. Critics have taken this wise stance, and have tried to invert Brigham's intent—changing him from an advocate of humility before the unknown into a doctrinaire know-nothing who is certain of absurdities. The critics might do well do follow Brigham's example.

Brigham Young made the following statement in 1869:^[1]

It has been observed here this morning that we are called fanatics. Bless me! That is nothing. Who has not been called a fanatic who has discovered anything new in philosophy or science? We have all read of Galileo the astronomer who, contrary to the system of astronomy that had been received for ages before his day, taught that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre of our planetary system? For this the learned astronomer was called "fanatic," and subjected to persecution and imprisonment of the most rigorous character. So it has been with others who have discovered and explained new truths in science and philosophy which have been in opposition to long-established theories; and the opposition they have encountered has endured until the truth of their discoveries has been demonstrated by time...
I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us.

The context for Brigham's remarks, then, are that new ideas and truths are often mocked or rejected by those who cling to older ideas. And, were he to have such an idea, he would want to know.

He then says:

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.

Brigham goes on to speak about inhabitants of the moon. In context, his point is clearly that no one;—even experts—knows very much about the universe. There are many things (such as whether the moon is inhabited) about which no one of his day could speak clearly.

It then becomes very clear that Brigham is expressing his personal views, not laying down divine truth from on high

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham is obviously expressing his opinion, but his point remains that no one knows very much about such things. To reject a novel idea simply because it is new—such as Mormonism—is irrational. All true ideas were once new, and treated with suspicion.

William Herschel—the preeminent astronomer of his generation and the man to discover Uranus—was also firmly of the belief that the sun was inhabited.^[2] One author wrote:

Herschel was not a raving amateur. A gifted astronomer, he discovered Uranus, and was the first to realize that sunlight included infrared light as well as visible light. His sister, Caroline, became famous in her own right for discovering comets, so he did not lack for intelligent conversation. He just had his own theories. Herschel believed that life existed on every celestial body in the universe. He was aware that the sun people saw was too hot to support life. He just assumed there was something underneath that burning atmosphere. When he observed sunspots, he believed that they were openings in the atmosphere, or perhaps mountains, and that if people could get a close look at the planet beneath, they would be able to spot signs of life. Herschel was not alone in his beliefs - as more information on the sun turned up, astronomers speculated on how it would affect life on the surface of the sun, and what kind of life might survive in those environments.^[3]

Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter

Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter:

1856

Desert News noted:

Proof that the Moon is not Inhabited.
"Dr. Scoresby, in an account that he has given of some recent observations made with the Earl of Rosse’s telescope, says: ‘With respect to the moon, every object on its surface of 100 feet was distinctly to be seen; and he had no doubt that, under very favorable circumstances, it would be so with objects 60 feet in height…. But no vestiges of architecture remain to show that the moon, is, or ever was, inhabited by a race of mortals similar to ourselves….. There was no water visible…."^[4]

1880

"As there is no air nor water on the moon, but very few changes can take place upon its surface. There can be no vegetation and no animals, and although many astronomers have brought their imaginations to bear upon this subject, and have given us descriptions of the beautiful scenery upon its surface, and have even peopled it with inhabitants, we have every reason to believe that it is as barren and lifeless as an arid rock."^[5]

Joseph Smith and Moon Quakers?

Summary: A late third-hand account attributes a similar idea to Joseph Smith.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources	Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 25.( Index of claims ) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3)

Did Brigham Young claim that too much education was damaging to children?

Brigham was giving instruction on the building of schools

Brigham said:

Concerning the Education of Children I will say that not withstanding the drivings of this people I do not believe that you can go into any City in the world & pick up 100 Children promiscusly and put them by the side of our Children that are as well educated as the same number of our Children gathered up promiscusly in the Territory of Utah. There are some people & Countries who force & whip their Children into an Education but we should never Croud & force the minds of our Children beyond what they are able to bear. If we do we ruin them for life. I would rather my children would spend their Early life sliding down Hill, skating, riding Horses till they were 20 years old & not go to school one day than to clog & force the mind while young with intricate studies. It strains & cripples the mind for life & ruins the man. You never see a child that is Confined while young to Close rooms & hard study & followed up to manhood that ever becomes a master spirit or qualifyed to transact difficult business in after life (emphasis added).

