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

[sunstoned]

4 hours 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.

I believe the global flood to be mythical because there is no supporting evidence, and much evidence to discount the idea. Many cultures have a flood myth. The Epics of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh describe a global flood but they were written over a 1000 years before the Biblical account of Noah. Some think these tales were the basis for the Bible version.

As far as the Biblical flood myth goes, both the Sumerians and Egyptians have unbroken written records going back to 3200 BCE. There was no recorded disruption because of a global flood.  Other facts to consider is that The Great Basin Bristlecone Pine has been deemed the oldest tree in existence. They have reached an age of over 5,000 years old, and we know that trees don’t survive under water.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935413-e-61#:~:text=The earliest evidence of phonetic,dated to about 2690 BC.&text=Egypt's Copts used the spoken,history's longest surviving recorded languages.

[mfbukowski]

Prior to 1990, there was a statement in the introduction to the presentation of the Endowment that the story of Adam and Eve is "strictly figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned".

Honestly.

Ask anyone old enough.

I have repeatedly heard temple presidents mention this to temple workers.

I am inclined to believe them, silly guy that I am.

 

[kimpearson]

After 46 years of scripture study and reading plenty of commentary, biblical criticism, Book of Mormon Criticism, detailed history around each section of the Doctrine Covenants, I am convinced that much of the interpretations offered up on scriptures including our own apostles and prophets either is partially or wholly wrong.  I believe that the history found in all scriptures is likely very different from what actually happened because as President Nelson recently said in the Church News: “There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.” 

I believe all religions incorrectly assume that they have the whole story explained.  I believe every one of us in this group has many current beliefs about what is taught in the scriptures that will prove to be partially or wholly wrong.  I believe one of the greatest problems of religion and religious people is closing the door on further knowledge from God that will show their current beliefs were incorrect.  That stated, I have found so many teachings in the scriptures that I currently hold has the best truths I can find about God, His plan, His direction on how to best live life and love others.  I will not fully close the door on changes to any of my beliefs as a result of further revelation.  I anticipate that when I die and start to learn the real story of everything, there is much that will come as a surprise that I had wrong but when I see the whole picture it will make sense.  I believe I will also come to see that many of the truths I currently believe in will be enlarged and more wonderful than I ever thought.

Edited January 4, 2022 by kimpearson

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

believe all religions incorrectly assume that they have the whole story explained.

That is contrary to our doctrine though. Why would we assume we know when we are told we don’t in our scriptures?

Edited January 4, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I am convinced that much of the interpretations offered up on scriptures including our own apostles and prophets either is partially or wholly wrong.  I believe that the history found in all scriptures is likely very different from what actually happened

Seems like a good place to add this as I have been meaning to since he posted:

https://benspackman.com/2021/12/the-1980-old-testament-institute-manual-why-you-should-ignore-it-for-teaching-genesis/

Quote

When it comes to this manual, I’ve spent dozens of hours in the donated papers of the primary author of the Genesis section. I’ve interviewed the secondary author, who was also the first-level reviewer.²And I know who was serving on the Correlation committee that ultimately approved the draft, with one minor change (discussed below.) I have two articles in preparation that will address this history directly, which I hope to see published in the next year. Because I don’t want to scoop myself, I’m going to call the primary author of Genesis “Gary.” (Edit: A bunch of people have guessed Cleon Skousen. It wasn’t Cleon Skousen, and you probably wouldn’t recognize his name.)

The main problem with this 1980 Institute manual— and when I say “the manual” I really mean the Genesis and creation sections— is that it does not represent Church history, scripture, or doctrine fairly or accurately, much to the detriment of members of the Church. If you are a new convert in Japan, Brazil, Russia, etc., this current (!) manual represents the most detailed, official, accessible commentary in your language, laying out the Church’s supposed balance between science and religion, faith and knowledge.

And frankly, it’s bad.  It quotes Joseph Fielding Smith to force a false dichotomy between faith and evolution. It represents as reliable and good sources for Latter-day Saints a Seventh-day Adventist creationism pamphlet, quoted for nearly 2000 words; Melvin Cook, LDS chemistry professor and young-earth creationist, well known in the broader world of Christian creationism; and Immanuel Velikovsky, fringe Russian/Israeli psychiatrist and catastrophist of the 1950s and 60s.

It has great stuff in it…also from his FB link a particularly interesting tidbit:

Quote

I have revealed “Gary’s” identity to several people. Nobody’s ever heard of him, even historian friends. Which means that people you’ve never heard of can have a major effect on Church history, not just photo-recognizable prophets and Apostles.

https://www.facebook.com/bspackman/posts/10102568828803310

Edited January 4, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is contrary to our doctrine though. Why would we assume we know when we are told we don’t in our scriptures?

