Where do you fit on this scale?

[WANDERER]

I came across this forum posting and while it's a bit tongue in cheek, I wondered how true the scale was and where people would put themselves and if it was a fair comment...

QUOTES:

I have a personal witness (i.e. I feel like God has told me) that there is something divine and unexplainable about the Book of Mormon and its message, but I'm also smart enough to know about the undeniable scientific issues that challenge its historicity. So I have things to take on faith, and empirical evidence that contradicts some of those things. Rather than dump science, or dump faith, I try to take the most spiritual value that I can from the things of faith, and then hope that God will explain the details to me some day.

Mormons in my shoes, who weigh the alternatives, have some different approaches:

0) Just not approach the issue at all, and stop asking questions.

1) Decide that it's "all or nothing," and trade faith for science

2) Decide that it's "all or nothing," and trade their belief in science for irrationality ("Worldwide conspiracy of scientists to fabricate carbon dating and DNA evidence just to further the plan of Satan!")

3) Accept the science/history, but say that some of the evidence in support of Mormon views has been lost or obscured by time/divine will

3a) Accept the science/history, but say that the scope of the Book of Mormon concerned a very small population of South American peoples, and that evidence of such a tiny population could easily have disappeared over the centuries

4) Reject any literal interpretation or historical context, and instead read the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" for the purpose of furthering God's will and spreading a Christian message

5) It is a mystery.

I'm somewhere between 4 and 5, myself. Most Mormons I know are in the 0 camp, with sizable minorities in each of the other groups. I think it's too easy to explain away the BoM as the product of an overactive 19th century farmer's imagination, but it's far too hard to explain it as a literal history of people, cultures, languages, and flora/fauna that just don't seem to exist. I'm not sure where the precise definition of truth resides in the whole mess, but I feel like that's not the right question to be asking. For me, "What does God want me to learn from the BoM?" is more informative than "How can I benefit from treating the BoM (or the Old Testament, for that matter) as a literal history?"

Your comments?

(if this is unacceptable mods please notify me...happy to remove the posting...just trying to make sense out of stuff for myself).

[VisionOfLehi]

I'm not sure how I'd fit on the scale.

I take much of it on faith, yet I surely believe in science.

I just do not have faith that science has mastered everything to prove/disprove one way or another.

So is there a 1a) Decide to take it all on faith, knowing that some day it'll all be explained?

[skalenfehl]

I'm having a hard time with the categories. I guess that means I don't fit in the alternative approaches. I fit more with the original quote. For me personally, it's beyond faith. I have a witness and a knowledge, not a feeling. I don't know what the Liahona looks like, but I know people used it and that it did work as described. I know that the tower of Babel was once built before the people's languages were confounded, but time seems to have removed any evidence of the structure, though some might argue they found some remains of the foundation, but there's nothing conclusive.

Science deals with the knowns. The world was once thought to be flat. People laughed at Benjamin Franklin when he realized that lightning was nothing more than the tiny sparks of static electricity on a grand scale and set out to successfully prove it. Just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it isn't there. Theories evolve and science is ever changing. Cities have been built upon cities and ancient civilizations in South America and also the old world (Rome, Constantinople, etc). Every time some kind of new evidence pops up it turns what man thinks he knows about something completely upside down. History is full of examples.

Edited July 13, 2008 by skalenfehl

[FernRL]

On the scale of 0-5 I would say I would choose 6) None of the Above.

I really like science and I truly believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think if the truth were really known about both, there would be no conflict.

I like what Orson Scott Card wrote in a blog on June 11, 2008, entitled: "Real Faith, Science Unafraid"

Mormon Times - Real faith, science unafraid

A part that I like best is:

"In real science, everything is supposed to be questioned, all the time. Be sure of this: Whenever a point of scientific doctrine is treated as beyond doubt, you can be sure that it is wrong.

"Why? Because all scientific 'knowledge' will eventually be found to be at least incomplete and quite possibly flat wrong, so if any area of science remains unquestioned, that is where the errors will accumulate.

"Real scientists are unafraid of questions and never stifle them. The evidence of honest experiment will either affirm the existing belief or replace it with a better understanding. What's to fear in that?

"There are no final answers in science, and anyone who thinks he has found one is no scientist.

"Similarly, in the LDS religion, we proceed in the same confidence as scientists. Looking through the Doctrine and Covenants, reading the history of the church, we see time and again that great revelations come because of questions -- and often, questions that could be classed as 'doubts.'

"They rarely come when no question is being asked, or on topics where the prophet or the people have no doubts.

"The LDS faith is an experimental religion. We use the scientific method. No one is asked to rely on other people's faith; we are expected to ask the questions ourselves, and then "prove" and "test" the answers we are given."

I think rather simply, and like to reduce things to their most basic form, so I summarize my beliefs as follows:

There is a God. His two characteristics which are most important to me are: That He knows all things, and He loves us all perfectly.

That means that He will be as involved in our lives as is good for us, if we want Him to be. And we show him that through our prayers.

[Moksha]

We Mormons do tend to be up and down that scale, with many interesting variations to boot.

[prisonchaplain]

This scale could be applied to Christians in general, and the Bible. I lean towards favoring faith over science, believing that the science will eventually catch up (no conspiracies, but I have not totally ruled out Younger-Earth Creationism either). At the same time, it would not blow my theology to discover that God created the universe over the course of Carl Sagan's "billions and billions of years," either. Further, I find that most of the Bible is literal and historical, rather than allegory and hidden meanings. Hope this helps.

