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

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

I still think it would have been better to have had a meeting with the couple and the bishop so that everyone left the room knowing the what and why for the SP decision to override (I think there would have been a good chance, not knowing the details, that the bishop's decision may have stood if he had been able to respond and react in real time). Otherwise, I think that there is a risk that, as @HappyJackWagon indicated, the trust the bishop has may be irreparably harmed. Both the SP and the bishop have years of working together and lots of water to go under those bridges. I think even if the bishop is going to "lose" the issue (he's clearly wrong), it's easier for him to accept if he's able to advocate for himself in real time, rather than be informed that he was overridden. 

These stories intrigue me. I have some wild stories and experiences from my times as a bishop (death threats, letters demanding that I be released, etc.), but never any "overrides" or being thrown under the bus. What gets me is your comment that the couple has had issues with every bishop, or HJW's comment that the SP didn't want the couple to leave the church or go inactive. What about the bishop leaving the Church or going inactive? I think that these types of people and couples who are apt to come into conflict over things like this --- I think it's just the tip of the iceberg with people like that, and I don't think "feeding the troll" is good for their short or long-term spiritual health. I'm really grateful I didn't have to go through some things that others have. 

He was one of the most humble men that I've ever known, and from what I could tell, he did not have any problems with the way the SP handled the situation.

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, that’s another matter entirely — and perhaps cause for the leader himself to receive disciplinary action. Such abuse of power is intolerable, especially on the part of one who holds a sacred trust. 

Agreed.

In this particular case the individual appealed to the SP who did nothing. So he took it to the area authority who did nothing. So the individual sued the church. He received a settlement, got a promotion and a raise and the bishop just kept on bishoping.  

[Stargazer]

 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Powerful LDS leaders believed it and preached it as doctrinal.

Of course. And I believed it, too, at one time. I've believed other things in the past that greater understanding has led me to no longer believe. Another of the things I believed in the past was that general authorities (up to and including the First Presidency) are infallible and top-level theologians.

Now it's me who is infallible and a top-level theologian!   Just kidding!

Anyway, I stopped blindly accepting personal opinions as doctrine a long time ago. Naturally, if someone wants to believe in the 6000 years thing, that's their privilege. I would try to argue them out of it only if they were trying to use it as justification to disbelieve in the truth claims of the Church. 

I think there are a few people I know in the Church whose opinions on doctrine I would give more credence to start with than others. Some of them contribute to this board. But I've found that even they fall short occasionally. I know I'm coming across as arrogant, but I know what I know, and until that changes, I will continue to know it. What I mean by that is that there are things I believe now that I could be convinced are not true. 

Except for one thing in particular, and that is that Jesus is the Son of God and my Redeemer. That stays constant.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Other than my time at BYU I've never lived in Utah. Assuming this is only a Utah thing is assuming too much.

I never said anything about people not having their own testimonies. They were taught certain things to be literal. They believed and had testimonies of things being literal, only to find out they are not.

You find it hard to believe that anyone would believe the story of the gold plates and the traditional translation story that was taught by the church? Are you serious, Clark? 

People accept authority when they are taught over and over to accept authority and when there are negative consequences if they don't.

You seem to be blaming church members for believing what the church has taught. Strange position to take.

Clark?

I seem to have offended people. Sorry.

I am obviously not "blaming church members for believing what the church has taught. " SINCE THE CHURCH TEACHES US TO GET OUR OWN CONFIRMATIONS FROM GOD.

The very first sentence I read out of the Book of Mormon was Moroni 10:4

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
            5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

That is without a doubt the most important teaching the church has!!!

Silly me, I decided to try it and received my answer for all time and all eternity-I will never forget it!

That is the whole point of the gospel!!!

What I don't understand is why members who treasure that principle DON'T FOLLOW IT THEMSELVES, and then agree with you, apparently that one should robotically accept what they were taught, when what they were taught as children does not align with what God is teaching them.

If you don't have a testimony like that, frankly I don't understand why you would be offended by someone who proclaims its truth, and also make your criticism of the principle a "popular post".

Sadly, very sadly, it confirms what I have said here, that APPARENTLY no one actually grows in the gospel by getting their own witness, yet will stay and complain about the lack of revelation in the church. How ironic is that?

Sorry for the offense, I would encourage all to follow what God teaches you, wherever that is.  THAT is where you belong.

KNOWING that is the most wonderful feeling a human can have.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Holy cow. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from on that. Finally.

After an interesting experience with a general authority in which it was pretty clear that he wasn't much in the way of having discernment, I can happily admit that there are definitely general authorities whom I might question inspiration in. But I've also had the opposite experience in many situations, including advance revelation to me about the validity of callings through the Spirit well before the callings were announced. I guess you could say that my testimony of the divine appointment of important leaders in this church does not include a belief in infallibility, but it does include a conviction that the Lord is directly involved with the calling of many if not most of these men and women.

The negative experience I had with a general authority, whose name I thankfully do not remember, was a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy, but at the time assigned as the president of the temple in our temple district. He spoke at a missionary event which I attended, and afterwards opened the agenda for questions from the congregation. One of the questioners, an investigator who was being actively taught by the missionaries, put forward a question that this general authority mistook for an attack question. His response was very uncharitable and defensive. I think the jaws of everyone in the room hit the floor because it was obviously a sincere question from someone who wanted to know (he had apparently asked the missionaries the question and they had encouraged him to come to that event and ask the general authority). So he did. In the silence following that faux pas, I raised my hand, was called upon by the authority, and I answered the investigator's question for him. Afterwards, a few attendees came to me to praise me for my courage in speaking up, but OMG how could I not? I was told later that this authority had done similar things in other venues. It was like he was looking for enemies. Later, upon thinking about it, I concluded that he had been called as a temple president in order to put him in a place where he could do less damage than he could in SLC. Of course I have no idea if that's why he was there.

