Innoculating

[Calm]

The best way to inoculate a persons Testimony is expose them to all criticisms when they are young. That way nothing will become a shock when they discover it on the internet.

And how is one to ensure that? I doubt there is another parent out there that would love to discuss this kind of stuff with her kids more than I would. I had luck with the first one though I don't know how much he actually remembers. My second, my daughter, would get this look on her face of "oh no, not again" and phase out...even as a toddler she wouldn't let me read any more scripture stories than the Book of Mormon one...don't ask me why, maybe she liked the pictures or sounds of the names better. I had to work hard to read the OT, NT, and D&C/CH ones to her. Don't know if I ever managed to get through them all. Edited June 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Avatar4321]

Why does anyone assume we need to innoculate people? Just teach the truth with power. People will believe.

[ERayR]

And while it has been a lively discussion it has gone pretty much as I expected with everybody pretty much ignoring the article from Elder Ballard. You all really ought to read and digest what he is saying.

[canard78]

And while it has been a lively discussion it has gone pretty much as I expected with everybody pretty much ignoring the article from Elder Ballard. You all really ought to read and digest what he is saying.

Thanks for prodding me into reading the full article. You're right, it says far more than you quoted. Some thoughts below:

Members who are ever approached by anyone claiming special authority or revelation from God outside the sustained priesthood authority should turn and run from them as fast as they can.

...

I know of one group that is led by a bright, capable, articulate young man who claims to have received a revelation that he is the prophet and that he was called of God to establish the true Church. Sadly, there are those who have chosen to follow such individuals, who in turn lead them directly away from the principles of truth and righteousness.

...

Keep your eyes riveted on the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We will not lead you astray. We cannot. Let me tell you why. Every week that I am in town, I attend a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve on the fourth floor of the Salt Lake Temple. If you could see the process by which decision and direction comes from that meeting, you would have a deep sense of confidence and comfort that the will of the Lord is being taught by the leaders of the Church.

...

So keep your eyes riveted on the leadership of the Church. While individuals may falter, the body of general Church leadership will remain steadfast and true. If someone tells you that they have received revelation that the First Presidency and the Twelve have not received, run away from them.

This is the type of 'inoculation' that I am uncomfortable with. Making everyone but the priesthood leaders out to be 'boogiemen.'

It also goes against much of what has been said by other LDS leaders - that non-LDS, even non-Christian leaders/teachers/prophets and philosophers are inspired and guided by God. The LDS leaders are not the only source of truth. God is. And he has many ways to express and share that truth. I've quoted several LDS leaders saying so before. I happily will again if needed.

(A few paragraphs about how awful 'the world and the media' is and how we should follow the prophet in rejecting it).

...

Of course, Satan doesn’t want us to feel or exhibit that kind of faith, and so he makes us feel uncomfortable with obedience. He plants defiance in our hearts with justification and rationalization, subtly convincing us that it is possible to live the spirit of the law even if we are in violation of its letter.

...

When we are not doing what we know we ought to be doing, and when we are not living the way we know we ought to live, we have a tendency to be unhappy.

This sounds like an instruction to simply be compliant and non-questioning to avoid the risk of following Satan.

The last paragraph is one I agree with. It's a simple universal principle. But it's not exclusive to Mormonism. My wife and certain close friends are 'are doing/living what they know they ought to be doing/living and have a tendency to be very happy.' But they stopped attending church to do that. They were true to themselves by leaving and are very happy by consequence. I do not because I know I find happiness in rather than out. But I don't presume that those who leave go into unhappiness. That would be unfounded and illogical. If they were so unhappy they would simply come back.

(In the story of speaking to the missionary who he promised to reply to over anti-Mormon literature he said):

“All right,” I said. “You have given me my assignment. It’s only fair that I give you yours. I want you to promise me that you will read in the Book of Mormon for at least one hour every day between now and our next appointment.” He agreed that he would do that.

Tried this, didn't work for me. I can imagine why it may have worked for the young missionary. But it's not a 'quick fix' solution. I love to read and apply the Book of Mormon AND I remain uncertain of its origins and the foundational claims of the church.

Establish a time and place to study the scriptures on a daily basis, even if it is only for a few minutes at a time. Pray regularly. Serve faithfully in whatever capacity you are called to serve in, including home and visiting teaching, which is the very essence of gospel service. Hold weekly, meaningful family home evenings in which gospel lessons are taught and pleasant family activities are shared.

