Should the Bible be taken literaly?... what about the Book of Momon?

[SentByHim]

there is no biblical evidence of how long they were in the Garden of Eden. They had access to the tree of life and were immortal, so they could have been there for a very extended period of time.

*shrugs* I have no clue to how many thousands of years the Lord took.

[David T]

I mean, to assert the author meant something other than a literal account of specific historic facts one has to be making some presuppositions of their own that may or may not be adequately supported either. Given the notion that these works were divinely inspired, seems to complicate things a bit. Using your Esther as fiction example, do we simply conclude Esther is a fictional attributed to/adopted by a Hebrew people as being spiritually valid in their faith, or do we assume that God did inspire some person to write Esther and even though fictional bears a metaphoric truth that fulfills God intentions.

I want to give a very personal example of how 'fiction' can be inspired with true principles, and even mingled with true inspired history. Even unconsciously.

When I was in high school, long before I knew anything about Mormons or Mormonism, I was sitting in class one day, and saw a class-member's shirt saying something about the AntiChrist, which led me into pondering the concept of interpretation of Prophecy.

Immediate, a question came shattering into my mind with incredible force: "What if a book of scripture was found buried in the ground that would clarify the teachings and prophecies of the existing scriptures and correct the current establishment of religion?"

It was a fascinating idea, and decided I needed to write a story about it, set in a mythic world. This book which was found in the ground, which I gave a name which began with "Mor", began to raise additional questions as I sought to understand this story.

I eventually questioned the origins of the book, and a new series of concepts came into my mind.

A young boy, who questioned the tummult and establishment around him, goes to a favorite secluded place of nature. He collapses to the ground, and cries out to deity, seeking understanding. Then, he has a vision of a "sphere of light, brighter than the noonday sun" which descends until it right in front of him, and then hears a voice, speaking "as kind as a father speaking to a most beloved son". The voice calls him to be a messenger, and proceeds to promise a new plan in which a New Nation will be formed, a Nation not formed by War, but a Nation of Peace. Knowledge from the past that had been hidden and changed would be brought forth. This young prophet's name began with a 'J'.

Since I was writing this a fantasy novel (not faeries and wizards, but 'another time, another place', which I felt should take place with 19th century style technology - wars would be fought with muskets and rifles, not swords and magic), I developed the backstory of its mythology. I named one of the angelic beings 'Monori' - a friend later pointed out to me that it seemed too much like the Mormon angel Moroni. Not wanting people to think I was associated with the Mormons, I quickly changed it.

It wasn't until many years later, after finding out about the Church, opposing it, and finally getting a surprise testimony of it and getting Baptized, that I reviewed my story notes, and found a very strong and somewhat detailed outline of the narrative of the Restoration, and the building up of Zion.

While I thought I was writing fiction, I had the storytelling philosophy that story-crafting was like archaeology. I viewed the story as already existing, I just needed to dig up the pieces, and put them together.

So if you ask me if I believe fiction can be inspired and myth can be used to tutor in the gospel? Yes, Yes I very much do.

[SentByHim]

So God is incapable of doing something that 'contradicts known facts about the world"? I wouldn't limit God's abilities to our imaginations. God being God could easily stop the earth's rotation if He so desired, why not? Isn't he God after all?

A good rule of thumb is, if it reads like a fable or contradicts known facts about the world, it's not to be taken literally.

[semlogo]

When Adam was created was he made as an infant? No he was made mature, he was one second old but fully mature. Same with the universe, it was created mature with all things in place.

Oh, my.

[semlogo]

So God is incapable of doing something that 'contradicts known facts about the world"? I wouldn't limit God's abilities to our imaginations. God being God could easily stop the earth's rotation if He so desired, why not? Isn't he God after all?

Possibly, but I'm not talking about what is possible. I'm talking about what actually happened.

[Thunderfire]

My question would be that if it is plausible to take sections of the Bible as not actually being literal, then does this same logic apply to the Book of Mormon?

The question I have been debating on another board is not whether the scriptures are "literal", but are they "inerrant".

As example, historically speaking, it is not always a literal historical account because only one side is recorded. The historical account from "the other side" may record these events differently. Think about it, would Pilate record a historical account from the same perspective as Matthew? If he could, would Goliath say the same thing as David as being historical? So yes, it is a literal historical account from the perspective of the one writing the account, but is it literally accurate? For some, no.

