Should God Make Sure That Stuff Stays "true"?

[J Green]

 Other than President Kimball's acknowledgment that the "rib" story of Eve's creation is figurative, can you provide a single statement anywhere on the Church websites that suggests the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall is anything other than literal, physical history?

 

Are 1 Nephi 8 and 11 still on the Church web site?

 

Did Lehi and Nephi understand the tree of life to have a symbolic or metaphorical meaning? I think it was Laman and Lemuel who thought it was all literal (temporal), right?

 

And let's see, is the tree of life also in any of the Eden stories? So what about the other items in the Eden stories? If Nephi were to ask for the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for example, do you think his spirit guide would tell him just to shut up because it's all literal (temporal)? I'm guessing not, but maybe that's just me.

[J Green]

You were interested in multiple perspectives, so here's mine:  they aren't merely misinterpretations, they are errors.  A misinterpretation would imply that the original authors actually knew the truth, and wrote the truth, but that we are reading what they wrote in such a way as to misconstrue their words and take away something different from what was intended.  I see no reason to believe the authors of Genesis, and the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon actually meant anything other than a literal Garden of Eden story happening just a few thousand years ago.  They were in error. 

My own perspective is that these errors in the scriptures reveal that they were written by men who didn't really know what they were talking about.  Rather than play word games like "the church and it's teachings are true, for some ideosyncratic and special-pleading-laden custom version of "true" that just happens to be unnaturally favorable to the religious beliefs I already hold", I've simply realized that the Mormon church, and all of its Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, and all of its scriptures, are the creations of men, just like the teachings and writings of every other church out there and their leaders, prophets, shaman, gurus, swamis, imams, rabbis, priests, rectors, bishops, pastors, and who knows what else.

That's the big reveal here:  the Mormon church should be lumped in together with every other church and religion on the planet because they are of a kind, being all creations of man.  The Mormon church is not "special" except to those who are members of it, and that specialness has more to do with those members' relationship to it and choice to be in it, just like the Jehovas Witnesses church is special from the perspective of faithful JWs, and so on with every other church out there.  If you grew up in it, or joined it as an adult and dedicated your life to it, you're going to think that whatever church you are in is special.  And it is to you, but it isn't any more or less true because of that.

 

Good to see you here, Sethbag. Hope you're doing well.

 

Cheers

[Stone holm]

Are 1 Nephi 8 and 11 still on the Church web site?

 

Did Lehi and Nephi understand the tree of life to have a symbolic or metaphorical meaning? I think it was Laman and Lemuel who thought it was all literal (temporal), right?

 

And let's see, is the tree of life also in any of the Eden stories? So what about the other items in the Eden stories? If Nephi were to ask for the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for example, do you think his spirit guide would tell him just to shut up because it's all literal (temporal)? I'm guessing not, but maybe that's just me.

 

There are parts of the Garden of Eden story that BY classed as fable -- mainly the idea that Adam was created other than be the normal way that physical human beings come into existence -- same with Eve.  Also cast into doubt the traditional belief that God went "poof" and animals and plants came into existence -- it was more like terra-forming as that is described in modern science fiction.

[jkwilliams]

We all do including the Aheists. So it is possible for none or only one to be true. More than one can't be true. It is in this life we get to decide it is. I changed my opinion 42 years ago. I'm glad I did.

 

I have no regrets. I'm also not an atheist. Just saying.

[cinepro]

Are 1 Nephi 8 and 11 still on the Church web site?

 

Did Lehi and Nephi understand the tree of life to have a symbolic or metaphorical meaning? I think it was Laman and Lemuel who thought it was all literal (temporal), right?

 

And let's see, is the tree of life also in any of the Eden stories? So what about the other items in the Eden stories? If Nephi were to ask for the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for example, do you think his spirit guide would tell him just to shut up because it's all literal (temporal)? I'm guessing not, but maybe that's just me.

 

So because Lehi and Nephi "dreamed" of the Tree of Life, we should also understand that the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (and therefore the other tree, as well as Adam and Eve and the Garden itself) was also similarly illusory? 

 

That's a great theory, but one which is pretty destructive to LDS teachings and doctrine, so I'm not sure how much traction you'd get for that idea from the Church in general.

