Why do we acknowledge symbolism and also demand literalism in our scriptural stories?

[bluebell]

I was listening to genesis, Moses, and Abraham this morning and it got me thinking.  

In these scriptures we have stories of Eve being made from Adam's rib, and satan appearing as a snake.  I believe it was Pres. Kimball(?) who said that of course, those verses are symbolic.  Just because it says God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve does not mean that's literally how Eve was made.

At the same time, we have members who argue that the creation of the world had to have taken 6,000 years (via one of God's days being 1000 of ours), and the world-wide flood and all the animals in the world fitting on an ark for 40 days must be taken literally, because that's what the scriptures say happened.

Why do we accept symbolism for some of our "foundational" (to steal Rongo's word) stories but reject it for others?  What demands that a story be literal and what allows it to be symbolic?

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to genesis, Moses, and Abraham this morning and it got me thinking.  

In these scriptures we have stories of Eve being made from Adam's rib, and satan appearing as a snake.  I believe it was Pres. Kimball(?) who said that of course, those verses are symbolic.  Just because it says God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve does not mean that's literally how Eve was made.

At the same time, we have members who argue that the creation of the world had to have taken 6,000 years (via one of God's days being 1000 of ours), and the world-wide flood and all the animals in the world fitting on an ark for 40 days must be taken literally, because that's what the scriptures say happened.

Why do we accept symbolism for some of our "foundational" (to steal Rongo's word) stories but reject it for others?  What demands that a story be literal and what allows it to be symbolic?

We reviewed this in our Sunday School class yesterday, which I find very helpful for individuals deciding whether something is literal or figurative (for what that's worth in their spiritual development): https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/01-thoughts?lang=eng

Of course the value of our understanding and belief is found in our behavior, so as long as someone is becoming Christlike, it doesn't matter whether we (or they) take things literally or figuratively and we (and they) learn from experience which works, and how well, and under what circumstances, etc.

Church doctrine of course is literal: the war in heaven, creation, fall and redemption happened; God and Satan are real; Adam and Eve, and Christ lived upon the earth; etc.

 

[Navidad]

Conservative non-LDS Christians have the same questions. I think the best answer is "Nothing demands that a given story or account in the Bible has to be taken either literally or symbolically. It takes hard word to ascertain the same and then any conclusions reached must be reached with humility and uncertainty. One must study the context, the tense, voices, moods, meanings, and the specific words of the language used, surmise the intent of the author, understand the world view of the author, as well as the mission of a given text. Whether we are talking about New Testament or Old Testament texts, it makes no difference. I personally think humility and uncertainty are the two most important criteria when interpreting Scripture or any other historical work. The Bible is part history, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic, teaching, etc etc. Presentism is one of the greatest enemies of the Biblical interpreter. I am confident that the Bible is the Word of God given for our instruction, edification, salvation, and sanctification (exaltation). I approach it with great fear and trembling as I try to unlock its meaning in a faithful and accurate way. Of course the Spirit is the tour guide over all of the process from inspiration to writing to interpreting and translating well. Even then, we must be careful that we are not projecting the Spirit where It may not be leading us. Just my .02 cents.

Edited January 3, 2022 by Navidad

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

......................

Why do we accept symbolism for some of our "foundational" (to steal Rongo's word) stories but reject it for others?  What demands that a story be literal and what allows it to be symbolic?

Anglican Bishop Tom Wright has a wonderful and short explanation of what "literal" means. 

 

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to genesis, Moses, and Abraham this morning and it got me thinking.  

In these scriptures we have stories of Eve being made from Adam's rib, and satan appearing as a snake.  I believe it was Pres. Kimball(?) who said that of course, those verses are symbolic.  Just because it says God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve does not mean that's literally how Eve was made.

At the same time, we have members who argue that the creation of the world had to have taken 6,000 years (via one of God's days being 1000 of ours), and the world-wide flood and all the animals in the world fitting on an ark for 40 days must be taken literally, because that's what the scriptures say happened.

Why do we accept symbolism for some of our "foundational" (to steal Rongo's word) stories but reject it for others?  What demands that a story be literal and what allows it to be symbolic?

I don't know why, and I don't think anyone is 100% literal with everything, and I don't think there is a set "pattern" for determining what is allegorical, and what is literal. I think it's kind of "a la carte," varying by individual. 

To be honest, a lot of it is probably preference, gut feeling, what people want or would rather believe, etc. But, when they are important to people, they are very important. If I didn't believe the Book of Mormon people, events, and places were real (for example), it wouldn't have the same power for me. I know increasingly more people seem to try to reconcile things through the "not literally true, but still somehow inspiring" route, but that doesn't work for me, personally. 

[JLHPROF]

It's not an either/or choice.

They can be literal AND symbolic.

I believe in a literal Eve in a literal garden.  I don't believe the rib or the fruit are literal.

I believe in a literal Noah and ark and flood.  I don't believe literally 2 of every animal were one boat.

Just because a story contains symbolism doesn't make the story fictional.