Next scientifically speaking, the scriptures are not literal based on the best science of the day. We have fossils showing a time on this earth that cannot be reconciled with the scriptures. Even the six day equaling 6,000 years does not add up when the earth has been proven scientifically to be around 5 billion years old.

So in my opinion, the better argument is not to prove the scriptures to be literally true (historically/scientifically), but to understand how the message is inerrant. In the end, that is what is of the most importance, the spiritual message, the word of God to the believer enabling the individual to be obedient and holy.

[David T]

I don't hold to in-errancy of scriptures, and that is not the doctrine of the Church. the Bible contains, within its many books, opinions and speculation and conclusions that were logical for the writers' day according to their current understanding (and differing motives, be they prophet, poet, court historian, priest, concerned faithful, apostle, etc), but may not take into consideration additional light and knowledge and understanding that was later revealed or made clear.

I am quite alright, for example, with not needing to perfectly harmonize Ecclesiastes, for example, with modern doctrine.

[Thunderfire]

I don't hold to in-errancy of scriptures, and that is not the doctrine of the Church.

It is correct that both our churches do not hold to scriptural inerrancy (and this has always been a source of contention with me). For me, the message must be inerrant or this becomes proof that the message is suspect, giving mankind an excuse for not being obedient to what is given.

"Continuing revelation" for me is NOT about correcting or clarifying what was previously given. It is new light and truth, new revelation which man has never considered before, or answers to problems we are facing today which our ancestors never faced. So this is why scripture must be considered as inerrant, or God would cease to be God (no longer being omnificent-all knowing and omnipotent-all powerful)

[semlogo]

It is correct that both our churches do not hold to scriptural inerrancy (and this has always been a source of contention with me). For me, the message must be inerrant or this becomes proof that the message is suspect, giving mankind an excuse for not being obedient to what is given.

"Continuing revelation" for me is NOT about correcting or clarifying what was previously given. It is new light and truth, new revelation which man has never considered before, or answers to problems we are facing today which our ancestors never faced. So this is why scripture must be considered as inerrant, or God would cease to be God (no longer being omnificent-all knowing and omnipotent-all powerful)

This all or nothing approach inevitably leads to atheism or intellectual dishonesty. I reject such an approach.

God has yet to write a single scripture. He leaves that to humans. Fallible humans.

[David T]

It is correct that both our churches do not hold to scriptural inerrancy (and this has always been a source of contention with me). For me, the message must be inerrant or this becomes proof that the message is suspect, giving mankind an excuse for not being obedient to what is given.

"Continuing revelation" for me is NOT about correcting or clarifying what was previously given. It is new light and truth, new revelation which man has never considered before, or answers to problems we are facing today which our ancestors never faced. So this is why scripture must be considered as inerrant, or God would cease to be God (no longer being omnificent-all knowing and omnipotent-all powerful)

I fully disagree. I believe written scripture - even those actually written by prophets, which I'm not convinced all of the OT was - are written interpretations of the revelation they received (or the events they experienced), and are rarely verbatim transcripts of divine communication, even when rhetorically presented in such a way (such as the First Person presentation of many sections in the D&C - Joseph's and his associates many revisions to the revelations show their understanding of this concept) .That light and knowledge they newly received is expressed, framed, and expanded upon - using present understanding and experience that will best express the concepts to their current audience.

It's the same experience you or I can have when we study the scriptures, or ponder difficult questions, and then write under the influence of the spirit in our study journals. Elder Scott discussed this process in detail in last year's General Conference address, which I personally think went far more unnoticed than it should have. He teaches that our inspired writings can be used as personal scripture, are subject to revision by further understanding, and are beneficial to study as such. This expresses exactly the process of revelation used in the production of the revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants!

It's common practice to place scripture on a plane so far above us, and our own inspiration. It is not. The only difference between those who write canonized scripture and us are the degree of authority the Lord has allowed them to have.

For the most part, designated Prophets and Apostles recieve the same kind of revelation we all are entitled to receive. The only thing different is stewardship.

[SentByHim]

Next scientifically speaking, the scriptures are not literal based on the best science of the day. We have fossils showing a time on this earth that cannot be reconciled with the scriptures. Even the six day equaling 6,000 years does not add up when the earth has been proven scientifically to be around 5 billion years old.

Yes the bible and what scientists have found so seem to contradict each other. However, lMO it is possible that these things were created mature thereby giving the illusion of age.

[Thunderfire]

This all or nothing approach inevitably leads to atheism or intellectual dishonesty. I reject such an approach.