[J Green]

So because Lehi and Nephi "dreamed" of the Tree of Life, we should also understand that the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (and therefore the other tree, as well as Adam and Eve and the Garden itself) was also similarly illusory? 

 

That's a great theory, but one which is pretty destructive to LDS teachings and doctrine, so I'm not sure how much traction you'd get for that idea from the Church in general.

 

You think the object of a prophetic dream is illusory?

 

So because Nephi "dreamed" of the birth of the Son of God in the flesh, we should also understand that the birth of the Son of God in Bethlehem as described in the Gospels was also similarly illusory?

 

That's a great theory, but one which is pretty destructive to LDS teachings and doctrine, so I'm not sure how much traction you'd get for that idea from the Church in general.

[cinepro]

You think the object of a prophetic dream is illusory?

 

So because Nephi "dreamed" of the birth of the Son of God in the flesh, we should also understand that the birth of the Son of God in Bethlehem as described in the Gospels was also similarly illusory?

 

That's a great theory, but one which is pretty destructive to LDS teachings and doctrine, so I'm not sure how much traction you'd get for that idea from the Church in general.

 

If you're now suggesting that the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the two trees, and the Fall are as historical as the birth of Christ, I think we just came full circle. 

[J Green]

If you're now suggesting that the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the two trees, and the Fall are as historical as the birth of Christ, I think we just came full circle. 

 

If you're suggesting that real histories can't be couched in metaphor or symbolism, then maybe you need to re-read Parry's thoughts on the tower story in your sig. Circulicious indeed! But the false dichotomy is always a good rhetorical tactic. Drive on. 

[trim]

You were interested in multiple perspectives, so here's mine:  they aren't merely misinterpretations, they are errors.  A misinterpretation would imply that the original authors actually knew the truth, and wrote the truth, but that we are reading what they wrote in such a way as to misconstrue their words and take away something different from what was intended.  I see no reason to believe the authors of Genesis, and the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon actually meant anything other than a literal Garden of Eden story happening just a few thousand years ago.  They were in error. 

My own perspective is that these errors in the scriptures reveal that they were written by men who didn't really know what they were talking about.  Rather than play word games like "the church and it's teachings are true, for some ideosyncratic and special-pleading-laden custom version of "true" that just happens to be unnaturally favorable to the religious beliefs I already hold", I've simply realized that the Mormon church, and all of its Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, and all of its scriptures, are the creations of men, just like the teachings and writings of every other church out there and their leaders, prophets, shaman, gurus, swamis, imams, rabbis, priests, rectors, bishops, pastors, and who knows what else.

That's the big reveal here:  the Mormon church should be lumped in together with every other church and religion on the planet because they are of a kind, being all creations of man.  The Mormon church is not "special" except to those who are members of it, and that specialness has more to do with those members' relationship to it and choice to be in it, just like the Jehovas Witnesses church is special from the perspective of faithful JWs, and so on with every other church out there.  If you grew up in it, or joined it as an adult and dedicated your life to it, you're going to think that whatever church you are in is special.  And it is to you, but it isn't any more or less true because of that.

 

I appreciate your perspective, if I were to extrapolate my wife's concern I think it would look alot like your post.  I can sympathize with your conclusion although I don't quite share the perspective.  I agree that the church is largely a creation of man, but I'm not sure that there is any way to avoid that.  I hold to a belief in inspiration and guidance based on personal witness, but I have wondered if "the church" could make it another 100 years without falling into apostasy based on some of the local trends and practices I observe.  However, I could attribute that to the fact that I am getting older and I think the world is falling apart in general.  Your arguments sound alot like those of Richard Dawkins that suggest that everyone sees their own views  as special and I suppose there is some truth to that.  Increasingly, I see the need for personal conversion, which is more of a gospel focus than a chruch focus and I think that counsel has become more frequent as of late.  I guess we all reach a point at which we have to stop leaning on the church and let it lean on us.  That transition may be difficult but necessary and perhaps a little lonely.

[cinepro]

If you're suggesting that real histories can't be couched in metaphor or symbolism, then maybe you need to re-read Parry's thoughts on the tower story in your sig. Circulicious indeed! But the false dichotomy is always a good rhetorical tactic. Drive on. 

 

Yeah, that Donald Parry is all about "metaphor" and "symbolism" in the Old Testament...   