Again, good advice and I try to follow it. But the 'daily simple things' don't answer the difficult questions. They simply make them matter a little less. For some people the 'simple things' may be an effective approach for their whole life to deal with the unanswered issues. For others it may be a creaking stick that holds up the ever-groaning mental shelf until it finally breaks.

That’s the blessed assurance of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is His Church, the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth. May we stay anchored to it and not allow any voice or any wind of doctrine or any secret, so-called revelation or any special information that “the Brethren don’t understand” lead us away from what we know to be true. Our safety, brothers and sisters, and our peace—our inner peace, the peace that we all seek—lie in striving to live as the Savior would want us to live and in knowing within our hearts and minds that we are doing the best we can to try to keep His commandments.

The first and last sentences can work very well without inserting the exclusivity claim in the middle.

Of course, such discipleship comes at a price. It isn’t always easy to come to Christ. There are sacrifices that need to be made by all who seek to follow the Savior, and sometimes those sacrifices are quite painful. To be called by God to serve Him in any capacity is the greatest honor a person can have, and we all do it willingly and with all our hearts because we love Him and we love His Son. Let us accept Their teachings, strive to understand Them, labor to put sin out of our lives through repentance, and endeavor to honor Them through our own righteous living, and always follow the inspired leadership of the Church.

All of this statement is a wonderful view and I agree with it.

But I apply the last word to the Church of the Lamb (which I do not consider to be exclusively Mormon) and I do reserve the ability to personally discover which is the inspired moments of leadership to follow and which bits to leave for another day or other person.

I do not put my life in the hands of other men and I will not try to 'inoculate' my children by teaching them to do the so either.

[Hamba Tuhan]

In my experience, the best 'inoculation' is to be found not just in giving the Lord His due in things such as study but also in observance. No amount of Book of Mormon reading will avail us if we're not living/applying the principles found therein. It was the Lord Himself who, when challenged on whether or not the doctrine He was teaching really came from the Father, gave this advice: 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself'.

As I recently wrote in another thread:

I have a difficult time understanding how a Latter-day Saint who in the past month has (a) received clear answers to prayers, (b) received revelations, © experienced the power of the priesthood, (d) enjoyed the peace of the temple, (e) acted on inspiration and thereby been the answer to someone else's prayer, (f) received insight from the pages of the Book of Mormon, (g) experienced the lifting of the burden of sin through repentance and partaking of the sacrament, (h) felt his/her heart change in response to repentance and prayer, (i) seen his/her life be blessed by the teachings of living prophets, (j) witnessed the gospel bless the lives of those s/he visiting/home teaches, etc. can somehow read something and just conclude that none of the above actually happened.

To me, it would be like the man who was born blind saying, when questioned by the Pharisees, 'Well, yes, I did once think that Jesus healed me, but then I read this bit in the scriptures about a talking donkey, and, well, I just don't know what I know anymore'.

I'm also reminded of the words of Jacob in relation to Sherem's attempts at destroying faith:

And he had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they had ministered unto me. And also, I had heard the voice of the Lord speaking unto me in very word, from time to time; wherefore, I could not be shaken.

Speaking methphorically, after many tens of thousands of experiences switching electric lights on and off, I feel reasonably impervious to those who might wish to argue that electricity isn't real or that Thomas Edison was a fraud.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't presume that those who leave go into unhappiness. That would be unfounded and illogical. If they were so unhappy they would simply come back.

I wish this were true for everyone! I had an LDS flatmate during the final year of my postgraduate study in America who left the Church and then vocally wallowed in his misery thereafer. During spring break, he caught a lift to St Louis with me and a mate who was travelling there to receive his endowment. For much of the multi-hour trip, he kept whingeing about how much he missed the blessings of the temple. I finally couldn't take it anymore and told him that, if he really missed it that much, he should just come back. He couldn't, he said, using something vague about 'intellectual honesty' as his excuse. I couldn't understand it then, and it makes even less sense to me now, but some people seem to prefer choosing misery over happiness.

