[Disclaimer: Since I successfully extended my streak of never having watched a session of GC, I can only rely on what is reported]

with that being said, we have this pronouncement:

Sister Tracy Y. Browning, second counselor in the Primary general presidency:

"She noted that scientists, with limited knowledge, previously thought Pluto was a planet. They diligently sought more information and eventually learned it was outside the solar system."

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/10/06/october-2024-general-conference-sunday-morning/

Is the BYU Astronomy department aware of this fact?

She heard it from Goofy.

I thought that all GC talks are vetted ahead of time? I guess not.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought that all GC talks are vetted ahead of
> time? I guess not.

Nearly all are. Does not mean those doing so have the brains to recognize true stupidity when it is there.

"She noted that scientists, with limited knowledge, previously thought Pluto was a planet. They diligently sought more information and eventually learned it was outside the solar system."

What point is she trying to make?

a) Scientists are humans that don't know everything.

b) Mormon prophets have always known this. And if you egghead members would attend the temple, then you would know this too.

It's like the members become dumber and dumber every time they try to figure out where Kolob is! It's quite funny to me, since I believed the crap.

The place is the ick of the world.

Ick is a fish disease.

It's in SOuthern Utah, see the signs all the time :)

Don't remind me! I laugh at everything Mormon now. Either that, or I get really upset by the fact that all our local TV stations are brainwashed just like the membership.

But Kolob. I used to sing that song all the time. *shakes head*

Yeah? What's the problem? She also knows the planet is less that 7000 years old.

Too bad early apostles like Orson Hyde thought the earth was 2 billion years old.

She wears an aluminum foil hat and consumes horse wormer.

Hahahahaha

I made a solar system mobile in 4th grade that was so good the teacher hung it up in the classroom and it was up there the rest of the year. Yes I had Pluto as the last planet.

My Cub Scout den mother was a Ukrainian lady who was a very good painter. She also made really elaborate Ukrainian Easter eggs. She helped me paint the planets and we even put the big spot on Jupiter. It was a work of art.

I can't even remember what I did in elementary school. Other than being able to answer Jeopardy questions.

My teacher appeared on it. I memorized all her correct answers. I was too intelligent even back then.

You can find her talk here:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2024/10/06/sister-tracy-browning-october-2024-general-conference-seeking-answers-spiritual-questions/#:~:text=6%20Oct%202024,%2011:07%20AM%20MDT.%20Sister%20Tracy

Note that she made no such statement. In fact, her discussion of astronomy and Pluto was both detailed and essentially accurate. Moreover, her analogy worked well for her purposes, regardless of what you think of Mormonism. In short, she did her homework, which is more than the OP can say!

This is what happens when the vast legitimate criticisms of Mormonism become old and tired. People then seem to deem it necessary expand their imagination to invoke bogus, petty, criticisms, for the rest of RfM to pounce on, just as people did in this post.

IMO propagation of this type of blatant, blind misinformation does a great disservice to RfM; essentially undermining its credibility when legitimate criticism of Mormonism is offered and discussed.

Note also that Ms. Browning was a black woman. It might be argued (falsely!) that race was the real root of the criticism of her scientific intelligence. Really, is this the kind of responsive criticism we want to open the door to here at RfM?

I agree that we need to tone the relentless down a little. I agree with HB saying the 'good' has been replaced by hate. (Of this, I am at fault also).

Sometimes I get mad, because of the stuff the Morg reminds me of. But I also appreciate viewpoints that are made, such as the insanity of GC (I never watch it).

Things are different around here, and some of the old guard is no longer here. Like Paxton, and others.

I can appreciate dialogue. I read many of the posts by people more intelligent. I respond awkwardly, because I isolated myself within the 'happiness bubble' of Mormonism.

I'm just glad it's over. I was really big on judgement while I was there, and after my divorce. And I am trying to transition away from that.

Sorry to throw the topic off!

Kudos to Henry for looking up the original material and finding the claim is bogus. I was thinking of doing it myself, but am not sure I would have bothered.