 

Thus, although there are many in our day who consider the accounts of the Flood and tower of Babel to be fiction, Latter-day Saints affirm their reality. We rejoice in the many truths and lessons to be learned from these two accounts, as well as from all the stories of the Old Testament.

[J Green]

Or the Donald Parry that claims that the tower episode is not literally about building a tower that reaches heaven but a symbol for a pagan temple story that hides behind the text? Real story couched in metaphor--you mean that Parry? (It's the part under the header "Tower of Babel.")

But back to the point. What I objected to was your statement that the Church web site contained nothing on the garden story that suggests a non-literal reading. I provided one. The tree of life is given a symbolic meaning by the spiritual guide in Lehi and Nephi's vision. Your only real response is that this doesn't count because it's just a dream and not reality. Just try a search on "tree of life" at LDS.org and see where that idea gets you. Is the tree from Lehi's vision linked to the tree in the Garden story? Yes. Is there any sense from Packer, Maxwell, Holland, or any of the others that it can be discounted because it's just a dream? Wilfred Griggs' Ensign article on the Tree of Life ties the Genesis tree to the Book of Mormon tree and tells us all ancient cultures thought these things had symbolic meanings. So again, interesting response, but it just won't get you anywhere.

I stand by my original question: If Nephi were looking at the garden story, would he think that the component parts had a spiritual or symbolic meaning beyond a literal one? My sense is that Nephi is not your friend on this issue.

Does the Church web site talk about portions of the garden story in a symbolic rather than literal sense? Yes.

[Stargazer]

<snip />

That's the big reveal here:  the Mormon church should be lumped in together with every other church and religion on the planet because they are of a kind, being all creations of man.  The Mormon church is not "special" except to those who are members of it, and that specialness has more to do with those members' relationship to it and choice to be in it, just like the Jehovas Witnesses church is special from the perspective of faithful JWs, and so on with every other church out there.  If you grew up in it, or joined it as an adult and dedicated your life to it, you're going to think that whatever church you are in is special.  And it is to you, but it isn't any more or less true because of that.

 

No, it isn't any more nor less true just because I think it's special. You are correct.

 

And... so what? 

 

Does God exist?  If He exists, did he create the Universe, or some subset of it?  Would your argument be that we don't know, can't know, and the question itself is even suspect?  If so, I suppose you might have a point, but that's special pleading as well, because if we can't know then neither can you.

 

Except that I do know.  No special pleading.  I've asked and He lives.  Your doubt or denial does not affect me, nor does it make my knowledge any less true.  The sword cuts both ways, Sethbag.

[Stone holm]

I appreciate your perspective, if I were to extrapolate my wife's concern I think it would look alot like your post.  I can sympathize with your conclusion although I don't quite share the perspective.  I agree that the church is largely a creation of man, but I'm not sure that there is any way to avoid that.  I hold to a belief in inspiration and guidance based on personal witness, but I have wondered if "the church" could make it another 100 years without falling into apostasy based on some of the local trends and practices I observe.  However, I could attribute that to the fact that I am getting older and I think the world is falling apart in general.  Your arguments sound alot like those of Richard Dawkins that suggest that everyone sees their own views  as special and I suppose there is some truth to that.  Increasingly, I see the need for personal conversion, which is more of a gospel focus than a chruch focus and I think that counsel has become more frequent as of late.  I guess we all reach a point at which we have to stop leaning on the church and let it lean on us.  That transition may be difficult but necessary and perhaps a little lonely.

If there were no humans, there would be no Church which is patently obvious. Thus to say all Churches are created by mankind is something of a truism. If a Church is more than simply a social organization or political movement, it is necessary that it have some connection to an unseen world. By its very nature the unseen world is not subject to standard modes of observation. That does not mean it does not exist. Religious truth, if such exist, are dependent upon the amount of the unseen world is exposed and understood. Thus two persons may have wildly divergent beliefs and yet both their beliefs be true, since their religious truth depends on the amount of the unseen world they have been exposed to which is the basis of their understanding. We, Mormons, make a rather bold claim in that we claim that more has been exposed to our view and therefore our understanding is more correct.

[cinepro]

Or the Donald Parry that claims that the tower episode is not literally about building a tower that reaches heaven but a symbol for a pagan temple story that hides behind the text? Real story couched in metaphor--you mean that Parry? (It's the part under the header "Tower of Babel.")

