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

[MrShorty]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Science is constantly changing.

I kind of agree that science is constantly changing, but it sometimes seems that we overstate what it means when we say that science is changing. In this case, we see multiple dates/ages for "chromosomal Adam" or "mitochondrial Eve" DNA, but the underlying principles are not changing. The differences are in details (like rates of mutation), but the principle that "mitochondrial DNA passes from mother to offspring and can, therefore tell us something about how many "ancestral mothers" we have is still the same.

In many ways, this branch of the discussion reminds me of this thread (

) where someone took a headline claiming to cast doubts about everything we know about hominid evolution as if the entire idea of evolution is in question.

So, yes, I agree that science is always changing. I think it is value to keep a proper perspective on the real magnitude of some changes.

[Teancum]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Your sources do not help you. And nobody says the science does not change. All would say it does. It changes.  Bases on new evidence.  So much different than faith.  Like I said you really don't understand science and want to disparage it because it will destroy your faith.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

I would say the church teaches they were literal persons who all humans are descended from.

If you want it literal, it is still easy to make it spiritual simultaneously.

They were the first of a tribe to learn Yahweh 's teachings, and were the first to know what He called "sin" and its consequences. The tribe became God 's chosen people, through Abraham, Issac and Jacob, aka Israel 

Just as there was no sin before God defined it, there was no spiritual death before God defined it.

Literal AND spiritual at the same time

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

There is no credible evidence to support that idea.

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no credible evidence to support that idea.

You are wrong.  Research it.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are wrong.  Research it.

I think you misunderstand. I was agreeing with you. I was saying there is no credible evidence supporting that all human beings descended from one couple 6 millennia ago.

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

 

I

 

I personally don't know anyone who thinks that science is infallible.  Quite the contrary, science works because it is self correcting.  Self correcting methods are built right into the fabric of scientific thought. A Scientific theory has to be falsifiable, or else its not a considered a theory.   Religion on the other hand has no such mechanism. Doctrine is declared as truth.  When it is found out that this "truth" is no longer really true (usually through science), then all sorts of apologetic gymnastics kick in to try and reinterpret and explain it away.  

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think you misunderstand. I was agreeing with you. I was saying there is no credible evidence supporting that all human beings descended from one couple 6 millennia ago.

Yes I did.  Sorry about that.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 1/3/2022 at 3:50 PM, CV75 said:

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.

 

I think all of these things could be symbolic ways for us to understand the greater message about God's existence and our relationship to God and the entire human family throughout time and eternity.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think all of these things could be symbolic ways for us to understand the greater message about God's existence and our relationship to God and the entire human family throughout time and eternity.

Yes, symbolic too, just as are we ourselves are literally symbols and symbolic in our own way.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, symbolic too, just as are we ourselves are literally symbols and symbolic in our own way.

Which means there should be a TON of grace extended to people who view literal/figurative, historical/allegorical etc. in different ways

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Which means there should be a TON of grace extended to people who view literal/figurative, historical/allegorical etc. in different ways

 

Definitely -- that is what I said in the sentence above the one you bolded: "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." I think that comment is full of grace, and how does someone become Christlike without it, anyway?

[kimpearson]

I would be curious to hear anyone give an example of an eternal truth that we fully understand.  For example, we believe in God the Eternal Father, His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  Now explain to me fully the nature of each.  Explain to me exactly what they each did to get to the position they are in.  Explain to me why an all powerful god needs two other all powerful gods.  Yes we have hints.  Yes we know bits and pieces.  I have a feeling that what we know might just be an incredibly small part of who these beings are.

I would be curious to hear anyone point out a historical event in the Bible or Book of Mormon that we really have a clear picture of and know without a doubt it occurred exactly as we read it.  Yes certain broad facts are known like the existence of kingdoms and certain people but there is very little evidence supporting any of the detailed stories told in these scriptures.  The stories we have of Jesus have literally hundreds of different versions in the different texts now available.  Modern science including archaeology appears to contradict the details of many of these stories or no evidence has been found to support the stories.  I am not saying the stories are completely false.  I am saying that in my life I have always heard so many things taught as if they happened exactly as described with no room for thinking otherwise and I just don't buy that any more.