[bluebell]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

 

I believe in a literal Noah and ark and flood.  I don't believe literally 2 of every animal were one boat.

 

So where do you believe all the animals came from after the flood receded, since they all would have drown during it? (I'm not arguing, just sincerely wondering how you've solved that dilemma).

[teddyaware]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to genesis, Moses, and Abraham this morning and it got me thinking.  

In these scriptures we have stories of Eve being made from Adam's rib, and satan appearing as a snake.  I believe it was Pres. Kimball(?) who said that of course, those verses are symbolic.  Just because it says God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve does not mean that's literally how Eve was made.

At the same time, we have members who argue that the creation of the world had to have taken 6,000 years (via one of God's days being 1000 of ours), and the world-wide flood and all the animals in the world fitting on an ark for 40 days must be taken literally, because that's what the scriptures say happened.

Why do we accept symbolism for some of our "foundational" (to steal Rongo's word) stories but reject it for others?  What demands that a story be literal and what allows it to be symbolic?

Perhaps because there are many passages of scripture that some would like to believe are just symbolic that the Lord and his prophets have repeatedly spoken of as being literal, historical events, the great flood of Noah’s day being one of them? During his earthly ministry. the Lord, without ambiguity, spoke of the deluge of Noah as being a literal, historical event. Further, one of the reasons why those in the literal camp can accept the flood as being a literal event is because God is a God of mighty miracles.

What do you think would be a greater miracle for GOd to perform, the great flood or the instantaneous universal resurrection of billions of bodies that were turned to dust thousands of years ago? If some members can believe that the resurrection of billions of disintegrated dead bodies is going to be a real, historical event, why think it’s not possible that the Almighty God could have submerged the unfolded portions of the world during the flood in water for a millionth of a second? Do you think this latter miracle would be impossible for the omnipotent God to perform?

Edited January 3, 2022 by teddyaware

[Chum]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So where do you believe all the animals came from after the flood receded, since they all would have drown during it? (I'm not arguing, just sincerely wondering how you've solved that dilemma).

Local flood. Could have transported the ark to a larger body of water where it hung out for a month or so.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to genesis, Moses, and Abraham this morning and it got me thinking.  

In these scriptures we have stories of Eve being made from Adam's rib, and satan appearing as a snake.  I believe it was Pres. Kimball(?) who said that of course, those verses are symbolic.  Just because it says God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve does not mean that's literally how Eve was made.

Yes.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

At the same time, we have members who argue that the creation of the world had to have taken 6,000 years (via one of God's days being 1000 of ours), and the world-wide flood and all the animals in the world fitting on an ark for 40 days must be taken literally, because that's what the scriptures say happened.

The scriptures should be construed according to our best information, which should include the ways which they were intended to be construed.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why do we accept symbolism for some of our "foundational" (to steal Rongo's word) stories but reject it for others? 

I think because some things can and ought to be taken as symbolic, figurative, or in some other way not 100% literally, historically, pristinely, factually accurate.

I also think that because some other things must be taken as, if not "100% literally, historically, pristinely, factually accurate," at least substantively so.  To wit: Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as opposed to an insightful, but nevertheless merely mortal and mundane, rabbi.  Jesus' divinity, miracles, atoning sacrifice and resurrection are, I think, matters we are to construe as having actually happened.  As Joseph Smith so aptly put it: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven;  and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”.  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1938, page 121.)

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

What demands that a story be literal and what allows it to be symbolic?

I think the dichotomy needs to be re-visited, as there are shades and penumbras in play here.  

Consider Noah's Flood.  Must it be either "literal" or "symbolic?"  Might it have elements of both?  See, e.g. here:

Scriptural Use of Symbolism

4 Elements of the Fall You Might Not Realize Are Symbolic

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Local flood. Could have transported the ark to a larger body of water where it hung out for a month or so.

I thought that JLH was a believer in a global flood though?

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought that JLH was a believer in a global flood though?

Can't say. Can only say it wasn't a global flood. It is my experience that science supports biblical stuff that happened and Global Flood evidence would have been everywhere.

We have strong evidence of smaller ones.

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So where do you believe all the animals came from after the flood receded, since they all would have drown during it? (I'm not arguing, just sincerely wondering how you've solved that dilemma).

I don't worry about it.  I don't consider these details as determining in historicity.

Both Christ and Joseph Smith met Noah/Gabriel/Elias face to face (D&C 27:6-7). 
Christ specifically mentions the flood as having happened (Matt 24:38, Luke 17:27).  Both Peter and Paul spoke about it as fact.

So that means the store is historical, even if some details are mere symbols.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought that JLH was a believer in a global flood though?

 

6 minutes ago, Chum said:

Can't say. Can only say it wasn't a global flood. It is my experience that science supports biblical stuff that happened and Global Flood evidence would have been everywhere.

Yes, I'm a believer in a global flood.  Because I'm a believer that the earth was literally baptized by immersion and will eventually be baptized by fire and the holy ghost.

Evidence is not stagnant.  Imagine what we'll know tomorrow.

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

the earth was literally baptized by immersion

Yeah but it was magma.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Yeah but it was magma.