[canard78]

I wish this were true for everyone! I had an LDS flatmate during the final year of my postgraduate study in America who left the Church and then vocally wallowed in his misery thereafer. During spring break, he caught a lift to St Louis with me and a mate who was travelling there to receive his endowment. For much of the multi-hour trip, he kept whingeing about how much he missed the blessings of the temple. I finally couldn't take it anymore and told him that, if he really missed it that much, he should just come back. He couldn't, he said, using something vague about 'intellectual honesty' as his excuse. I couldn't understand it then, and it makes even less sense to me now, but some people seem to prefer choosing misery over happiness.

Don't worry, there are people who enjoy wallowing in misery both inside and outside of the church. But you can rest assured that there are plenty of people (I'm related to a few) who are very happy having left the church. They have left it and left it alone. They have happy, fulfilled lives with good moral values and personally progressive experiences. A person's happiness is not dependent on where they go to church or what particular religious commandments they adopt.

[Hamba Tuhan]

A person's happiness is not dependent on where they go to church or what particular religious commandments they adopt.

No doubt people want different things; that's precisely why the Lord in His mercy has prepared different kinds of eternal rewards/kingdoms, but I remain convinced that God, in His wisdom and omniscience, has crafted the commandments specifically based on what brings the greatest happiness: 'If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them'.

[canard78]

No doubt people want different things; that's precisely why the Lord in His mercy has prepared different kinds of eternal rewards/kingdoms, but I remain convinced that God, in His wisdom and omniscience, has crafted the commandments specifically based on what brings the greatest happiness: 'If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them'.

I completely agree that the commandments and even the programs of the church are built around principles that deliver behaviour that brings happiness. We're not happy because we're obedient. We're happy because of the fruits and outcomes of obedience.

I also agree that the things that make us unhappy are often symptoms of disobedience to commandments.

But, those who don't believe in Mormonism or even in God can still model the behaviours that leads to happiness and yet do not do so because a God asked him to,but because he considers it to be a basic principle of what's right.

[Tacenda]

And how is one to ensure that? I doubt there is another parent out there that would love to discuss this kind of stuff with her kids more than I would. I had luck with the first one though I don't know how much he actually remembers. My second, my daughter, would get this look on her face of "oh no, not again" and phase out...even as a toddler she wouldn't let me read any more scripture stories than the Book of Mormon one...don't ask me why, maybe she liked the pictures or sounds of the names better. I had to work hard to read the OT, NT, and D&C/CH ones to her. Don't know if I ever managed to get through them all.

I'm already getting blamed for my son not going on a mission, once or twice it was spoken by my husband and then retracted quickly. But silently I feel I'm being judged by my bishop (I told him of my faith crisis awhile back) turned stake president and maybe now the new bishopric who all have worked with my son in YM's along the way. But they don't know that I haven't told my son anything other than I hated what was going on with the FLDS. I still remain active and still haven't told my children anything about history of the church they may not know about. I've thought about coming out to help innoculate but worry that their teachers, friends, family will think I tried to take away their belief. Still don't know when it will be a good time. Now if I was a TBM, maybe I wouldn't be looked down on for telling the truth. Heck, my neighbor who I help with in Primary, expresses her love for Joseph Smith each week, I'd hate for her to hear that he wasn't what she thought as far as WoW, or having many wives.

[Johnnie Cake]

Might want to say alleged to be said by Boyd k packer.

I'll accept alleged..as the quote comes from Quinn's recollection...taken from his notes of his BYU employment interview with President Packer...but the comment is in keeping with other bizaare statements made by President Packer...so I tend to believe it as an accurate representation of what was said in that private meeting.

[ERayR]

I'm already getting blamed for my son not going on a mission, once or twice it was spoken by my husband and then retracted quickly. But silently I feel I'm being judged by my bishop (I told him of my faith crisis awhile back) turned stake president and maybe now the new bishopric who all have worked with my son in YM's along the way. But they don't know that I haven't told my son anything other than I hated what was going on with the FLDS. I still remain active and still haven't told my children anything about history of the church they may not know about. I've thought about coming out to help innoculate but worry that their teachers, friends, family will think I tried to take away their belief. Still don't know when it will be a good time. Now if I was a TBM, maybe I wouldn't be looked down on for telling the truth. Heck, my neighbor who I help with in Primary, expresses her love for Joseph Smith each week, I'd hate for her to hear that he wasn't what she thought as far as WoW, or having many wives.