If she had said that, it was a silly mistake that could have been a misstatement caused by nervousness or just a brain cramp. I type the wrong word, and sometimes words, into a sentence, even before autocorrect automated the process for me. And maybe she doesn’t know why Pluto got demoted. A surprisingly large number of people misunderstand what happened.


IMHO, the larger issue is that a <bleeping> REPORTER for the Desnuz (a) misreported the speech, and (b) has no idea why Pluto is not considered a planet. Furthermore, the statement made it past a Desnuz EDITOR!!! The fact that they made a Black female GC speaker, the first ever at GC, look foolish is just the cherry on top of that sundae of journalistic incompetence.

I hope somebody got their journalistic knuckles rapped at the Deseret News.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If she had said that, it was a silly mistake that
> could have been a misstatement caused by
> nervousness or just a brain cramp.

> And maybe she doesn’t know why Pluto got
> demoted. A surprisingly large number of people
> misunderstand what happened.

Yes. I don't think it's realistic to expect everybody to know everything about everything.

I too was going to say that she very likely just misspoke, which is so easy to do and many, if not all of us, have experience in doing that.


> The fact that they made a Black female
> GC speaker, the first ever at GC, look foolish is
> just the cherry on top of that sundae of
> journalistic incompetence.

I wouldn't have thought of that aspect of it. Too bad that's even a thing.

Hopefully, they will publish a correction.

I'll probably regret entering the chat, but here goes anyway.

I took the liberty of transcribing the relevant portion of her address. Here are her exact words:

"However, a lingering question remained within the scientific community regarding the origin of a particular type of comet that astronomers regularly tracked. And that question persisted for decades before the discovery of another distant region of our solar system. With the limited knowledge they had, scientists used those intervening decades to produce significant technological advances that allowed for further study and exploration. Their eventual breakthrough reconfigured our planetary zone and resulted in Pluto being rehomed to this new region of space, and our solar system consisting of eight planets.

"One leading planetary scientist and principal investigator for the New Horizons space mission tasked with exploring Pluto up close had this to say about this experience: 'We thought we understood the geography of our solar system. We didn't. We thought we understood the population of planets in our solar system, and we were wrong.'"


While she is correct about the history of Pluto's downgrade, simply saying that "our solar system consists of eight planets" is somewhat misleading since Pluto and further objects such as Eris are still part of the solar system although not full-blown planets. It's telling the truth, but not the whole truth.

This opens the door for an ignoramus like the DN's Tad Walch to report that Pluto isn't in the solar system.

It also demonstrates that scientists, unlike the church, will admit when they are wrong.

Thank you for doing that, L.A. Ex. I appreciate the extra info and your thoughts.

You said:

"It also demonstrates that scientists, unlike the church, will admit when they are wrong."

Yes. Good point. In fact, great point.

Same here.

My understanding of the declassification isn't that Pluto wasn't in our solar system, but rather it didn't meet the criteria for being called a planet. Her saying "planetary zone" didn't make sense to me. Whatever.

I agree. She could have stated it better, but IMHO she already went farther into the weeds than was needed for a GC talk. I think it was pretty obvious that she had done her homework on the subject.

Right, the Desert News, through Deseret.com, quoted her incorrectly. The OP wrote what Deseret.com reported. However her statement is still inaccurate --

"Their eventual breakthrough reconfigured our planetary zone and resulted in Pluto being rehomed to this new region of space, and our solar system consisting of eight planets."

I personally would not use the word, "reconfigured," Pluto was never "rehomed," and as L.A. Exmo points out, our solar system is composed of a whole lot more than eight planets.

BoJ, when I read “Desnuz,” I hear “deez nutz.” Thank you for caring.

I note that the OP stated they didn't watch/listen to GC but "relied on what is reported". I don't fault people for that as many of us do the same. True enough, it pays to double check things, no doubt.

I would have likely assumed that the lady had just misspoken. If I knew the status of Pluto in the astronomical world which, also likely, many do not. We can't all know everything about everything, after all.