I suspected your reluctance to actually quote the article indicated the good Brother Parry was more literally inclined than you were insinuating, and based on what he actually writes, I'm right. He does indicate the "tower" might be more correctly referred to as a "temple", but that's not an example of allegory or symbolism, but instead it's word substitution.

 

The account of the tower of Babel, presented in Genesis 11:1–9 [Gen. 11:1–9], is another account about which many persons in the world today disbelieve. It is an account of some of Noah’s descendants who set aside true temple worship and built a “pagan temple,” or “counterfeit temple,” in the form of a great tower.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an “artful parable” and an “old tale.” But Latter-day Saints accept the story as it is presented in Genesis. Further, we have the second witness of the Book of Mormon. The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether “is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.” The book of Ether itself then tells of when “Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (Ether 1:33).

(emphasis added)

Brother Parry then clearly states his support for the literal meaning of the story of Tower Of Babel being the transition point from a common language to the mixture of langauges on the Earth today (which I shouldn't have to point out is not believed by anyone who knows about the history of languages and human civilization).

 

The stories of the tower of Babel and the Flood present a number of doctrinal principles and applications for Latter-day Saints today. With reference to the tower of Babel, we find the following interesting observations and parallels for our day:

1. Every time we hear foreign tongues (including English), we can be reminded that at one time “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech” (Gen. 11:1). The hundreds of languages on the earth today stand as a witness that there existed long ago a tower of Babel in the land of Shinar.

So when it comes to understanding anything in the Book of Genesis allegorically or metaphorically, I wouldn't exactly point to Donald Parry as an example of such thought in LDS culture. He's about as literal as it gets.

Edited October 2, 2013 by cinepro

[J Green]

Semantics won't change the nature of the comparison: "It is an account of some of Noah’s descendants who set aside true temple worship and built a 'pagan temple,' or 'counterfeit temple,' in the form of a great tower. Two statements hint at an attempt to build a temple."

 

Is this a literal reading of the tower story? Yes or no?

 

The literal reading is not about temples but about physically scaling heaven in terms of altitude. As explained in the Ensign, "The people wanted to build a city and a tall tower. They thought that they could get to heaven by climbing the tower up into the sky" ("We Cannot Climb to Heaven," Jan 90). This literal reading can also be seen throughout ancient literature (cf., Philo's allegorical response to the literal reading in On the Confusion of Tongues) and artwork (just do a Google image search or look at the artwork in the CES manuals).

 

Here you're conflating historical with literal. Parry is the first to demand that it is real history, but he is certainly not reading the story literally (see above for literal reading). If he were reading it literally he would not have to say that certain language "hints" at what he feels is the true meaning behind the passage.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, there is still this:

 

But back to the point. What I objected to was your statement that the Church web site contained nothing on the garden story that suggests a non-literal reading. I provided one. The tree of life is given a symbolic meaning by the spiritual guide in Lehi and Nephi's vision. Your only real response is that this doesn't count because it's just a dream and not reality. Just try a search on "tree of life" at LDS.org and see where that idea gets you. Is the tree from Lehi's vision linked to the tree in the Garden story? Yes. Is there any sense from Packer, Maxwell, Holland, or any of the others that it can be discounted because it's just a dream? Wilfred Griggs' Ensign article on the Tree of Life ties the Genesis tree to the Book of Mormon tree and tells us all ancient cultures thought these things had symbolic meanings. So again, interesting response, but it just won't get you anywhere.

I stand by my original question: If Nephi were looking at the garden story, would he think that the component parts had a spiritual or symbolic meaning beyond a literal one? My sense is that Nephi is not your friend on this issue.

Does the Church web site talk about portions of the garden story in a symbolic rather than literal sense? Yes.

[J Green]

Another way to gauge the literalness of Parry's reading of the tower episode is to contrast this commentary with his reading of the flood.

 

There are textual clues ("hints" from the text, as Parry would say) that tie Noah's ark to a temple. The dimensions of the ark are tied to the dimensions of the tabernacle. There are three levels to both the ark and the tabernacle/temple. Animals are paired clean/unclean in a way that ties to temple animal sacrifice. There is a relationship to the solar barque of Egyptian temple worship where the ship is a temple that takes you into the presence of the gods. The flood is tied to the waters of creation, as is the sea of brass in the tabernacle courtyard. Etc. These ideas can be enumerated and you'll see LDS scholars discuss them if you do a search on it. 