God has yet to write a single scripture. He leaves that to humans. Fallible humans.

I understand this argument and have heard it many times. The belief that God did not take pen in hand and write, choosing instead fallible humans to figure out what he was saying.

Yet I come from the perspective of belief that in the history of mankind, some actually succeeded in dying to self will, allowing God to reign in them. Or that it is possible to become a "man after God's own heart". Even then, we are told that we are "temples unto God", meaning that if God is "within us" to some degree or another, he in fact DID take that pen in hand and wrote through the individual!

In the scriptures we find numerous accounts of Jesus "quoting scripture" as the final authority on a subject, or as answer to a particular question. We also find this in the writings of Paul. So we must admit that this gives credence to the truth that the scriptures are God inspired and breathed. With this, it is not a long stretch at all to then see the message as being inerrant!

[SentByHim]

Possibly, but I'm not talking about what is possible. I'm talking about what actually happened.

isn't what actually happened the question at hand? is it literal or not? It is possible to for it to be literal, it is possible for it to not be. That is where the faith stuff comes in. Who's story are you going to believe?

[Thunderfire]

Elder Scott discussed this process in detail in last year's General Conference address, which I personally think went far more unnoticed than it should have. He teaches that our inspired writings can be used as personal scripture, are subject to revision by further understanding, and are beneficial to study as such. This expresses exactly the process of revelation used in the production of the revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants!

I understand and appreciate your response! Recently I was re-reading the memoirs of Joseph Smith III (the founder of the Reorganization). He gave examples of how "revelation" came to him both through plenary and conceptual means, with the resulting revelations that were received by each as example. But he then goes on to speak of how God reaches out to the prophet in infinite ways. His example of plenary revelation is fascinating! Yet when we read that particular revelation, it cause one to stop and think "say what?"

It is my opinion that we limit the power of God by limiting his ability to reach out and speak his will clearly and concisely to the prophet. In the end, this may in fact be the true test of the prophet, his ability to hear God and get the message right (or not)!

[Walden]

When I was investigating, I was not baptized for a year because I was looking at everything in the church.

One day, after trying to look at the DNA vs Lamanite argument, I stopped to wonder why I kept looking and trying to prove the BoM true.

It was true because I wanted it to be.

The church isn't true because of historical fact, (and either is the Bible), but on the values within it.

You are saying that the church is "true because [you] wanted it to be?" How is that any evidence ot truth? I want any number of false/fanciful/magical things to be true, but that doesn't make them true. And just because an institution holds certain values doesn't make it an institution of truth.

Obviously, we have different criteria for what "thruth" actually is, but I tend to lean towards objectivity and actual evidence in examining whether or or not something is truth, and do not base it on emotions or felings.

[semlogo]

I fully disagree. I believe written scripture - even those actually written by prophets, which I'm not convinced all of the OT was - are written interpretations of the revelation they received (or the events they experienced), and are rarely verbatim transcripts of divine communication, even when rhetorically presented in such a way (such as the First Person presentation of many sections in the D&C - Joseph's and his associates many revisions to the revelations show their understanding of this concept) .That light and knowledge they newly received is expressed, framed, and expanded upon - using present understanding and experience that will best express the concepts to their current audience.

It's the same experience you or I can have when we study the scriptures, or ponder difficult questions, and then write under the influence of the spirit in our study journals. Elder Scott discussed this process in detail in last year's General Conference address, which I personally think went far more unnoticed than it should have. He teaches that our inspired writings can be used as personal scripture, are subject to revision by further understanding, and are beneficial to study as such. This expresses exactly the process of revelation used in the production of the revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants!

It's common practice to place scripture on a plane so far above us, and our own inspiration. It is not. The only difference between those who write canonized scripture and us are the degree of authority the Lord has allowed them to have.

For the most part, designated Prophets and Apostles recieve the same kind of revelation we all are entitled to receive. The only thing different is stewardship.

Excellent point. I have long thought that there is very little difference between the personal revelation we all receive and the revelation received by prophets - only the scope is different, with a few dramatic exceptions

[semlogo]

Yes the bible and what scientists have found so seem to contradict each other. However, lMO it is possible that these things were created mature thereby giving the illusion of age.

Sure, if you believe in a God who, for some reason, set out to deceive us all about the age of the universe.

I believe a common response to your idea is, "why not say that God created everything yesterday, complete with all our memories of our past, which are completely fictional? You'd never know the difference."