Who would expect that the writer of the article would have made such a blunder in reporting the content of the speech?

It's a good lesson about how crucial it is to fact-check for ourselves. I may not do it as a matter of course but usually do if I'm going to discuss it here or IRL. And if something sounds wacky then I usually do check it out. (It goes without saying, likely, that wacky-sounding things are indeed occurring so merely being on guard against 'wacky' is not a foolproof approach. IOW, Google is your friend - but don't forget to also fact-check even friends).


Henry said: "This is what happens when the vast legitimate criticisms of Mormonism become old and tired. People then seem to deem it necessary expand their imagination to invoke bogus, petty, criticisms, for the rest of RfM to pounce on, just as people did in this post."

I don't see it this way. I don't think, at least in this case, that anybody did anything "bogus" on purpose.

I do appreciate you picking up the error, Henry. It is indeed a good lesson in not pouncing on something and promulgating it without fact-checking for ourselves, especially in these times in which we live. And, of course, fact-checking your fact-checking...

Nightingale: As always, I respect your opinions and comments:

"Henry said: "This is what happens when the vast legitimate criticisms of Mormonism become old and tired. People then seem to deem it necessary expand their imagination to invoke bogus, petty, criticisms, for the rest of RfM to pounce on, just as people did in this post."

COMMENT: Part of this is the nature of RfM. We all should realize that people here have a tendency to run with whatever negative story is told. I have a lot of respect for [|] and noted his disclaimer. My point was to suggest caution. I think RfM is usually better served by being factual, cautious, kind, and when possible giving people the benefit of the doubt; not in jumping all over people with assumptions of ignorance, stupidity and/or fraud or bad faith.
_________________________________

I don't see it this way. I don't think, at least in this case, that anybody did anything "bogus" on purpose.

COMMENT: See above comment.
_________________________________

I do appreciate you picking up the error, Henry. It is indeed a good lesson in not pouncing on something and promulgating it without fact-checking for ourselves, especially in these times in which we live. And, of course, fact-checking your fact-checking...

COMMENT: Thank you. Please note that I give this advice to myself as well as to OP and others. I want RfM to thrive and be relevant. I think this goal is generally better served by elevating our discussions and responses to Mormonism, favoring facts and logic, rather than running with speculations and innuendo to serve our negative emotions about Mormonism generally. This is a challenge because, as I said, the standard misdeeds of Mormonism are for the most part now well-known. But that does not mean we have to make stuff up or manufacture petty grievances. In the first place, it is disingenuous; in the second place it doesn't work.

Just my opinion.

Nightingale, I think her actual statement, as transcribed by L.A. Exmo, is marginally better than what Desert.com reported, but still inaccurate.

And here's the thing -- the concept as reported in the mainstream media was never that difficult. It boiled down to, Pluto was reclassified from being a planet to being a dwarf planet due to new knowledge that was gained. It happened in 2006, and caused quite a sensation at the time. Teachers at every level would have started to teach that immediately. I did.

Someone should have fact-checked her speech, and fact-checked Desert.com as well. No one did. Why is that?

If her point was that knowledge can change in light of new discoveries, that's a good one. The example that she used, though, was inaccurate.

I think Mr. Bemis may be on to something. In 2019, Pluto was downgraded from a planet to a dwarf planet in the astronomy community.

https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/astronomy/item/why-is-pluto-no-longer-a-planet/

For the record, I didn't read what the young lady actually said, but I did remember NPR reporting on the change in status of Pluto; hence I looked it up on startsearch.com and the supplied website was one of several legitimate sources that discussed the downgrading of Pluto's status.

Unfortunately, we cannot trust anything the church published as original or reflecting what was actually said.

The church "corrects" all conference talks before publication.

We know they even edit the video, going so far as to have speaker present their talks to an empty room and having the talks edited to look like the original.

The church founded by the father of lies can never be trusted.

