JohnW wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 4:21 pm
malkie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 2:46 am
JohnW, nice to see you again.
Chronologically, the Book of Mormon begins at the post-flood and immediately post-tower period.
How do you see modern revelation adjusting to scientific knowledge about these two Biblical events? Is there a reasonable way for the Book of Mormon to survive the scientific consensus that neither Noah's Flood nor the confounding of the languages a few hundred years later has a scientific basis? Are you ready to jettison the historicity of the Book of Jared, and all that is later implied? Will church leaders follow the implications, and reveal ... what?
You bring up a good point. It is entirely possible that much of our "friendliness" toward science comes from what I sometimes hear LDS scientists call the "two-hat" method. They have a science hat and a religion hat. When acting as a scientist, they lean into scientific explanations and when acting in church, they lean into religious explanations. This method has always made me personally uncomfortable, but I probably use it nonetheless. I think it works for most LDS scientists because most of the time science and religion don't overlap all that much. When they do overlap, religion can give way to science when it isn't a central tenant of a person's religion.
I would argue that the above topics you bring up would fall into that category. Floods and Languages aren't central tenants of our beliefs. Does that mean I can jettison them? I don't think I'm quite ready to do that entirely. It works for me personally, because I can just say I'll worry about that later, maybe the type of later that means after death. The way modern revelation adjusts to this is to downplay the importance of these issues, as Fence Sitter mentioned above. Of course, there are issues on which the church may take a stand. I think we see evolution as an example of this. At first, the First Presidency felt strong enough about the topic to send out an official proclamation on Adam and Eve and Evolution. Later prophets may have not emphasized that as much. Although from my viewpoint, the Fall of Adam as a doctrinal concept is still being taught, and it could be argued it is still rather central.
As you might imagine, I find the "two hats" method rather less than satisfying. (Of course, I'm aware that it doesn't have to satisfy
me.
The way I see it, it has little or nothing to do with revelation adjusting to scientific knowledge, and it comes nowhere close to "friendliness". In fact, its employment results in the wearer of the religious hat totally ignoring what they claim to believe in when wearing the scientific hat, and
vice-versa. And I see your response to the Book of Mormon problems I mention as a good example of that: neither hat dare acknowledge the other, or the attempt at rapprochement immediately falls apart.
As far as the underlying issues of the flood and the tower are concerned, not explicitly counting them as points of doctrine does nothing to resolve the issue that while they are required underpinnings for the view that the Book of Mormon is historical, "science" has clearly demonstrated that they are not "real".
In short,
"Science" == no flood or tower == no historical Book of Mormon