 

Despite these textual ties to a temple story behind Noah's ark, Parry opts for a literal reading. He does not compare the ark to a temple or say that any of the textual language "hints" at a temple story behind the ark. This is a straight literal reading. It is simply a boat.

 

There is also a lot of literature ancient and modern that discusses towers as symbols or analogues of temples. You even see this on LDS.org as people discuss, for example, the vineyard tower in the parable in D&C 101. The tower is a temple, as Elder Tingey suggests, because it is a place of spiritual elevation where revelation occurs.

 

So in contrast to the flood story, which he reads literally, Parry looks at textual language that ties the tower story to what he feels is the real story behind the narrative--a corrupt temple experience. This is not the literal reading as with the ark. In the flood story he does not interpret textual ties to a temple story. In the tower case he does. One is a literal reading. The other is a non-literal reading of the plain language of the pericope. Ark, literal. Tower, not literal.

Edited October 2, 2013 by J Green

[cinepro]

I'm sorry J Green, but you are totally out to lunch on this.

 

In 2 Nephi 2, the Book of Mormon itself presents the "tree of life" as being an actual, literal tree in an actual, literal Garden of Eden.

 

You are mistaking the meaning that LDS give to certain historical and literal events with the idea of a metaphorical or alternate understanding of these events.

 

Yes, the "tree of life" might symbolize many different things.  Nephi, Lehi, Joseph Smith Sr., Harpo Marx and thousands of others may have all had dreams of this tree.

The question is whether or not it is LDS doctrine that the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden is referring to actual, physical trees that existed in a time and place and had actual physical properties and were as described in the scriptures, or whether the story contained in Genesis is "symbolic" and that the trees did not actually exist but are only literary devices. 

 

Likewise, Lehi's dream had Laman and Lemuel in it, but that doesn't mean that in the context of The Book of Mormon Laman and Lemuel are metaphors and literary figures only.  Even though they appeared in Lehi's dream, Lehi also understood them to be real, literal people.

For example, compare the trees in the Garden of Eden with the trees discussed in Jacob 5.  Both sets of trees carrying meaning and symbolism, but only one set are taught as being actual, physical trees. Compare the Tower of Babel to the houses described by Jesus in Matthew 7. 

 

Robert F. Smith's original claim was that LDS doctrine is open to the idea that "the story of creation & Eden is figurative in nature" (and that it has even been taught by "the brethren").  "Figurative in nature" means that it didn't actually happen, but it is a fictional story meant to convey deeper meaning through its "figurative" language.   If it actually happened, it isn't "figurative in nature", it is "literal in nature, with deeper meaning through its figurative understanding".

Edited October 2, 2013 by cinepro

[J Green]

Well, apparently we're no longer in thrust and Parry mode on the tower episode. And I suppose one man's 'out to lunch' is another man's 'feasting on the word'. As long as it's not eating at me, I'll be fine.  

 

First, I reject your false dichotomy of figurative and literal with figurative being myth. This isn't accepted doctrine. It isn't found in any revelatory guidance.

 

Second, I never weighed in on any statement of Robert's. I simply objected to your characterization that there wasn't anything to be found on the Church's website that gave figurative or symbolic meanings to components of the garden story. It's your assumption that a symbolic meaning gives that symbol something of an ahistorical position, not mine. I have not weighed in on whether the trees existed or not in reality. I have only weighed in on the fact that figurative and symbolic meanings are clearly attached to these items.

 

Third, 2 Nephi 2 says nothing about the trees being actual trees. But there is more figurative interpretation going on here that you didn't mention. Lehi simply lists the garden story elements and then "supposes" based on other things he has read that a fallen angel is the serpent from the garden story (vv 17-19). So here is another element where the Book of Mormon ascribes a non-literal interpretation to a garden component. Earlier Nephi's guide ascribed a meaning to the tree of life, and here Lehi gives his interpretation of the snake from that same story. In verse 16 he offers a figurative understanding of the trees in opposition to each other (described in verse 15) as the freedom to act with our agency. Symbolic interpretation.