Edited January 5, 2022 by kimpearson

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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!!

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I would be curious to hear anyone give an example of an eternal truth that we fully understand.  For example, we believe in God the Eternal Father, His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  Now explain to me fully the nature of each.  Explain to me exactly what they each did to get to the position they are in.  Explain to me why an all powerful god needs two other all powerful gods.  Yes we have hints.  Yes we know bits and pieces.  I have a feeling that what we know might just be an incredibly small part of who these beings are.

I would be curious to hear anyone point out a historical event in the Bible or Book of Mormon that we really have a clear picture of and know without a doubt it occurred exactly as we read it.  Yes certain broad facts are known like the existence of kingdoms and certain people but there is very little evidence supporting any of the detailed stories told in these scriptures.  The stories we have of Jesus have literally hundreds of different versions in the different texts now available.  Modern science including archaeology appears to contradict the details of many of these stories or no evidence has been found to support the stories.  I am not saying the stories are completely false.  I am saying that in my life I have always heard so many things taught as if they happened exactly as described with no room for thinking otherwise and I just don't buy that any more.

Good for you!

But perhaps the stories are all true, just not in the literal way you thought of them.

Or more to the point, they COULD be literal, miraculously, but who wants to say that God COULD NOT have done them? If God wanted to do it as represented, He certainly could have!

It really doesn't matter if they are literal or symbolic

We worship the Ideal Family and seek to emulate it.

The Ideal Family illustrates that we need each other, in families to help each other become Perfect Humans. 

The whole goal is immortality and eternal life for believers in that idea of a perfect family.

THAT is what we need to learn, on whatever level of intellectual sophistication we can individually handle, so the lowest level is taught, and those who can, will receive their own revelations about what lies beyond these simple stories.  That's why they are taught at a third grade level.

Paul says there's a time to put off childish things and perhaps that's where you are!  Welcome!

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

LOL! that's great!! Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes we have hints.  Yes we know bits and pieces.  I have a feeling that what we know might just be an incredibly small part of who these beings are.

Think of the FUNCTIONS they represent in a Perfected Family. There are four functions necessary, a Father figure, Mother figure, at least one perfectly obedient child exemplar, who helps the other children grow up, and a Teacher/Counselor function who helps each individual child learn their personal place and function within the family, according to their specific skills, place in the family constellation etc.  Could be an older child or a parental function too.  Big Sister?   Or part of the traditional Motherly function, reducing the number of Beings needed to 3.

There is a tradition of the Mother Goddess being named Wisdom. I personally like to think of the Holy Ghost function as a Motherly function

Father, Mother, Child, and Teacher. All acting as One in purpose and perfect love!

It's mostly taught in the Family Proclamation!  But we have to find it for ourselves- that's the essay portion of the test- 90% of the grade.

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Definitely -- that is what I said in the sentence above the one you bolded: "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." I think that comment is full of grace, and how does someone become Christlike without it, anyway?

That comment may be full of grace but it doesn't reflect reality in the church.

How would that approach change the questions asked in temple recommend interviews and the declarations of worthiness one must attain to attend the temple and be a member in full/good standing? A lot would need to change. Bring it on, I say  

 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That comment may be full of grace but it doesn't reflect reality in the church.

How would that approach change the questions asked in temple recommend interviews and the declarations of worthiness one must attain to attend the temple and be a member in full/good standing? A lot would need to change. Bring it on, I say  

 

Which temple recommend questions and declarations of worthiness are impacted by whether someone interprets foundational texts literally or symbolically, in your view?

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which temple recommend questions and declarations of worthiness are impacted by whether someone interprets foundational texts literally or symbolically, in your view?

I know this is not addressed to me, But as  former bishop myself I would say NONE.

I think that HJ was also a bishop, so get out the popcorn.