Disclaimer: I do not know you enough to make any judgements and so I make none.

That being said one does not need to vocalize ones doubts for them to be picked up by and affect children. From what you write there is tension between you and your husband over this issue. The kids will pick up on the tension.

Edited June 14, 2013 by ERayR

[tagriffy]

I'm already getting blamed for my son not going on a mission, once or twice it was spoken by my husband and then retracted quickly. But silently I feel I'm being judged by my bishop (I told him of my faith crisis awhile back) turned stake president and maybe now the new bishopric who all have worked with my son in YM's along the way. But they don't know that I haven't told my son anything other than I hated what was going on with the FLDS. I still remain active and still haven't told my children anything about history of the church they may not know about. I've thought about coming out to help innoculate but worry that their teachers, friends, family will think I tried to take away their belief. Still don't know when it will be a good time. Now if I was a TBM, maybe I wouldn't be looked down on for telling the truth. Heck, my neighbor who I help with in Primary, expresses her love for Joseph Smith each week, I'd hate for her to hear that he wasn't what she thought as far as WoW, or having many wives.

This is why I have the idea of having open options. There are a range of ways of dealing with issues. If a person could feel like they weren't going to be ostracized for talking about them, members as a whole would be exposed to all kinds of different thoughts. And when the critics come calling, so to speak, they can respond, "Oh yeah, I remember so-and-so talking about it. It can be dealt with."

[ERayR]

I'll accept alleged..as the quote comes from Quinn's recollection...taken from his notes of his BYU employment interview with President Packer...but the comment is in keeping with other bizaare statements made by President Packer...so I tend to believe it as an accurate representation of what was said in that private meeting.

Surprise Surprise.

[Johnnie Cake]

That's unfortunately not an outcome for all people. The strength of my testimony was probably at all time high before deciding to explore church origins and history. I did this as a strong believing member and my main motivation was to better understand the issues that had lead my wife to stop attending 24 months earlier.

The odd idea about inoculation is that it comes from the meaning to: "implant germs of a disease to produce immunity"

In other words, we're effectively saying we need to give enough "horrible history" to the members in small, manageable doses as it has the ability to "kill" (testimony) if discovered in a big dose.

It occurred to me recently how 'normal' the idea was of Joseph being visited in his bedroom 3 times in one night by an angel, finding Nephite spectacles, translating a record from a dead language into 16thC English, introducing polygamy etc. But when presented with the idea that he also put a rock in a hat, may have believed in treasure guardians/scrying, introduced polyandry etc I was initially horrified. "That's ridiculous," I thought. The angel and spectacles was perfectly normal/respectable because they had just always been part of the story.

If the Book of Mormon had been taught as a simple 'inspired dictation' with no other context then even discovering the angels would be shocking.

I am currently 'inoculating' my children. When we discuss the Book of Mormon translation, for example, I mention casually the fact that in addition to the Nephite interpreters Joseph also used a stone in a hat and that both were simply ways for him to focus on receiving the inspired words to dictate. It is becoming a normal part of the story.

But... I wonder if that really is responsible parenting? Is it really ok to normalise something that really isn't 'normal.' A parent can make most things seem normal to a child if they repeat it enough.

Interesting post...

I recently had one of my younger grandchildren ask me completely out of left field..."Grandpa, Is the Book of Mormon True?" My personal view is that the book is a 100% human product...written from the thoughts and ideas of a human mind just like every other book found in a library...So should I lie to my grandson and tell him what his parents would tell him had the question been asked of them or

should I tell him what I believe… after all he did ask for my opinion...

What I did was (just like many here) was to nuance my answer in a way that I could remain honest to my personal beliefs yet respect what his parents teach him. I said..."Well that’s a complicated question.. there are people in the world who believe that it is true and there are people in the world who believe it is not." Several days passed and I get a call from my son asking why I told my grandson that the Book of Mormon wasn't true. Taken back some I responded that that was not what I had said and shared with him what and how I had answered this direct question.

The problem with inoculation…is that sometimes even telling the truth gets you in trouble

[CV75]

We are probably talking past each other. Let's go ahead and see where defining belief and doubt will get us. Doubt is the functional equivalent of misgivings, questions, objections. Belief is the acceptance of something being true, expressed in degrees of certainty.

