Talks By Holland And Uchtdorf

[JLHPROF]

There is no reason to believe that the stories from 4000 years ago are perfect, not misunderstood or told incorrectly.  However its hard to take the stories not to be literal on at least a base level.  If one does not believe that there was a literal garden and a literal Adam and Eve, or a literal Noah and a flood with an ark, the stories really become nothing more than fictional accounts on the level of Harry Potter.  Why even have them in the scriptures?  If God is not the author of confusion and these stories are causing confusion, we probably should remove them from the scriptures.

 

For me I take the word of modern prophets who have recorded meeting/seeing in vision most of these old Biblical prophets.

Kind of hard to meet a cultural myth.

Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith both record visions of Adam.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both record visitations and presumed ordinations from Moses and Noah.

Daniel and Joseph Smith prophesied the grand council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman.

 

If we start doubting these recorded visions as real, the entirety of Mormonism which began with visions is required to be called into question.

[mnn727]

 

 

If we start doubting these recorded visions as real, the entirety of Mormonism which began with visions is required to be called into question.

 There is nothing wrong with questioning things - after all that's how this religion got started.

Questioning is how Joseph got most of his revelations, questioning is how polygamy ended and how Blacks got the Priesthood.

 

The day we stop questioning is the day is when we become just another Christian  denomination.

Edited April 9, 2015 by mnn727

[Gray]

There is no reason to believe that the stories from 4000 years ago are perfect, not misunderstood or told incorrectly.  However its hard to take the stories not to be literal on at least a base level.  If one does not believe that there was a literal garden and a literal Adam and Eve, or a literal Noah and a flood with an ark, the stories really become nothing more than fictional accounts on the level of Harry Potter.  Why even have them in the scriptures?  If God is not the author of confusion and these stories are causing confusion, we probably should remove them from the scriptures.

 

God is not the author of scriptures. Ancient peoples did not write history, they told stories. Scripture is a human attempt at reaching out toward divinity. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

The Church isn't rigid, but it's doctrines are pretty well established in scripture and prophetic teaching.

You may not believe the Bible is historically literal, but Mormonism has plenty of teaching that it is.

As far as it is translated correctly...of course.

 

 

God is not the author of scriptures. Ancient peoples did not write history, they told stories. Scripture is a human attempt at reaching out toward divinity. 

 

Gray is exactly right about this.

[mnn727]

The title page of the BoM states there can be errors in scripture. Anytime man is involved there is the possibility of error, the more men (like translators) involved the more chances there are. Genesis was an oral tradition for at least 2000 years before it was written down. Ever play that game as a child where you go down the line telling a short story and by the last person its never what it was to begin with ?

 

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, 

Edited April 9, 2015 by mnn727

[coolrok7]

The telephone game or similar game is not the way the Bible was transmitted as a part of the Old Testament oral tradition.

[mnn727]

The telephone game or similar game is not the way the Bible was transmitted as a part of the Old Testament oral tradition.

And how do you explain oral histories being passed down for 2000+ years before they were written down?

Cause to me the 'telephone game' pretty much sums it up.

[JLHPROF]

And how do you explain oral histories being passed down for 2000+ years before they were written down?

Cause to me the 'telephone game' pretty much sums it up.

 

From the all wise Wikipedia (and I claim NO historian accuracy on any of this):

"However the Talmud^[15] states that the Torah was written by Moses, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, which describe the death and burial of Moses.^[16][17] In addition the Mishnah,^[18] written 2000 years ago and the first time that orally transmitted teachings were put in writing,^[19] includes the divine origin of the Torah as an essential tenet of Judaism. Deuteronomy 31:24–26 states explicitly that Moses wrote the book of the Torah to its completion and placed it in the Ark of the Covenant to be there for future generations."

[mnn727]

From the all wise Wikipedia (and I claim NO historian accuracy on any of this):

"However the Talmud^[15] states that the Torah was written by Moses, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, which describe the death and burial of Moses.^[16][17] In addition the Mishnah,^[18] written 2000 years ago and the first time that orally transmitted teachings were put in writing,^[19] includes the divine origin of the Torah as an essential tenet of Judaism. Deuteronomy 31:24–26 states explicitly that Moses wrote the book of the Torah to its completion and placed it in the Ark of the Covenant to be there for future generations."

Thanks for proving my point

[coolrok7]

I Remember playing the game as whispering in the person's ear next to you only once in which that person then passes the message on (or at least what they thought they heard).

By the time it gets to the last person, the original message is quite distorted.

This is not the way of oral tradition, no matter how you stretch it.

Edited April 22, 2015 by coolrok7

[mnn727]

I Remember playing the game as whispering in the person's ear next to you only once in which that person then passes the message on (or at least what they thought they heard).

By the time it gets to the last person, the original message is quite distorted.

This is not the way of oral tradition, no matter how you stretch it.

Its very similar in that multiple generations of storytellers pass along a story to the next generation of story tellers.

[Vance]

And even if the words of the story don't change, the meanings of the words do change over time and generation to generation.  So . . . . the story DOES change over time.