I learned it was a planet. I liked its name. So it is a planet to me.

I dont care if tscc denies it, they lie often. EOD for me

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2024 01:49PM by lousyleper.

Does Kolob still exist?

I liked Pluto as a planet ever since I took an astronomy class under Clyde Tombaugh in the 1960's. Tombaugh discovered Pluto in the 1930's.

Tombaugh brought the glass plates he had used to discover Pluto to class and let us look at them. He didn't have the instrument used to switch back and forth, so all we could do is look at the plates.

To me Pluto will always be a planet.

“To me Pluto will always be a planet.”

What is your definition of a planet? Yes, for most of my life, it was taught that there are nine planets in our solar system. Now, the scientific consensus is that there are eight. If you want to say that Pluto is a planet, you need to come up with a definition of “planet” that would include Pluto. That can be done, but any definition that includes Pluto, would also include other dwarf planets. So, if Pluto is a planet, there are more than nine planets in the solar system.

That’s the thing about science-new knowledge leads to new understanding. Clinging to a prior belief, even if it was based on scientific knowledge at the time, is not science. It’s a type of thinking similar to religion.

The word goes back to the ancient Greek word planēt, and it means "wanderer." A more modern definition can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary which defines a planet as "any of the large bodies that revolve around the Sun in the solar system."

The way I look at it is Pluto is there. It is revolving around and doesn't really care what we call it. Our opinions, our labels, mean nothing--except to us.

So much of life revolves around size which is a big thing for humans who often use size to designate status. Bank accounts, houses, and body parts. With planets one man's large is another man's small. Like beauty, size is in the eye of the beholder. And,again, Pluto doesn't care if you call it size-challenged.

But if you ever end up on Jeopardy you better call it a "dwarf planet".

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of a dwarf planet because it did not meet the three criteria the IAU uses to define a full-sized planet. Essentially Pluto meets all the criteria except one—it “has not cleared its neighboring region of other objects.”

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Essentially Pluto meets all the criteria except
> one—it “has not cleared its neighboring region
> of other objects.”

I read that blurb too D. I don't get what that means - clearing it's neighbouring region...".

I'll have to look into it in more depth.

Or wait for a prophet to explain it. :P

What I read said there is a lot of asteroids in Pluto's path. The larger planets absorb the asteroids in their region. Like when the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit that was just Earth doing some absorbing.I can't find yet why Pluto is so picky and won't absorb some asteroids.

There are two reasons Pluto is not metaphorically vacuuming up the asteroids in its region.

First, it is pretty small, so its gravitational well that can suck in asteroids is pretty small too. It is effectively a much smaller target than the other planets.

Second, the orbit of Pluto is immense compared to earth's orbit, so there is just a lot more space for asteroids to inhabit, space in which Pluto is rarely present at any given moment/location.

Think of the earth as a Roomba vacuuming your living room, and Pluto as a golfball-size mini-Roomba vacuuming a football field. Even after four and a half billion years, Pluto has not put much of a dent in that football field.

In listening to what she said, I understood she meant the Pluto is part of the Kuiper belt.

Similarly, a hundred years sgo, Ceres was considered s planet until it was realized it's part of the asteroid belt.

Pluto aside, that was one of the most "obeyobeyobey-no-matter-what" talks ever. She is saying knowledge is nothing compared to obedience. Just obey no matter what.

And she uses a very erroneous example with the labeling of Pluto being compared to Mormons getting everything wrong and needing to be forgiven for having been the last to know.

Scientists are trying to figure out the unknown with only their own ingenuity to find new parts of a puzzle.

Mormons on the other hand claim to know the source of all information, all truth--their God, and yet want to be forgiven for being clueless even thought they are told that if they ask of God they will get the answer.

Apples and Oranges.

Same old message with a "cute" lead in.

Exactly.
Science clarifies things. Religion obfuscates things.

Sheesh!

Up until this speech I had always relied on GC speakers to know which bodies are in our Solar System!

sad now, but I still hope to hie to Kolob ...