thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) The difference is The Good Samaritan was a parable, a story Christ told to illustrate many points. The people listed in the Old Testament - Adam, Noah, Moses, are actual people, at least in Mormonism. They have appeared to prophets, been seen in visions, and in some cases physically laid hands. This desire to place everything that Science and History don't prove as real into the realm of myth is in my opinion the work of the adversary. It is the same spirit caused the BOM people to doubt in the existence of a Christ, because they had not seen. It is the same spirit that apostates and critics use to denounce Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. It is science versus religion, a story as old as the ages, and it is strange to see so many people trying to reconcile them at the expense of faith. Myth doesn't necessarily mean false. We have pretty good evidence for King Arther, of round table fame, actually existed. The stories of what he did are another matter. Same with Yeshua bar Yosef. He most probably existed. That he is Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of God in the flesh, etc., etc., etc., is a matter of religion. One I happen to agree with. Edited February 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 What value is added by supposing that any of it is literal?Easy. We get to argue with scientists and look hokey. 3
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 We have in our faith tradition to link a real Adam and Eve to other "this dispensation" experiences. If there is no real Adam and Eve then it becomes a house of cards and can fallOnly if you choose to see it that way.
Gray Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Easy. We get to argue with scientists and look hokey. I guess entertainment is a kind of value!
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 What value is added by supposing that any of it is literal? Supposing that the Adam and Eve story has some literal history mixed in with the fairy tale/myth aspects is valuable if you believe Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine...because guess what we get to do.
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I guess entertainment is a kind of value!I like looking hokey the best. 1
theplains Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 The imagery used to veil the account of Eve's birth is most beautiful, particularly so in a day when there is so much confusion about the role of women. Symbolically, she was not taken from the bones of Adam's head nor from the bones of his heel, for it is not the place of woman to be either above the man or beneath him. Her place is at his side, and so she is taken, in the figurative sense, from his rib-the bone that girds the side and rests closest to the heart. Thus we find Adam declaring: "This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man" (Moses 3:23). Eve, unlike the rest of God's creations, was of Adam's bone and of his flesh, meaning that she was equal to him in powers, faculties, and rights. Following your line of reasoning, what is the imagery of God putting Adam into a deepsleep before Eve is formed in the Garden of Eden? Any imagery to the fig leaf apronsafter they discovered they were naked? Thanks,Jim
thesometimesaint Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 Following your line of reasoning, what is the imagery of God putting Adam into a deepsleep before Eve is formed in the Garden of Eden? Any imagery to the fig leaf apronsafter they discovered they were naked? Thanks,Jim Moses, the writer of Genesis, was probably aware that taking a rib out of anyone awake would hurt. It wasn't God who had them make aprons of fig leaves, but that other guy. Interestingly fig leaves have small hypodermic like needles that cause intense itching.
Bikeemikey Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) How about this from Brigham Young—“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.“He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” Journal of Discourses, 3:319. Except now people are made in many other ways than the way Brigham Young was referring to. Edited February 15, 2014 by Bikeemikey
DBMormon Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Following your line of reasoning, what is the imagery of God putting Adam into a deepsleep before Eve is formed in the Garden of Eden? Any imagery to the fig leaf apronsafter they discovered they were naked? Thanks,Jimthat came from this site http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/32478-garden-eden-figurative-literal.html And there is also thesehttp://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/eden_literal.html http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705385058/A-literal-2--and-figurative-2--understanding-of-Adam.html?pg=all http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Quotes/fall.HTML http://www.ldslearning.org/adamandeve.htm http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Rel301/Creation%20of%20Eve.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2551870/posts In regards to what you ask, I have no thoughts beyond what I have stolen here other then to say it is up in the air and doen not have to be taken literally
theplains Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 It wasn't God who had them make aprons of fig leaves, but that other guy. Scripture references please. Thanks,Jim 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Scripture references please. Thanks,Jimhttp://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4?lang=eng
DBMormon Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Satan pointed out their nakedness, they then made themselves the fig coverings. God them clothed them in coats of skins afterward. thesometimesaint, on 15 Feb 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:It wasn't God who had them make aprons of fig leaves, but that other guy. So this isn't true either
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Satan pointed out their nakedness, they then made themselves the fig coverings. God them clothed them in coats of skins afterward. thesometimesaint, on 15 Feb 2014 - 12:46 PM, said: So this isn't true eitherThe story as told in the temple differs from Moses.
theplains Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Satan pointed out their nakedness, they then made themselves the fig coverings. God them clothed them in coats of skins afterward. The scripture does not say Satan pointed out their nakedness. ThanksJim
theplains Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4?lang=eng Moses 4 does not say that Satan made or told them to make the fig leafaprons. Who invented this myth? Thanks,Jim
Tiki Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Moses 4 does not say that Satan made or told them to make the fig leafaprons. Who invented this myth? Thanks,JimSee verse 17.
DBMormon Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 The story as told in the temple differs from Moses.but Moses was what was used in the CFR.
Recommended Posts