It is interesting that you define belief in terms of degree and doubt in more absolute terms. If that is the case, the two indeed cannot co-exist on the same subject. Neither can they co-exist if both are defined as absolutes. They can only co-exist if there is a simultaneous degree of doubt and a degree of belief in the same subject, which is possible. Elder Holland had a great talk about this in the last General Conference.

If the definitions instead were: “Doubt is the functional equivalent of misgivings, questions, objections, expressed in degrees of uncertainty (or certainty),” and “Belief is the acceptance of something being true, expressed in degrees of certainty (or uncertainty),” then the two could co-exist. That is where faith (as I offered to define it) comes in and confirms the actual truth behind one’s doubt or belief. Another way of saying it is that faith, even if expressed in degrees, is the spiritual stabilizer of (or even a catalyst for) the mental states of belief and doubt. So, if one approaches his studies with faith, and keeps that faith (not substituting it with doubt or belief), whatever belief or doubt he holds will eventually be properly confirmed as true or false.

Because faith is often used synonymously with belief, it is said that faith and doubt cannot co-exist (on the same point), but in that case faith and belief cannot co-exist either, nor can faith and knowledge for that matter.

[tagriffy]

It is interesting that you define belief in terms of degree and doubt in more absolute terms. If that is the case, the two indeed cannot co-exist on the same subject. Neither can they co-exist if both are defined as absolutes. They can only co-exist if there is a simultaneous degree of doubt and a degree of belief in the same subject, which is possible. Elder Holland had a great talk about this in the last General Conference.

If the definitions instead were: “Doubt is the functional equivalent of misgivings, questions, objections, expressed in degrees of uncertainty (or certainty),” and “Belief is the acceptance of something being true, expressed in degrees of certainty (or uncertainty),” then the two could co-exist. That is where faith (as I offered to define it) comes in and confirms the actual truth behind one’s doubt or belief. Another way of saying it is that faith, even if expressed in degrees, is the spiritual stabilizer of (or even a catalyst for) the mental states of belief and doubt. So, if one approaches his studies with faith, and keeps that faith (not substituting it with doubt or belief), whatever belief or doubt he holds will eventually be properly confirmed as true or false.

Actually, expressing doubt in terms of degrees of certainty or uncertainty would better fit my thought. I do like the idea of faith being the stabilizer between belief and doubt. That much is implied when I say the most important question is whether God speaks to you through (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, whatever). If so, then everything else is just details.

Because faith is often used synonymously with belief, it is said that faith and doubt cannot co-exist (on the same point), but in that case faith and belief cannot co-exist either, nor can faith and knowledge for that matter.

I don't identify faith as being synonymous with belief, though don't ask me how they are different. The most I can say is that faith is more sublime. That's why for me, there is never "equal time" with the Lord.

Edited June 14, 2013 by tagriffy

[thesometimesaint]

Why does anyone assume we need to innoculate people? Just teach the truth with power. People will believe.

Better to teach truth to power.

[Tacenda]

Better to teach truth to power.

Elongate for me please, I'm slow...

[thesometimesaint]

Elongate for me please, I'm slow...

http://teachtruthtopower.blogspot.com/

[Veles]

...

What I did was (just like many here) was to nuance my answer in a way that I could remain honest to my personal beliefs yet respect what his parents teach him. I said..."Well that’s a complicated question.. there are people in the world who believe that it is true and there are people in the world who believe it is not." ..

Well... this ios too black and white.

There are also people, who believe the BoM is not real history, and still believe is true.

[Kevin Christensen]

I learned a long time ago that the difference between disillusion and enlightenment, between the experience of shattering and expanding is under the control of the receiver of new information, and not the inevitable byproduct of the information itself. When Jesus told the parable of the sower, and of the vastly different yields that came from the same information (the seed, he explains, representing "the word"), he commented "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