[Lightbearer]

From what I can gather, there are some LDS who have the self same struggles in regards to Biblical claims.

But... Does this same sort of thinking apply to the Book of Mormon? or is there a reason it shouldn't apply?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Hi Mudcat,

As for myself I understand the Bible as being both literal and figurative, depending on what parts you are referring to. This is the entire problem of interpreting the scriptural records. I guess I am more of a literalist than most, for example when it says that there was a global flood I believe it... notwithstanding what some scientists may insist. I do not put my trust in them, however I also do not believe the earth was created in 6 days or 24 hour periods... I believe it was longer however I also do not believe it took billions of years either... it may have but I doubt it. Time is rather meaningless to eternal beings, but I believe as Abraham puts it they were time periods. I do not think it necessary for my beliefs to agree with every scientific theory or even every demonstratable fact (as far as facts are known in this mortal existence). So yes I do believe there was a literal exodus, and Moses literally parted the Red Sea and that Jesus actually walked on water (as did Peter for a short time) and that Christ literally rose from the tomb (against every established "fact" of science) these things I know just as much as I know I am siting at a computer writing these lines that can be read all across the world in a matter of seconds. A fact that 70 years ago would have been a total science-fiction fantasy... and yet I am doing it today. It may be important for some people to explain every thing that disagrees with what our scientific masters dogmatically assert, but for me it does not matter. The older I get the more faith I seem to gain, the plausability increases instead of decreases.

As far as figurative parts of the Bible they are also many, as was recounted in the article, Parables are obvious figurative expressions, poetry and other metaphoric language abounds. When it speaks of angels with wings, I understand that they are not some mythological creature, but that the wings refer to their power and authority. I know this because of modern revelation. When the Bible states Moses saw God face to face, I take that as literal... because I know that God indeed has a face and that He is not some spirit essence without form or shape but that man was created in His likeness and image.

As for this application in the Book of Mormon, I must say it is easier to determine literal from figurative because it is more plain. The story of Nephi and his brothers and there building ship and coming to the promised land and creating a great nation... is all literal, and historical. The stones that the Lord touched with His finger and caused to glow... was literal. The battle at Cumorah where thousands were killed was literal. Jesus Christ decending to the people in the land Bountiful and teaching them His Gospel, was literal, a real historical event.

Now is everything written in the book literal, no, the dream of Lehi with it's representations of the love of God and the word of God... those symbols were not literal. The teaching of Alma to the Zoramites about comparing the word of God to a seed to be planted in their hearts and it developing that faith into a sure knowledge, is not literal but is obviously metaphoric as is the alegory of the Olive Tree representing the house of Israel. Mormon and Moroni abridging the plates and Moroni hiding it by burying it in the present day hill Cumorah was literal, and Joseph Smith receiving the plates from the angel (the now resurrected man Moroni)was also literal.

So in answer to your OP regarding should the Book of Mormon be taken literally, I answer as Nephi did his brothers:

(1 Nephi 15:32) "And it came to pass that I said unto them that it was a representation of things both temporal and spiritual; for the day should come that they must be judged of their works, yea, even the works which were done by the temporal body in their days of probation."

What I mean is that there are things both literal and figrative in the Book of Mormon and all the scriptures and aside from the obvious, the only way to know for sure which is involved is through the revelations by the spirit. I hope this explains my feelings and ideas on the subject.

[semlogo]

I understand this argument and have heard it many times. The belief that God did not take pen in hand and write, choosing instead fallible humans to figure out what he was saying.

Yet I come from the perspective of belief that in the history of mankind, some actually succeeded in dying to self will, allowing God to reign in them. Or that it is possible to become a "man after God's own heart". Even then, we are told that we are "temples unto God", meaning that if God is "within us" to some degree or another, he in fact DID take that pen in hand and wrote through the individual!

In the scriptures we find numerous accounts of Jesus "quoting scripture" as the final authority on a subject, or as answer to a particular question. We also find this in the writings of Paul. So we must admit that this gives credence to the truth that the scriptures are God inspired and breathed. With this, it is not a long stretch at all to then see the message as being inerrant!

It is quite a stretch, especially since the scripture Jesus quoted differed from the older OT manuscripts.

[David T]

It is my opinion that we limit the power of God by limiting his ability to reach out and speak his will clearly and concisely to the prophet. In the end, this may in fact be the true test of the prophet, his ability to hear God and get the message right (or not)!