After all we can do to make sense of it all, we are ALL saved by GRACE

The key is testimony. I KNOW THE CHURCH IS TRUE THROUGH RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.  NO DOUBTS BECAUSE I SEE IT AS I DO.

God has confirmed every step

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/3/2022 at 2:21 PM, 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?

Briefly stated, it’s because most of us believe the scriptures contain both symbolic and literal elements. We can disagree over the details, but I don’t know any Latter-day Saint who contends that it must be all one way or all the other. Do you? If so, I wonder why. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Briefly stated, it’s because most of us believe the scriptures contain both symbolic and literal elements. We can disagree over the details, but I don’t know any Latter-day Saint who contends that it must be all one way or all the other. 

Agreed.

I'm more wondering more about the perspective similar to "Eve coming from the rib of Adam must be symbolic and a global historic flood must be literal".  Neither concept is connected to salvation and neither is obviously either literal or symbolic if we are just going off of the KJV of the OT text.  

So why draw the lines in the sand the way we do with these foundational texts?  I'm sure that there isn't just one answer but sometimes I think the answer is, "I have no good reason and have never challenged my thinking on that before".

Since we are studying the OT this year it seems like a good time to start asking ourselves these kinds of "why" questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.

I'm more wondering more about the perspective similar to "Eve coming from the rib of Adam must be symbolic and a global historic flood must be literal".  Neither concept is connected to salvation and neither is obviously either literal or symbolic if we are just going off of the KJV of the OT text.  

So why draw the lines in the sand the way we do with these foundational texts?  I'm sure that there isn't just one answer but sometimes I think the answer is, "I have no good reason and have never challenged my thinking on that before".

Since we are studying the OT this year it seems like a good time to start asking ourselves these kinds of "why" questions.

I think we have to be careful to avoid drifting too far to one side or the other. We might scoff at folks who insist on the global flood story being literal, but taking too much of a non-literal bent can lead to taking (in my view) untenable positions such as rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon or propagating baseless suppositions such as it being only a matter of time before the Church contradicts its own position on same-sex marriage. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think we have to be careful to avoid drifting too far to one side or the other. We might scoff at folks who insist on the global flood story being literal, but taking too much of a non-literal bent can lead to taking (in my view) untenable positions such as rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon or propagating baseless suppositions such as it being only a matter of time before the Church contradicts its own position on same-sex marriage. 

I think reminding ourselves that we "see through a glass darkly" can help us not to drift too far to one side or the other.   It can be good to remind ourselves that we all certainly hold beliefs right now that are actually incorrect or incomplete.  Keeps us humble.

Edited January 5, 2022 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.

I'm more wondering more about the perspective similar to "Eve coming from the rib of Adam must be symbolic and a global historic flood must be literal".  Neither concept is connected to salvation and neither is obviously either literal or symbolic if we are just going off of the KJV of the OT text.  

So why draw the lines in the sand the way we do with these foundational texts?  I'm sure that there isn't just one answer but sometimes I think the answer is, "I have no good reason and have never challenged my thinking on that before".

Since we are studying the OT this year it seems like a good time to start asking ourselves these kinds of "why" questions.

I am serious amazed with Abraham 4 after all the times I have read it.

I can see compatibility there with evolution- the EARTH and SEAS coming forth with species.

I also see clearly that God "organizes"/ creates all things by NAMING them, through The Word, The Messenger, Jesus Christ.  And He keeps repeating it for emphasis!  The fifth cyclical of light and dark ,is still CALLED the fifth DAY! He is defining his creation by defining the word!

The Message of good news IS the WORD.

This is exactly compatible with the later work of perhaps the greatest 20th century philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein.  Without W's work, I would never have given the church a second glance.

This whole issue of literalism is what is stopping the church from being the Stone Cut Without Hands to roll forth and fill the earth.

Incidentally, no, the church is not a literal rock, in case we want to debate that too.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see

The symbolism of the Stone rolling forth should itself be teaching us the importance of symbols, but alas.

Incidentally Peter was also a human, not a rock.

I hope that symbolism doesn't cause anyone to leave the church.

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by mfbukowski