Was there a terrible betrayal of my childlike faith in the absolute iron control and necessarily uniform and God-Breathed, Infallibly only true thinking that exists at all levels of life in the faith to realize that Don Parry had a rather narrow take on the flood story, and got it in the Ensign? Not to me, because I didn't have a childlike faith in the absolute iron control and uniform thinking in the various levels of life in the LDS faith because I had already been initiated in the diversity of thought, and the various trends, schools, organizations, and attitudes. I read a bit on my own, seeking out of the best books, words of knowledge. Not a heretical, rebellious act. Just taking conspicuous advice. The trends and schools had histories that I knew, and root causes in attitudes and human traits that I understand. I found the essay annoying, but not toxic, easy to dismiss as one man's opinion, because I knew a great many other opinions. I'd long been aware of Nibley's "Before Adam" for instance, offered very different take, and knew the intellectual divide between Joseph Fielding Smith and Talmage ( a trained geologist, which, not surprisingly, influenced what he was able to imagine as he read) and others, including the gulf between the geology department at BYU and those at CES. I'd studied the human tendencies that go with personality type, and that go with over-specialization in education. I'd been impressed by the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth for which I see re-enforcing value in threads like these.

Are there scientists out there who once learned Newtonian physics, and who had trouble when Relativity and worse, quantum mechanics came along? Do Darwinians moan about their betrayed expectations when Darwin's glacially slow gradual change ran into Gould's punctuated equilibrium, of periods of rapid change and diversification? When has a closer look at any topic not brought surprises? I remember an account of the Galileo flyby of Jupiter's moons, among the scientists at JPL labs, where every moment of watching the new images shattered old theories and brought images and sights that none had imagined. The shake up actually resembled that which occurred earlier when Galileo pointed his telescope and saw the moons for the first time, finding that there was another unanticipated center, around which something else revolved. Such things did not discredit the scientific enterprise because most people accept that science is a self correcting process. That is, progress depends on our willingness to be wrong about somethings, to accept that authorities are not always right. To be able to endure and sustain one's faith in the process.

And incidentally, I had a major moment of enlightenment in contemplating the supposed picture of the layered Hebrew Cosmos, and the primitive backward, pre-scientific thinking that it was supposed to represent. As I looked at a drawing, and pondering, I remember thinking "Where have I heard of this before?" Ah... Hamlet's Mill. I went back and looked again, and rather than suffering shattering disillusion, I felt my mind expand. I wrote what became my first published essay, and it ended up in Dialogue.

https://www.dialogue..._V24N03_123.pdf

The same seed had fallen into a better, more receptive and productive patch of soil. I'd read Hamlet's Mill, not an easy read, because I'd seen important references in two Nibley essays. Before Adam, and his The Three Facsimilies of the Book of Abraham. So I had a broadened context, and context makes the difference. Anomaly, as Kuhn observes, emerges most clearly against a background of expectation. What happens to perception and experience under an altered set of expectations? What happens to perception and experience if one refuses to alter one's expectations?The difference between a victim of trauma and a survivor made wiser by sometimes painful and unpleasant experience is in way the individual processes the events.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 14, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Johnnie Cake]

Well... this ios too black and white.

There are also people, who believe the BoM is not real history, and still believe is true.

Yes I should have used the Cobert word "Truthie" as in... The Book of Mormon is Truthie

[thesometimesaint]

Yes I should have used the Cobert word "Truthie" as in... The Book of Mormon is Truthie

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion.

[Mark Beesley]

I think you've just proven Johnnie's point.

A clear and precise understanding of the language used in both our arguments, as well as a complete and unadulterated understanding of what scripture is and what, therefore, constitutes a scriptural claim are essential before a useful and productive dialogue can occur to resolve what has been proved and what has not so been. A discussion board such as this is woefully inadequate to arrive at that destination. The fact that you believe that my statement - that I learned early on that the Genesis account of the creation is figurative - proves the modified point to which Johnnie agreed, - that some interpretations of scientific evidence conflict with certain assumptions about some LDS spiritual claims - leads me to believe that you are not giving equal weight to every word being used to, as Johnnie put it, "massage, nudge, fudge and nuance scriptural interpretations." I would add the caveat that scientific evidence is equally subject to being massaged, nudged, fudged, and nuanced to fit theory.

Finally, I would simply note that if what we are indeed experiencing in this world is a trial of evidences - scientific vs. spiritual - then I would suggest that presently we are in the midst of the world presenting its case via the scientific evidence it can muster (with appropriate objections from God's team), but the case for will not be completed until God presents His case, and the evidence He will present (which we do not yet even begin to fathom) will, I am confident, blow you away. Hold on for the ride.