How literally do you take the creation story?

[semlogo]

Let's cut to the chase here-

Under your own criteria then God himself is a fantasy...I mean really, where is the scientific evidence for him? Are we just supposed to take "God" as some type of fantasy creature and not some literal being?

Get real.

Science is completely silent about the existence of God. God is a matter of faith.

However, we do KNOW, through science, that evolution is a fact, the earth is billions of years old, and death existed long before we did.

[SilverKnight]

I guess it's just the few of us and the prophets of God then.

The very few.

I will continue to stand by them on this issue.

I will stand by them on the issues the have asked me to take a stand on.

Your fantasy of evolution will dry up and blow away in the coming wind.

You should probably wear this on a sandwich board.

[semlogo]

Meteorology doesn't teach that there is a divine intelligence guiding the winds. Ergo anyone who accepts meteorology is a heretic!

[semlogo]

I agree.

On the question of Adam and Eve, we have on one side the atheists and skeptics, who disbelieve the claims of the Bible and classify the stories as "fairy tales" and superstition.

On the other side, we have LDS Prophets and Apostles, who teach that Adam and Eve were two actual people, who lived in an actual Terrestrial garden until they disobeyed God and became mortal.

This thread illuminates the perplexing reality that many who would consider themselves "faithful, believing LDS" are arraying with the skeptics, dressing up their disbelieving views with words like "symbolism" and "allegory".

In the end, I suspect the "symbolists" are fooling no one but themselves. The skeptics know exactly what it is when they see it, as do those who are standing fast with the doctrines of the Church as taught by the Prophets and Apostles in official Church publications.

This happens frequently in the apologetic quest for harmony, but usually not so clearly.

It's good to know that Rob and Cinepro, a fundie Mormon (you are Mormon, right Rob?) and an ex-Mormon, are on the same side of this issue.

[semlogo]

You should probably wear this on a sandwich board.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Brigham Young that old heretic. He didn't believe that Eve was literally taken from Adams' rib.

[urroner]

This is a classic case of not being able to see the forest because all of the trees in the way. If you can't see the literal "mountains" of evidence right before your eyes then there is no convincing otherwise. Sometimes you actually have to open your eyes.

Okay, there are mountains of evidence right before my eyes. What is some of this mountain of evidence that I can't see because my eyes are shut wide open? Don't just tell me that there is evidence, please tell me what this evidence is.

[cinepro]

I don't find that terribly convincing.

I actually hope you're right. But it's still not what the Church teaches.

Let me put it this way.

Take two kinds of "keys". First, we have a "key to the city", where a celebrity or other notable person is presented an elaborate "key" by the city fathers. This is an example of "symbolism". The key is a symbol of the city's admiration and goodwill. But it doesn't actually have any functional purpose or value outside of this presentation. It won't unlock any sort of lock, or grant the bearer access to any kind of special area.

Then, we have an actual "key". This key can be inserted into a lock, and it operates to secure or release the locking mechanism. This "key" isn't symbolic. It actually functions as it is supposed to; it does what it says it will do. There is nothing more to understand about the context or meaning of this key.

The Church seems to teach that the Temple Ceremonies are like the second type of key. While there is symbolism in the ceremony, there are specific words and actions which are literally needed to "unlock" the hereafter. And that the story of Adam and Eve, while presented as a drama, is a reflection of actual people and events that actually took place thousands of years ago here on Earth.

I can't find any statements on the Church website that would suggest everything in the Temple is symbolic, with no literal or practically necessary elements. It's certainly a nice idea that everything in the Temple is a "symbol" for something more interesting and sensical, but I don't see that as being supported by anyone who would actually know such a thing (i.e. Prophets and Apostles).

[cinepro]

It's good to know that Rob and Cinepro, a fundie Mormon (you are Mormon, right Rob?) and an ex-Mormon, are on the same side of this issue.

Unless Rob is an ex-Mormon, you're wrong.

[cinepro]

Except David O McKay. And President Hinckley who said evolution didn't bother him.

Just to be clear, evolution doesn't bother those who don't believe in it (just as cold fusion doesn't "bother" me), so President Hinckley's story doesn't indicate that he believed in it. Only that he had found some way to not let it "bother" him.

Of course, it would have been awesome had President Hinckley actually shared what he had done to reconcile the situation in his mind. But being the pragmatist that he was, he probably knew he would upset half the people either way, so he just ended the story in an ambiguous fashion that would allow both sides to claim him as their own.

Here is the quote:

[urroner]

...so he just ended the story in an ambiguous fashion that would allow both sides to claim him as their own.

So, are you claiming him as your own?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I don't know as anyone here has said that "everything" in the Endowment is symbolic. But there are large portions that are symbolic, and a few things that are literally necessary.

[cinepro]

So, are you claiming him as your own?

Yes, as one who believes that the Church has consistently and officially taught that Adam's body was not the end-result of an evolutionary process, I do not believe that President Hinckley concluded that it was.

[semlogo]

I actually hope you're right. But it's still not what the Church teaches.

Let me put it this way.

Take two kinds of "keys". First, we have a "key to the city", where a celebrity or other notable person is presented an elaborate "key" by the city fathers. This is an example of "symbolism". The key is a symbol of the city's admiration and goodwill. But it doesn't actually have any functional purpose or value outside of this presentation. It won't unlock any sort of lock, or grant the bearer access to any kind of special area.

Then, we have an actual "key". This key can be inserted into a lock, and it operates to secure or release the locking mechanism. This "key" isn't symbolic. It actually functions as it is supposed to; it does what it says it will do. There is nothing more to understand about the context or meaning of this key.