I agree but I am sure you have seen many members who will argue that we have all the answers about many things.  I believe we don't have the full answers to anything and have no real way of judging if the truth we believe in is 1% of the whole or 99%.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

am sure you have seen many members who will argue that we have all the answers about many things

Actually while I have seen some, I have seen more who claim that members say we have all the answers than I have seen members who say we have all the answers. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Calm

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

You are changing doctrine to fit your own narrative.  THis happens often when the truth of science conflicts with the myths that are believed on faith.  When it is clear what has been taught cannot be true then people move the goal posts. That is what you have done as many do.  I used to do it as well.

You probably still do it, except possibly in the other direction. That is, if something appears to confirm, rather than refute the "myths" you used to believe in, you will move your own goal posts. Or maybe you don't -- I'm not stalking you, so how would I know? 🙂 

 

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Actually while I have seen some, I have seen more who claim that members say we have all the answers than I have seen members who say we have all the answers. 

I think there's a "don't" missing in there somewhere -- but I think I understood it anyway!

I agree with that -- I can't remember the last time I heard someone "in real life", as it were, say we have all the answers. There seem to be a few here in this forum that think that, though.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think there's a "don't" missing in there somewhere -- but I think I understood it anyway!

I agree with that -- I can't remember the last time I heard someone "in real life", as it were, say we have all the answers. There seem to be a few here in this forum that think that, though.

No, I think I have it right…I have seen members who think we have all the answers like kp refers to, but I have seen more members like kp who accuse other members of believing they have all the answers.  IOW, I don’t think the all knowing member is that common, but it may appear to some they are because so many other members talk about them as if they are common.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Ah the irony of these statements.

You can literally reverse them and have equally correct statements.

How so?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You probably still do it, except possibly in the other direction. That is, if something appears to confirm, rather than refute the "myths" you used to believe in, you will move your own goal posts. Or maybe you don't -- I'm not stalking you, so how would I know? 🙂 

 

Sure we all seek to confirm a bias.  But I don't claim to have truth that is revealed by some hidden supernatural being. And as evidence arises that refutes past held beliefs I am willing to change and even set aside beliefs.  THat is the main reason I don't believe in Mormonism anymore. The evidence that it is not what it claims is overwhelming.  I tried for a long time to make it fit, the move the goal posts like so many of you need to do to maintain your faith. I could not do it anymore.  If you can more power to you.

[Stargazer]

This literal vs symbolic thing seems to be both a divine and a human thing. For those who aren't believers, of course, it's one and the same. But God seems to be freely capable of moving between the literal and the symbolic. And speaks occasionally both symbolically and literally.

And it is as if the symbolic is the literal for those who cannot know any different. Looking at the Genesis account of creation we have what appears to be a figurative description of the creation of the earth. But the steps as described, though they seem to be symbolic or figurative, actually turn out to be quite close to the literal, i.e. scientific. My Dad, who was an agnostic, explained this away by saying that Moses was a very smart man, and that explained it. 

So we have the interesting situations where religious people try to explain away the science, and the areligious trying to explain away the symbolic. 

But some of us are more than happy to accept both as true in their own spheres. Whereupon we get non-believers complaining that we're moving the goal posts. And sure we are, just as over time and as new discoveries came into view, science has moved its own goal posts. Line upon line, and precept upon precept; here a little and there a little.

[Stargazer]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I think I have it right…I have seen members who think we have all the answers like kp refers to, but I have seen more members like kp who accuse other members of believing they have all the answers.  IOW, I don’t think the all knowing member is that common, but it may appear to some they are because so many other members talk about them as if they are common.

LOL, I didn't read that closely enough. Sorry!

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

How so?

Fact conflicts with Science all the time.
Science is often changed to fit a narrative.  When the truth of reality conflicts with previous scientific understanding, when it is clear that what science previously understood cannot be true then scientists move the goalposts.

People talk about "SCIENCE" as this infallible body of truth that is never contradicted by reality or fact like a faith based belief might be.
It's immediately obvious based on history that science is more about continuing revelation than even the Church.  Science is constantly learning, developing, forming new hypotheses and coming to new conclusions.
There is scarcely an area of scientific study that hasn't backtracked its definite statements when new information comes to light.

It is completely as naïve to believe science is correct in all its pronouncements as it is to believe religion is correct in all its pronouncements.
Both are subject to further light and knowledge.  The difference is which methodology for arriving at a conclusion is preferred personally.