[skalenfehl]

Definitely a good point, PC. We have literary evidences that thousands, even tens of thousands were crucified throughout biblical and Roman history, but ironically as commonplace as it was to see people hanging on crosses throughout the Roman Empire, the anthropological evidence of it is limited to only one single case. A young man named Jehohanan was supposedly crucified and the only evidence we have is of an 11.5 cm spike which was found lodged through his heel (when his entombed remains were found). Obviously it was not removed because the nail was curved at the point likely due to having been driven through the post but hitting a knot. Otherwise no other nails are discovered and no where else in history do we find any physical evidences of crucifixions ever happening. So this scale certainly applies to Christianity. There simply doesn't exist substantial proof that crucifixions ever took place, which is ironic given that Jesus Christ is the most profoundly influential person that ever walked the Earth and no other death like His has had a greater impact upon all of mankind.

Edited July 14, 2008 by skalenfehl

[FayetteIA]

Ditto here from Iowa: I don't fit any of the categories either. How do you explain scientifically the overwhelming emotions that occur when a person experiences the answer to the truth of the BoM when put to the test in Moroni of it's truthfulness? I do not think there is a scientific explanation. We have a lot of evidence and witnesses but for some that is not enough.

I think the Lord has given us enough evidence in that solution. We can run around all day and night and try to prove "How high is Up"? and have as many answers as the number of people who are polled. The Truth of the BoM scientific or spiritual based lies within the heart of whoever is seeking these things out. The naysayer..most likely will remain a naysayer. The critics will not be satisfied until they have taken it apart verse by verse to prove inaccuracies. The sincere seekers of truth will find it and it will be unmistakably clear to them. Since we are all at different levels of development...each person will experience this uniquely.

My husband joined the church while in HS. He was married (to his ex) and had 3 children before he realized he had a testimony of the BoM. He says he would listen to flowery accounts of how others learned of it's truth. he had not experienced that. Someone said to him one day "Can you deny the Book of Mormon is true" He said "NO, I cannot" He was then told "The reason you cannot give a glowing account of it's truth, is because for you, it has always been true." "The Lord does not need give you a further witness to something you already know is true" My husband thought about that and realized his friend was right. He had accepted the truth of the BoM before he even read it, he says "I didn't need to read it first..I knew it was true from day one". So he was busy looking for something he already had. I think a lot of people fall into that category. It is too simplistic for our complex, technical lives..to just Pray and be assured the BoM is true. It doesn't fit into our cyber life. As I said in another post. The Lord never meant for the Gospel to be complex..It is a matter of simple, sincere, faith and acting on it.

Joni

[tammyi]

we should live be faith not by sight. We would loss.

I know its hard but can be done.

[abqfriend]

I am a Roman Catholic studying the Book of Mormon. I try to look at the big picture and not focus on the small details that I do not fully understand.

Look at the BIG picture-what the Book of Mormon is focusing on in bringing us a better understanding of this world, our place in it and the love of the Heavenly Father for each of us.

If there is a Devil or Satan-He would want us to focus our attention on anything that would make us doubt our faith. If we come to have no faith-guess who wins?

My choice is not one listed-although I am not a member of the LDS Church-I say skip the small stuff that ultimately means little-and skip anything that trys to keep us from the BIG stuff of faith.

-Carol -a seeker of Truth

I came across this forum posting and while it's a bit tongue in cheek, I wondered how true the scale was and where people would put themselves and if it was a fair comment...

QUOTES:

I have a personal witness (i.e. I feel like God has told me) that there is something divine and unexplainable about the Book of Mormon and its message, but I'm also smart enough to know about the undeniable scientific issues that challenge its historicity. So I have things to take on faith, and empirical evidence that contradicts some of those things. Rather than dump science, or dump faith, I try to take the most spiritual value that I can from the things of faith, and then hope that God will explain the details to me some day.

Mormons in my shoes, who weigh the alternatives, have some different approaches:

0) Just not approach the issue at all, and stop asking questions.

1) Decide that it's "all or nothing," and trade faith for science

2) Decide that it's "all or nothing," and trade their belief in science for irrationality ("Worldwide conspiracy of scientists to fabricate carbon dating and DNA evidence just to further the plan of Satan!")

3) Accept the science/history, but say that some of the evidence in support of Mormon views has been lost or obscured by time/divine will

3a) Accept the science/history, but say that the scope of the Book of Mormon concerned a very small population of South American peoples, and that evidence of such a tiny population could easily have disappeared over the centuries

4) Reject any literal interpretation or historical context, and instead read the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" for the purpose of furthering God's will and spreading a Christian message

5) It is a mystery.

I'm somewhere between 4 and 5, myself. Most Mormons I know are in the 0 camp, with sizable minorities in each of the other groups. I think it's too easy to explain away the BoM as the product of an overactive 19th century farmer's imagination, but it's far too hard to explain it as a literal history of people, cultures, languages, and flora/fauna that just don't seem to exist. I'm not sure where the precise definition of truth resides in the whole mess, but I feel like that's not the right question to be asking. For me, "What does God want me to learn from the BoM?" is more informative than "How can I benefit from treating the BoM (or the Old Testament, for that matter) as a literal history?"

Your comments?

(if this is unacceptable mods please notify me...happy to remove the posting...just trying to make sense out of stuff for myself).

[Elphaba]

we should live be faith not by sight. We would loss.

I know its hard but can be done.

Then why do we have eyeballs?

Elphie