The Church seems to teach that the Temple Ceremonies are like the second type of key. While there is symbolism in the ceremony, there are specific words and actions which are literally needed to "unlock" the hereafter. And that the story of Adam and Eve, while presented as a drama, is a reflection of actual people and events that actually took place thousands of years ago here on Earth.

I can't find any statements on the Church website that would suggest everything in the Temple is symbolic, with no literal or practically necessary elements. It's certainly a nice idea that everything in the Temple is a "symbol" for something more interesting and sensical, but I don't see that as being supported by anyone who would actually know such a thing (i.e. Prophets and Apostles).

Actually, 99% of what the church teaches about the temple (besides teaching us to do our temple work) is limited to what is internal to the temples themselves. There is a great deal of latitude there to interpret the meaning of the ceremonies yourself - in fact we are encouraged to do so.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I don't know as anyone here has said that "everything" in the Endowment is symbolic. But there are large portions that are symbolic, and a few things that are literally necessary.

See posts #44 and #54.

Now you know two.

[semlogo]

Unless Rob is an ex-Mormon, you're wrong.

You both think that the creation story should be taken literally - just for different reasons. He thinks like that because he's a literalist and a bit of a fundamentalist. You think like that because you know that the stories don't hold up when taken literally, which suits you fine.

[SilverKnight]

I agree.

This thread illuminates the perplexing reality that many who would consider themselves "faithful, believing LDS" are arraying with the skeptics, dressing up their disbelieving views with words like "symbolism" and "allegory".

What do you suppose the church do with us then?

In my family are three former bishops, a stake president and a mission president.

Not one of us believes in a 6000 year old earth, a global flood, or that death didn't exist till after the fall.

There's your problem. The "Symbologists" have infiltrated the church at all levels. By encouraging literacy and education - the church has created a monster!

These science-sympathisers are being called to be General Authorities.

Only one thing to do: purge anyone guilty of post-enlightenment thinking..

And when the dust clears after this cataclysmic brain-drain, leaving only ignorant flat-earthers and deranged fundamentalists, then what?

In the end, I suspect the "symbolists" are fooling no one but themselves. The skeptics know exactly what it is when they see it, as do those who are standing fast with the doctrines of the Church as taught by the Prophets and Apostles in official Church publications.

Yes, how dare anyone spoil your favorite situation comedy and menagerie of endless amusement: The LDS Church.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Post 44 by Maidservant

I have held in suspension that Adam and Eve could be historical figures versus my "Adam is many" understanding. Sometimes I think yes, sometimes no; and sometimes my "yes" and my "no" would not look like other peoples yes and no, since the way my mind works.

Post 54 by mfbukowski

Everything in the temple is symbolic- that is what it is for. It doesn't say "Science Museum" on the outside. Every nuance is symbolic- nothing is literal.

I just don't see it in Maidservants' post.

You may have a point with mfbukowski. But given the context of this and other of his posts. I understand his point.

[semlogo]

As the older generations die off, more and more people in the church WILL need to reconcile their knowledge that evolution is a fact of life with theology. And they will be doing it in much the same way we are. Old Testament literalism is not a viable long-term strategy for any religion. I doubt that we'll have any general authorities who reject evolution a hundred years from now.

[cinepro]

I just don't see it in Maidservants' post.

Maidservant's post:

I have been taught from the very beginning by my mother that I should go to the temple with the idea that everything is in symbolism, so from the very beginning I have done that.

[cinepro]

You both think that the creation story should be taken literally - just for different reasons. He thinks like that because he's a literalist and a bit of a fundamentalist. You think like that because you know that the stories don't hold up when taken literally, which suits you fine.

You're wrong about one of us being an ex-Mormon.

As far as I can tell, if we agree in how we view the creation story it's only because we are both able to comprehend what the Church has clearly and consistently taught on the subject for the last 180 years.

I'm not sure that calling someone who takes the official teachings of the Church and the words of the prophets at face value a "literalist" and "fundamentalist" does much to help your cause. But I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

[semlogo]

You're wrong about one of us being an ex-Mormon.

As far as I can tell, if we agree in how we view the creation story it's only because we are both able to comprehend what the Church has clearly and consistently taught on the subject for the last 180 years.

I'm not sure that calling someone who takes the official teachings of the Church and the words of the prophets at face value a "literalist" and "fundamentalist" does much to help your cause. But I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

Or non-believing Mormon or whatever you prefer. No offense was intended.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay, there are mountains of evidence right before my eyes. What is some of this mountain of evidence that I can't see because my eyes are shut wide open? Don't just tell me that there is evidence, please tell me what this evidence is.

I thought I spelled it clearly but I will be more specific. You know those gigantic piles of sedimentary layers that are upthrust thousands of feet into the air? We technically call them "mountains". Every major "mountain" chain in the world is an upthrust of once flood lain strata that was below the flood waters. After the flood these layers were upthrust. As anyone who can see, sees, they are made up generally of flood laid strata containig different layers and fossils of dead things that were quickly buried.

Thus there are literally "mountains" of evidence for a global flood.

[Rob Osborn]

Science is completely silent about the existence of God. God is a matter of faith.

However, we do KNOW, through science, that evolution is a fact, the earth is billions of years old, and death existed long before we did.

Evolution as it applies to mans origins is mere conjecture. Next item.

[semlogo]

Evolution as it applies to mans origins is mere conjecture. Next item.

Evolutionary biologists can prove their claims. You cannot. Next item.