 

 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You can't have a discussion about reading the Old Testament "literally" without including Ben Spackman:  Literal Interpretation of the Scriptures: Why We Need MORE:

 

 I always enjoy Spackman's stuff.  He's a smart guy.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

 

He makes good points.  We don't use the word literal correctly in these kinds of discussions.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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?

I don't think that people disbelieve in a historical global flood because they think it would be too hard for God to pull off.  It's because the other information that we have and can use to judge whether or not a global flood actually occurred, doesn't support it.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. It is just not provable and there is little evidence for the theory. The resurrection seems incredibly unlikely but it is not falsifiable. The evidence from a scientific standpoint is basically non-existent for all but a few.

I think science can refute that humans are descended from one couple that lived 6000 years ago.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Teancum

[bluebell]

17 hours 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 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).

This is a good point, because a lot of what we believe must have occurred we believe because of interpretations or understandings that aren't necessarily correct. 

If we are misunderstanding the idea of the earth being baptized, or misunderstanding how that occurred or when, then we might be hanging on to the idea of a global historical flood for no beneficial reasons.

Furthermore, if the idea that the flood had to have been historical is actually hurting some people's testimonies or their ability to have faith and trust in the gospel, then not only could we be holding on to beliefs that have no benefit, those beliefs could actually be doing real spiritual harm to other people when we advocate for them.

It makes you think about why it's so important to focus on the stuff that actually is important.

 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

If the scriptures had ever taught it was a “one and done” learning experience or if the Church taught scriptures or leaders’ understandings were infallible, that might be a problem. Instead scriptures teach continuing revelation and church leaders say take truth where you find it.

Bt what does the church teach about Adam and Eve now?  Is your interpretation taught?

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think science can refute that humans are descended from on couple that lived 6000 years ago.

https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

• By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.
  In addition, mitochondrial DNA from the men, as well as similar samples from 24 women, revealed that all women on the planet trace back to a mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago — almost the same time period during which the Y-chromosome Adam lived.

  A separate study in the same issue of the journal Science found that men shared a common ancestor between 180,000 and 200,000 years ago.

  And in a study detailed in March in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Hammer's group showed that several men in Africa have unique, divergent Y chromosomes that trace back to an even more ancient man who lived between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago.
  
  These primeval people aren't parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.

Science is constantly changing.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

OK, that seems to answer your question -- but I would think an actual quote would prove more satisfactory.

 

YOu need a quote for this?  If you dispute it I would be happy to provide sources.

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

At any rate, a literal interpretation certainly seems to provide an acceptable working model of the plan of happiness that helps people from all walks of life enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

I am not sure how this connects to the idea of a literal Adam/Eve/Fall and that we all descend from these two people.

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Can spiritual things be literal, or only temporal things? Of course, so many things in our doctrine are both temporal and spiritual.

Like pinning jello to the wall....

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Can spiritual things be literal, or only temporal things? Of course, so many things in our doctrine are both temporal and spiritual.

They can be both simultaneously depending on point of view. It is easy to go down the literal rabbit hole; but if it walks like a duck....

It still might be a rabbit!!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Fact conflicts with Science all the time.

If a scientist is a good one they modify their theories when new facts an evidence is found. Science does not claim revealed truth. Science uses the scientific method to find truth and theories are open to modification. So much different than faith.

 

 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

Science is often changed to fit a narrative. 

Is it?  Just simply changed?  Or change due to new knowledge and evidence? 

 

 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

When the truth of reality conflicts with previous scientific understanding, when it is clear that what science previously understood cannot be true then scientists move the goalposts.

No they don't move the goal posts.  Not like true believers.  True believers move the goal posts to keep their faith intact when science brings evidence to light that may destroy their faith.  This thread and how some view Adam and Even are fine examples. Science modifies based on new knowledge and evidence.

 

 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

People talk about "SCIENCE" as this infallible body of truth that is never contradicted by reality or fact like a faith based belief might be.

No they don't. This is your construct.

 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

It's immediately obvious based on history that science is more about continuing revelation than even the Church.  Science is constantly learning, developing, forming new hypotheses and coming to new conclusions.
There is scarcely an area of scientific study that hasn't backtracked its definite statements when new information comes to light.

It is completely as naïve to believe science is correct in all its pronouncements as it is to believe religion is correct in all its pronouncements.
Both are subject to further light and knowledge.  The difference is which methodology for arriving at a conclusion is preferred personally.

 

 

 

It is clear you don't understand science at all and you distort science in order to confirm your faith.