 

 And lastly, there are clearly other figurative examples attached to the tree of life in the BoM. Consider the seed as tree in Alma 32: Near the end of this clearly symbolic passage, he tells us this:

 

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

 

Alma is clearly using a symbolic meaning for eating of the fruit of the tree of life, not a literal one. And the tree itself is figurative, unless you can plant a real tree in your heart. Then consider the usage in Alma 5.

 

33 Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you.

34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely;

 

And

 

62 I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church; and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way of invitation, saying: Come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye also may be partakers of the fruit of the tree of life.

 

Again, partaking of the tree of life is equated to coming unto Christ and drinking of his water, repenting, and being baptized. This is figurative and not literal language. When GAs at LDS.org talk about these verses (do a search), they note the symbolic nature of coming unto Christ, drinking the water, etc.

 

Again, I don't think the Book of Mormon prophets are your friends on this issue. They clearly talk about portions of the garden story in figurative and symbolic language. And I believe these passages are still on the Church's website.

[cinepro]

Okay J Green, just so I'm clear, do you believe that Adam and Eve were actual, individual, physical people who lived in an actual, physical place referred to as "The Garden of Eden", at which time they were actual, physically immortal beings?  And that there were actual, physical trees, one of which contained a fruit and that Adam and Eve physically consumed the fruit, and this act brought about the change LDS refer to as "The Fall"?

 

The question isn't whether these people and events are given additional symbolic meaning (of course they are).  The question is if the actual story is totally symbolic in nature, and didn't actually physically occur.

 

That's the same issue we face with the Tower Of Babel, Noah's Flood, and countless other religious and/or mythical stories.  No one doubts that we can look at these stories and draw greater lessons and meaning. 

 

The real question is whether they are describing actual, individual historical people and events, or if they are "figurative in nature", as Robert F. Smith said and I was responding to.    It's the "nature" of the story I was referring to, and not the additional meaning we bring to the story.

 

Now obviously, these stories are absurd to non-believers.  So I can understand a desire to have it both ways, where you can pretend to believe them as historical (as the Church teaches), but also pretend that you see them only as "figurative", as non-believers (and most rational believers) would argue.  But eventually you should make up your mind.

[J Green]

The real question is whether they are describing actual, individual historical people and events, or if they are "figurative in nature", as Robert F. Smith said and I was responding to. 

 

I think this sentence highlights the nature of our disagreement: I don't buy this either-or paradigm.

 

And I'll certainly answer your questions from my perspective. But first I'd like to know if we're square on the original point: Are you satisfied that there are canonical sources that view components of the garden story in a figurative or symbolic way (regardless of the question of the actual historical existence of those elements)?

[thesometimesaint]

Okay J Green, just so I'm clear, do you believe that Adam and Eve were actual, individual, physical people who lived in an actual, physical place referred to as "The Garden of Eden", at which time they were actual, physically immortal beings?  And that there were actual, physical trees, one of which contained a fruit and that Adam and Eve physically consumed the fruit, and this act brought about the change LDS refer to as "The Fall"?

 

The question isn't whether these people and events are given additional symbolic meaning (of course they are).  The question is if the actual story is totally symbolic in nature, and didn't actually physically occur.

 

That's the same issue we face with the Tower Of Babel, Noah's Flood, and countless other religious and/or mythical stories.  No one doubts that we can look at these stories and draw greater lessons and meaning. 

 

The real question is whether they are describing actual, individual historical people and events, or if they are "figurative in nature", as Robert F. Smith said and I was responding to.    It's the "nature" of the story I was referring to, and not the additional meaning we bring to the story.

 

Now obviously, these stories are absurd to non-believers.  So I can understand a desire to have it both ways, where you can pretend to believe them as historical (as the Church teaches), but also pretend that you see them only as "figurative", as non-believers (and most rational believers) would argue.  But eventually you should make up your mind.

 

Yes I belive in a literal A&E. In a literal Garden of Eden. That there was a literal fruit that they ate. Anything else falls into the realm of figurative.

 

I believe that there was a literal Noah. Whom was commanded by God to build a boat. That Noah saved everyone and everything that he could. Beyond that everything falls into the realm of figurative.

 

I actually believe we do draw greater insight and faith from the figurative than we do from the literal.

 

Why must I choose one over the other? Especially when that choice either leads to cynisism, or Atheism.