That doesn't meet the requirements for water baptism.
However, it might for baptism of fire...

Edited January 3, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anglican Bishop Tom Wright has a wonderful and short explanation of what "literal" means. 

 

Two of my favorite people: an Anglican and an Anabaptist!

 

 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That doesn't meet the requirements for water baptism.
However, it might for baptism of fire...

What about Elder Widtsoe’s suggestion that it might have been a thin film in areas not usually covered by water to be sufficient for baptism? It doesn’t explain about mountain areas above the waterline and would be remarkable for rain or wind carried water to cover every surface so completely, but it is the closest realistic theory IMO to keeping the immersion of the entire earth literal I have seen so far…at least if the actual baptism happened in recorded history which if it was the time of Noah’s flood, it would need to be.  My opinion is if a true baptism for the earth is required (and that is a big if for me), it either happened before man appeared (I like the symbolism of preparing the earth for its calling of nurturing humanity) or hasn’t happened yet (will happen after Christ comes).

Edited January 3, 2022 by Calm

[BRMC]

Lost World Museum does many videos on this.  They are creationists.  Their content is a mix of wonky and thought-provoking.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Lost World Museum does many videos on this.  They are creationists.  Their content is a mix of wonky and thought-provoking.

Fixed that for ya.

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

What about Elder Widtsoe’s suggestion that it might have been a thin film in areas not usually covered by water to be sufficient for baptism? It doesn’t explain about mountain areas above the waterline and would be a remarkable for rain or wind carried water to cover every surface so completely, but it is the closest realistic theory IMO to keeping the immersion of the entire earth literal I have seen so far…at least if the actual baptism happened in recorded history which if it was the time of Noah’s flood, it would need to be.  My opinion is if a true baptism for the earth is required (and that is a big if for me), it either happened before man appeared (I like the symbolism of preparing the earth for its calling of nurturing humanity) or hasn’t happened yet (will happen after Christ comes).

Well, since the days of Peleg when the earth was altered happened after the flood it's entirely possible there weren't mountain areas above possible waterline.

But again, I don't sweat the details.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, since the days of Peleg when the earth was altered happened after the flood it's entirely possible there weren't mountain areas above possible waterline.

But again, I don't sweat the details.

The level of tectonic activity needed to create mountains in less than ten millennia would be cataclysmic and geology would be a very different field. Oh, and it probably would have involved a lot of mass extinctions and a lot of other ‘fun’.

[JustAnAustralian]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, since the days of Peleg when the earth was altered

Divided* not altered.

 

*Based on the text, divided amongst descendants

Edited January 4, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Church doctrine of course is literal: the war in heaven, creation, fall and redemption happened; God and Satan are real; Adam and Eve, and Christ lived upon the earth; etc.

It seems that there are believers here that may view Adam and Eve as figurative and not literal.  Is it literal that all humans descend from Adam and Eve?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to genesis, Moses, and Abraham this morning and it got me thinking.  

In these scriptures we have stories of Eve being made from Adam's rib, and satan appearing as a snake.  I believe it was Pres. Kimball(?) who said that of course, those verses are symbolic.  Just because it says God removed one of Adam's ribs to make Eve does not mean that's literally how Eve was made.

At the same time, we have members who argue that the creation of the world had to have taken 6,000 years (via one of God's days being 1000 of ours), and the world-wide flood and all the animals in the world fitting on an ark for 40 days must be taken literally, because that's what the scriptures say happened.

Why do we accept symbolism for some of our "foundational" (to steal Rongo's word) stories but reject it for others?  What demands that a story be literal and what allows it to be symbolic?

When I was much younger I used to take all these scripture stories as literal, and then as I got older (and perhaps slightly wiser) I began to see that they needn't be literally true. I was first struck by this insight when I read the Genesis chapter 1 account of creation, and yes, 6 days of creation and then a day of rest, then immediately afterwards, in chapter 2, the text says all that creation stuff in chapter 1 happened in ONE day, not six. I was like "Wait a minute, did that just say ONE day?" And indeed it did. So all the foofarah about 6 days, vs 6000 years of creation went tumbling down. It didn't have to be that way, and from science, there is no way it could happen like that. 

Now, all that being said, I'm pretty sure that God could have created the earth in one nanosecond, in the next nanosecond put A&E into the Garden, and we think it had to have happened 150,000 years ago because He "salted" the earth with all the evidence needed to make it seem like it was 4.5 billion years old. Pick one or the other, I don't care. But if God made the evidence seem like the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, then maybe He wants us to believe it's that old. And maybe it IS that old. It doesn't take away from the idea that God made it.

And I can imagine God trying to tell Moses that the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago, and that humans started out as one-celled organisms, and He eventually directed life in such a way so that it ended up humans popped up. And Moses would be like "Wha...??" And then God sighs and tells him what we read in Genesis 1. 

Maybe God should have tried to teach Abraham quantum theory instead of just astronomy. Just think, we could have had the atomic bomb in 2000 BC! Wouldn't that have been a kicker!