NOM

The Book of Mormon story is chock full of magic. It recounts the peopling of the Americas by magical means: wooden submarines propelled by supernatural forces, magic glowing rocks, touched by the finger of the Lord, a supernatural voice commanding a flight into the wilderness, a magical compass that is powered by faith, etc. This magic-based narrative provides no archaeological or other scientific evidence. It is a magical story that is expected to be believed and perpetuated through a magical world view.

Science, by comparison, gives us a much more pragmatic explanation of how people came to exist in the Americas, with substantial evidence to corroborate the story. It does not allow for any sort of magic at all, nor does it benefit from it.

So here's the dilemma for the church: before the contrary evidence was available the magic world view was all that was expected of the members. Trust us, it happened, you can feel that it is true. But now we have mountains of evidence about where the American Indians came from and what really went on in this half of the world, evidence that is incontrovertible to the degree that the church's new apologetic approach is and attempt to incorporate it into a new science-meets-magic narrative. Now members are expected to accept major portions of the scientific story without letting it influence the their embrace of the storybook version that they grew up with. The problem is that these two explanations are oil and water, which is why the DNA essay is such a mess.

I wonder at what point the church will realize that the real problem they have to deal with, and why so many sincere thinking people are faltering in their faith in the BoM, is that the scientific answer can stand alone with no magical reinforcement, while the magical explanation trapped into trying to incorporate the scientific view into a new Frankenstein's monster reinvention of their once simple, coherent, magical story.

At some point many of us, in a genuine quest for truth, simply come to the realization that they have to choose between magic and evidence-based science.

I am most perplexed by the very intelligent people I know who are able to mix the two world views into something that they find reasonable. My attempt to do that nearly tore me to shreds in the end. I guess I'm not as smart as them.

Yep - you nailed it. So much of what you said just mounted up for me over the years as a TBM, caused a hell of a lot of painful cogdis. I'm not a scientist, although I love so many fields there and dabble in them as much as I can. I remember trying to do the gymnastics to try and make it work in the literal, like all the cataclysmic events in the BOM; 24 hours with no night on one side of the planet, but not on the other. Big earthquakes and floods but no geologic evidence in the time frame to support it. I thought that maybe those events were the cause of Lake Bonneville flooding out until I learned that was 20k years ago. Then all the DNA evidence and the admission by the COB of the false American Indian Jews assumptions by changing the introductory paragraph to the BOM. All the millions of nicely stacked sediment and fossil records that killed the 7k year old Earth creation crap. So much crap!

It's so liberating to be out of it and thinking freely now, but also so very frustrating to have highly intelligent TBM friends still drinking that koolaid and doing the gymnastics. It really boils down to how much self-respect and gumption you have to own up to the facts and tell yourself you've been duped! It was not easy, but so very worth it!

I remember David Michael making a similar point on his "My Book of Mormon Podcast". When he got to the part where Lehi finds the Liahona outside his tent, David just said (paraphrased) "Wait a minute, this is just science fiction now! Alright, now I know what I'm dealing with."

fh451

I am seeing more and more descriptions of the Book of Mormon as "spiritual" and not necessarily "historical". It's not an impossible task to change the teachings about the BoM from being necessarily historical. But this is the path that Community of Christ went down and they lost half of their membership. This would be an unappealing outcome for Tom Monson's organization.

Exactly what can the LDS church claim to be so exclusively important about themselves once the amazing claims start falling away? The Book of Mormon was the sign that Joseph Smith was a prophet from the early days of the church. Missionary discussions today rely heavily on the First Vision, but the production of new scripture with the Book of Mormon remains an important sign that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Doesn't the same "magic or science" dichotomy apply to all religious texts?

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:26 am Doesn't the same "magic or science" dichotomy apply to all religious texts?

I suppose so, but many religions have chosen to go one way or the other and either fundamentalize and reject science, or recognize scripture events as symbolic of the human condition. Our church is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

In some ways I wish he church would just suck it up and embrace its original claims rather than trying to keep them in a seriously watered-down version. Its many fundamental core believers would welcome that but many others would have better reasons to make a clean break. That would really hurt the bottom line, of course, so I expect that they'll keep weaving a web of pseudo-science/pseudo-scholarship for as long as they can maintain it.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:18 am In some ways I wish he church would just suck it up and embrace its original claims rather than trying to keep them in a seriously watered-down version. Its many fundamental core believers would welcome that but many others would have better reasons to make a clean break. That would really hurt the bottom line, of course, so I expect that they'll keep weaving a web of pseudo-science/pseudo-scholarship for as long as they can maintain it.

One of the suggestions I have seen for preserving the LDS church is to "keep Mormonism weird". Embrace the crazy ideas and logically impossible beliefs. FairMormon appears ready to bend over backwards to accommodate any explanation needed for preserving faith. Brigham Young and Orson Pratt used to debate the finer (and crazier) points of theology in general conference, but that is far in the past.

I can only imagine that the LDS church statistical department ran a bunch of surveys and determined that making LDS theology into being bland and suspiciously Protestant was the way to go. Satan could not have come up with a better way to disrupt the LDS church than with critical thinking and tons of uncorrelated information on the internet.

Hagoth, I think someone could be the world's top anthropologist and still enjoy comic book movies like Dr. Strange. The trick is not assuming the Dread Dormammu is a real entity. Take is as an allegorical lesson of some sort and it becomes less vexing. It can help take your mind off the many cares of the world and provide you with an experience in cosplay each week if you wish to take it beyond the academic level.

BTW, for the sake of sanity, do not invest more than 10% of your earnings in comics, costumes, movies or popcorn.

I agree Moksha and it has always been my contention that religions should have EXACTLY as much power and as much control over​ peoples' lives as a cosplay group or fan club.

An anthropologists can enjoy and believe in Dr. Strange as much as he wants as long as he doesn't demand that I believe in it , dress in costume, take orders from him, and pay him him for the privilege.