[cinepro]

I think this sentence highlights the nature of our disagreement: I don't buy this either-or paradigm.

 

And I'll certainly answer your questions from my perspective. But first I'd like to know if we're square on the original point: Are you satisfied that there are canonical sources that view components of the garden story in a figurative or symbolic way (regardless of the question of the actual historical existence of those elements)?

 

The original point was this:

 

President Kimball said

 

 

 

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. (The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.)  

 

“The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71

(Emphasis added)

 

I assume most people accept President Kimball's statement as meaning "God didn't literally take a rib from Adam to create Eve; that isn't a historical fact."  In other words, "is figurative" = "didn't really happen, but we are meant to learn something from the wording or imagery."

 

I'm not arguing that real life events (current or historical) can't have "figurative" meaning.  I still bring my wife flowers, hoping she'll understand the figurative meaning.  But when talking about the scriptures, and especially the Old Testament, it is disingenuous to disregard the commonly understood meaning of "figurative" as a ploy to avoid facing the uncomfortably literal approach LDS still take toward these stories.

 

But I guess if we both agree that it is official LDS Doctrine that the story of the Adam and Eve, the GoE, the Fall, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are all literal history with additional figurative meaning, then that's pretty much the point I was making in the first place. 

Edited October 3, 2013 by cinepro

[Storm Rider]

Just to be clear, a husband and wife do not have authority to receive any revelation that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church.

 

So my wife and I can receive revelation about whether or not we should move to Kentucky, or whether the kids should be homeschooled or go to public school.  But we can't receive revelation about the location of Ward boundaries, who the Elder's Quorum President should be, whether Saturday or Sunday should be the "Sabbath", or whether or not the Apostles and official Church publications are correct in their teachings, including those about the age and origin of mankind.

I don't agree with that at all; however, it may only be a problem with semantics. I have always envisioned revelation as pure light; like a giant beam that anyone that seeks to follow the Savior may touch to varying degrees. The more holy we become the deeper we may enter into the revelation, mysteries are revealed, truths unfolded, and clearer understanding of the Godhead and the gospel is obtained. 

 

The conflict hangs on your qualifier, "...a husband and wife do not have authority to receive any revelation that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church".  I draw a distinct line between revelation from God and Church policies. True revelation is true for one and true for all; truth is not relative and is no respecter of persons.  Policies reflect the understanding of man and are implemented based upon their own understanding.  If it is a revelation it is identified as such; if it is a policy it just is without any qualification other than a leader institutes it for those under his direction.  We must still follow, but should those policies conflict with God's will those specific leaders will pay the eternal price rather than those that follow their counsel. 

 

We are able to receive revelation about all things; however, we are not empowered to speak on behalf of the Church for for the Church.  Thus we may know the truth of a thing before it is revealed to the Church as a whole, but whatever we have learned through the Spirit is for our personal edification rather than for the saints as a whole.  I see this principle most often in the temple.  There was a time when a patron could ask a question of a member of a temple presidency and they would often answer it directly.  Often that is not presently the case.  Personal revelation is personal; mysteries are personal and it is incumbent on each of us to seek after holiness and truth which leads to an understanding of the mysteries, which in turn lead us to greater truths.  In the temple many patrons find revelations for themselves.  These sacred truths are not for all unless led by the Spirit to reveal them.

 

Another example, I was serving in the mission office and we had a missionary that came in after hearing distressing news from home. Before he spoke with the MP, we talked.  He was the only member of his family and his mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer with only weeks to live.  His mother and father asked him to come home to be with them.  As we talked I felt the Spirit strongly and that this elder should return home.  After speaking with the MP he returned to his city of labor and I spoke with the MP who said he felt the elder should stay in the field.  I was surprised, but the elder was asked to fast and pray about it and if he still felt the need to return home, then to return and talk again.  The next week the elder returned and felt led to return; that he had a special opportunity to teach his family the real nature of the death and the Plan of Salvation.  After talking with the elder the MP and I talked again. This time the MP felt led to send the elder home. Why the difference in interpretation from the first to the second interview? Why did I receive a distinct impression that conflicted with the MP?  