Brigham was highly in favor of education; he was not, however, in favor of "whipping," "forcing" or "confining" young minds and bodies "beyond what they are able to bear"

In this sense, he was well in line with what educational thinkers and reformers of the 19th century were saying:

...as the historian Kenneth Gold has pointed out, the early educational reformers were also tremendously concerned that children not get too much schooling. In 1871, for example, the US commissioner of education published a report by Edward Jarvis on the "Relation of Education to Insanity." Jarvis had studied 1,741 cases of insanity and concluded that "over-study" was responsible for 205 of them. "Education lays the foundation of a large portion of the causes of mental disorder," Jarvis wrote. Similarly, the pioneer of public education in Massachusetts, Horace Mann, believed that working students too hard would create a "most pernicious influence upon character and habits....Not infrequently is health itself destroyed by over-stimulating the mind." In the education journals of the day, there were constant worries about overtaxing students or blunting their natural abilities through too much schoolwork.
The reformers, Gold writes:

strove for ways to reduce time spent studying, because long periods of respite could save the mind from injury. Hence the elimination of Saturday classes, the shortening of the school day, and the lengthening of vacation—all of which occurred over the course of the nineteenth century. Teachers were cautioned that 'when [students] are required to study, their bodies should not be exhausted by long confinement, nor their minds bewildered by prolonged application.' Rest also presented particular opportunities for strengthening cognitive and analytical skills. As one contributor to the Massachusetts Teacher suggested, 'it is when thus relieved from the state of tension belonging to actual study that boys and girls, as well as men and women, acquire the habit of thought and reflection, and of forming their own conclusions, independently of what they are taught and the authority of others."^[6]

For an extensive analysis of Brigham's positive views on education, see Hugh W. Nibley, Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints (Vol. 13 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by Don E. Norton, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994), chapter 15-16. ISBN 0875798187. direct off-site direct off-site

↑ Brigham Young, "The Gospel—The One-Man Power," (24 July 1870) Journal of Discourses 13:270.
↑ "...in 1795 [Herschel] published one of his most extraordinary papers, 'On the Nature and Construction of the sun', with the Royal Society, suggesting that the sun had a cool, solid interior and was inhabited by intelligent beings." [Richard Holmes, The Age of Wonder (London: Harper Press, 2008), 199.]
↑ Esther Inglis-Arkell, "Astronomers once thought there was life on the sun," io9. (20 December 2013)
↑ Deseret News 6 (1856): 134d.
↑ ‘Quebec,’ "The Moon", Contributor 1/9 (June 1880): 193-5, from page 195
↑ Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 2008), 253–254.

Mormonism and education: Modern perspectives

Jump to details:

Utah statistical claims and charges

Summary: This page indexes attacks and criticism of the Church based upon statistical analysis.

Jump to Subtopic:

Church leaders' statements related to science

General authorities statements regarding science

Summary: If General authorities' statements are treated as scripture, then what does that mean when they make statements regarding science?

Jump to Subtopic:

Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never walk on the Moon

Summary: Didn't Joseph Fielding Smith declare that man would never leave this planet?

Jump to Subtopic:

==

[note] Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 2.

Teachings	Creation President of US? Adam-God theory Moon inhabited by Quakers? Words as scripture Science and education Word of Wisdom Need to know for ourselves Total submission to him?
History	1844 Succession to Joseph Smith Disagreements with Emma Smith Divine manifestations Freemasonry Lucy Mack Smith's Biography of Joseph Smith *Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre The 'Mormon Reformation'
Race	Brigham Young's statements regarding race
Critics	Fabricated quotes from Brigham Young Quote mining JoD 13:95 Not witness of Christ? Reviews of books about Brigham Young

Main navigation

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ

Mormonism and science

Questions

Answer

Detailed Analysis

Topics

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ

Lying

Approach #1: Lying is Not Okay

Approach #2: Lying is Not Wrong in Some Circumstances

Mention of Plural Gods

Min as God with an Erect Phallus

Race

Book of Abraham and the Historical Priesthood and Temple Restrictions

Historical Use vs. Textual Content

Ancient Context of “Curses” and Inheritance

Lack of Original Doctrinal Application

Modern Interpretations and Disavowals

Further Reading

Science

Newtonian Physics?

Kolob Getting Light from Kae-e-vanrash?

Did Brigham Young actually teach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?

Brigham Young speculated that the moon and sun were inhabited: he was clearly expressing an opinion

It then becomes very clear that Brigham is expressing his personal views, not laying down divine truth from on high

Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter

1856

1880

Did Brigham Young claim that too much education was damaging to children?

Brigham was giving instruction on the building of schools

Brigham was highly in favor of education; he was not, however, in favor of "whipping," "forcing" or "confining" young minds and bodies "beyond what they are able to bear"

Jump to Subtopic:

Jump to Subtopic:

Footer

Our Friends

Follow Us

Donate to FAIR