I think he often does speak clearly and concisely to them...and then comes the problem of clearly expressing that communication to others in written, concrete form. Receiving revelation and expressing that revelation in writing are, I think, not always the same thing.

I know I've received bursts of insight through inspiration that help me understand a concept, but in many ways, it is conceptual, and at times visual. I understand it, but would have no idea how to begin to express this in writing to others. Sometimes diagrams have been the best way I personally have been able to do such.

I don't view it as limited God, or 'attacking' the scriptures - I actually view it as elevating our own connection to Revelation, and elevating the significance of our own personal experiences with divine insight. Prophets and other ancient writers who had their works canonized were humans - not God's typewriters. And I think that's beautiful.

The most important revelation is personal. Canonized Revelation gives us a starting point, and provides context, framework, models, and content for questions we should all be asking to receive our own revelation on the topic.

[semlogo]

isn't what actually happened the question at hand? is it literal or not? It is possible to for it to be literal, it is possible for it to not be. That is where the faith stuff comes in. Who's story are you going to believe?

Using the world "literal" to describe actual events is a misuse of the word. In texts we can describe things as literal or figurative. But we're not talking about a history or a text when we're talking about the real world - we're talking about what's written in the rocks and artifacts, not on pages.

Cultures all around the world, in China, Egypt, the Americas, etc existed the instant before the flood, and continued existing right afterwards. They didn't disappear. That's a fact, and you can either pretend that fact doesn't exist or you can face it and readjust your interpretation of scripture accordingly.

[Thunderfire]

It is quite a stretch, especially since the scripture Jesus quoted differed from the older OT manuscripts.

Which verse are you speaking of? It appears that Jesus quoted over 20 different verses from the Old Testament.

[Mudcat]

When Adam was created was he made as an infant? No he was made mature, he was one second old but fully mature. Same with the universe, it was created mature with all things in place.

I don't disagree that it could be plausible that Adam, if a literal Adam existed, could have been created maturely. However, if we accept the Genesis account literally, even though Adam could have lived in the Garden potentially for eons, before the Fall. We come head on to the difficulty of Adam dying at some point. His death would have been 6 or 7,000 years ago if we accept a literal interpretation.

What is problematic is that there are lots of dead human skeletons that are older than that. If we opt, for your maturity theorem, we would have speculate that God created the mature Earth and stuck a bunch of bones in the ground.. dinosaurs, people and so forth that would one day be discovered to be older than Adams corpse, for some unique purpose that is somehow part and parcel of fulfilling God's will.

I'm not ruling it out, just wondering what your thoughts are on this conundrum?

[Mudcat]

So in my opinion, the better argument is not to prove the scriptures to be literally true (historically/scientifically), but to understand how the message is inerrant. In the end, that is what is of the most importance, the spiritual message, the word of God to the believer enabling the individual to be obedient and holy.

Thunderfire,

You have got some great prose my friend. You definitely articulated your position well and I agree with some of what you have said.

Where I find difficulty with the notion of inerrancy, is when challenged with verses like these.

Jos 10:39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

Jos 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

God seems to be commanding genocide for whatever reason. Certainly this isn't the only claim of such in the Bible, but a fair example.

Somehow, I run into an issue of consistency with the character of Christ on things like that. Could I as a Christian, be a soldier in Joshua's army to kill men, women and children by the sword. Or perhaps better posed, Would Christ have been a good soldier in Joshua's army? Would he kill children by the sword?

I have a hard time thinking so and am curious how you deal with this. Can this be approached from a standpoint of inerrancy?

I find it much easier to think that the ancient Hebrews wanted to feel Holy vindication for their actions and presented such vindication in their stories and writings. But certainly, my own view presents it's own set of problems.. maybe I am simply being preferentially humanistic and just don't like the notion of a God that would tell people to kill children.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[changed]

6 day creation is periphery to the topic, but if could explain the contrast between roughly 14 billion year old universe, a 4 billion year old planet and significantly less long lived human species with all that, I would be interested in hearing your response.

I think we are not the only world that has been on this planet,

(New Testament | Revelation 21:1)

1 AND I saw a anew heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

that new worlds are built on the ruins of older worlds. That one of the worlds had become void, and without form, without spirituality, and that two people from a perfect celestial sphere (Eden being the perfect celestial sphere) came here to start turning things around.... we are only given a record of Adam/Eve onward...

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:17)

17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

That Eden is in the same place/sphere as the chariots of fire above... that Adam/Eve had their eyes opened too...

just my opinion....