The way I answered this for myself was that we each are led by the Spirit in differing degrees at different times. Sometimes we listen more closely than other times; sometimes we are really leaning on our own understanding rather than listening to the Spirit; sometimes we just get it wrong - we don't listen.  The MP just happened to have gotten it wrong the first time and the reason doesn't matter.  The moral is for us to learn to recognize the whisperings of the Spirit and to heed Him.  

 

Though the elder was convinced he would return after the passing of his mom, which was the second week after his arriving home, he did not return to his mission.  The MP's initial overriding concern was that he felt the elder needed to finish his mission.   

[J Green]

I assume most people accept President Kimball's statement as meaning "God didn't literally take a rib from Adam to create Eve; that isn't a historical fact." In other words, "is figurative" = "didn't really happen, but we are meant to learn something from the wording or imagery."

I'm not arguing that real life events (current or historical) can't have "figurative" meaning. I still bring my wife flowers, hoping she'll understand the figurative meaning. But when talking about the scriptures, and especially the Old Testament, it is disingenuous to disregard the commonly understood meaning of "figurative" as a ploy to avoid facing the uncomfortably literal approach LDS still take toward these stories.

But I guess if we both agree that it is official LDS Doctrine that the story of the Adam and Eve, the GoE, the Fall, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are all literal history with additional figurative meaning, then that's pretty much the point I was making in the first place.

Well, we continue to disagree, but I think we're repeating ourselves. A few questions:

1. Do you think the majority of active recommend holders leaving a temple session (including GAs) would believe that the snake/serpent from Genesis 3 is a literal snake that talks or an actual personage (that is not literally a snake)?

2. Are there differences between the Genesis account and the temple presentation? If so, does this mean that that Genesis account is corrupt or that the temple additions are not literal but principle-based (figurative or symbolic)? Or is it something else?

I have more, but we can start there.

Edited October 4, 2013 by J Green

[cinepro]

I don't agree with that at all; however, it may only be a problem with semantics. I have always envisioned revelation as pure light; like a giant beam that anyone that seeks to follow the Savior may touch to varying degrees. The more holy we become the deeper we may enter into the revelation, mysteries are revealed, truths unfolded, and clearer understanding of the Godhead and the gospel is obtained. 

 

The conflict hangs on your qualifier, "...a husband and wife do not have authority to receive any revelation that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church".  I draw a distinct line between revelation from God and Church policies. True revelation is true for one and true for all; truth is not relative and is no respecter of persons.  Policies reflect the understanding of man and are implemented based upon their own understanding.  If it is a revelation it is identified as such; if it is a policy it just is without any qualification other than a leader institutes it for those under his direction.  We must still follow, but should those policies conflict with God's will those specific leaders will pay the eternal price rather than those that follow their counsel. 

 

 

 

Call it what you want, I was just describing the "stewardship in revelation" that has been taught by the Church pretty clearly through the years.  Here's how Elder Oaks describes it:

 

 First, we should understand what can be called the principle of “stewardship in revelation.” Our Heavenly Father’s house is a house of order, where his servants are commanded to “act in the office in which [they are] appointed” (D&C 107:99). This principle applies to revelation. Only the president of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. For a family, it is the priesthood leadership of the family. Leaders receive revelation for their own stewardships. Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives. But when one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own stewardship—such as a Church member who claims to have revelation to guide the entire Church or a person who claims to have a revelation to guide another person over whom he or she has no presiding authority according to the order of the Church—you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord. “There are counterfeit signals” (Boyd K. Packer, “Prayers and Answers,” Ensign, November 1979, p. 20). Satan is a great deceiver, and he is the source of some of these spurious revelations. Others are simply imagined.

 

If a revelation is outside the limits of stewardship, you know it is not from the Lord, and you are not bound by it. I have heard of cases where a young man told a young woman she should marry him because he had received a revelation that she was to be his eternal companion. If this is a true revelation, it will be confirmed directly to the woman if she seeks to know. In the meantime, she is under no obligation to heed it. She should seek her own guidance and make up her own mind. The man can receive revelation to guide his own actions, but he cannot properly receive revelation to direct hers. She is outside his stewardship.

 

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=568

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you bothered to introduce "policies" into the discussion; my statement said "revelation".  Revelation would be any communication from God, which would include policies that are introduced according to revelation (in the Oaks talk, he even tells the story of how he received revelation while President of BYU to change the academic calendar!)