I guess I can tell you of another general authority, Bruce D. Porter, who is now deceased. Of similar age, he served in my mission back in the early 70s, and he was a genuine spiritual giant even then. Later, in the early 1980s, when I was in the US Army in Germany, he and I were presidents of two different servicemen's branches at around the same time. He was working as an employee of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. It was great to become re-acquainted, and I was even more impressed with him. We kept up a sporadic correspondence over the years. When he passed away in 2016 he was a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy. His widow, currently the First Counselor in the General Primary Presidency, spoke in the October 2021 General Conference. Unfortunately, I never met her. I was not at all surprised when he was called to be a GA.

In amongst the giants, there's bound to be a few pygmies. 

I had a very similar experience with Quentin Cook. It was in a meeting for Stake Presidencies and Bishops for our area. I asked (what I thought was an innocent question) about an issue we were facing in the area. Similar to your situation he basically went on the attack, shot the question down and moved on quite aggressively. I was pleased when the next person he called on followed up with the exact same question I had asked saying something like "I would really like to hear an answer to that last question". That too was shot down and he moved on. It was a horrible experience. I was sitting next to my SP at the time who just patted me on the leg, knowing that Cook had responded poorly.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Clark?

I seem to have offended people. Sorry.

I am obviously not "blaming church members for believing what the church has taught. " SINCE THE CHURCH TEACHES US TO GET OUR OWN CONFIRMATIONS FROM GOD.

The very first sentence I read out of the Book of Mormon was Moroni 10:4

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
            5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

That is without a doubt the most important teaching the church has!!!

Silly me, I decided to try it and received my answer for all time and all eternity-I will never forget it!

That is the whole point of the gospel!!!

What I don't understand is why members who treasure that principle DON'T FOLLOW IT THEMSELVES, and then agree with you, apparently that one should robotically accept what they were taught, when what they were taught as children does not align with what God is teaching them.

If you don't have a testimony like that, frankly I don't understand why you would be offended by someone who proclaims its truth, and also make your criticism of the principle a "popular post".

Sadly, very sadly, it confirms what I have said here, that APPARENTLY no one actually grows in the gospel by getting their own witness, yet will stay and complain about the lack of revelation in the church. How ironic is that?

Sorry for the offense, I would encourage all to follow what God teaches you, wherever that is.  THAT is where you belong.

KNOWING that is the most wonderful feeling a human can have.

 

 

That was a Christmas Vacation reference  

I still think you are assuming too much.  You assume people DON"T FOLLOW IT THEMSELVES when in fact I think most do. I know I did. But when faced with new information later in life sometimes we receive a different answer than we did previously.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For my part, I’ve never had any trouble accepting as literally true Joseph’s account regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Nor would I say I’ve been “clobbered by God.”

Of course you wouldn't 

And I also have a testimony of Joseph's account of the plates - now that God has confirmed it.

That was part of getting clobbered

I never said otherwise.

Edited January 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It all depended on how someone interpreted the specific TR question at the heart of the issue.  Mainly, how the leader interpreted what it was specifically trying to gauge and how the answer measured up to what the question was trying to determine.  

But I agree.  It's good that the TR needs two signatures.  One person should not be the gatekeeper of the temple.

I can tell you’re being cagey in how you are recounting this story, and I can’t blame you for not wanting to disclose too much. 
 

But trying to read between the lines, I would say that I believe some members shoot themselves in the foot by overthinking some of the recommend questions and the implications thereof. 
 

There used to be a question (I think it has since been reworded to avoid some of the misunderstanding or ambiguity) that was something to the effect of “Do you associate with persons or groups who are out of harmony with the Church?” I think some folks failed to grasp the intent of the question and might have responded, “Well, yes, my daughter is inactive, but I still love her and associate with her all I can” or, “Yes, I’m a probation officer, and my job requires that I routinely have contact with people who hate the Church and what it stands for.” 
 

My sense is that the question was originally introduced to screen out persons who were trying to hide the fact that they had affiliated themselves with schismatic or apostate groups that taught, as a matter of principle, that they should seek admittance to the temple even though they had rejected the authority of Church leaders. 

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Something similar happened while I was bishop. It definitely colored my attitude towards the SP afterwards. He overrode me when I denied a TR, but the recommend still requires 2 signatures. I know I never signed it so I'm not sure what he did (maybe he had one of my counselors co-signed, or maybe one of his). That's a different problem IMO.

I had a couple who were in leadership positions. One was High Council, the other was YW Pres. The SP had heard some rumblings about some bad behavior on their part so asked me to pay attention in case I became aware of anything. Not long after that I got a call from their teen daughter who was running away because of physical abuse in the home. I started talking to her but when they found out she was talking to me the went around me and took her back to her previous bishop for counseling ( our ward had recently been created so they went back to their old ward/bishop) The SP approved this move.

Still, it was TR time and they had to come to me for that. They admitted to behavior that I consider physically abusive so I would not give them a recommend. Considering that the woman was also the YW Pres and she was directly involved in physically assaulting her daughter (who was one of our YW) I released her from the calling. They got upset, had their records moved from the ward back to their old ward (with SP approval). They got their TR and the brother continued serving on the HC and later replaced me as bishop.

So IMO this couple behaved poorly but the SP backed them up despite their continued bad and abusive behavior. They got their recommend so I suppose they won the battle. But I lost a TON of respect for the SP and even more when this family was moved back into the ward and he was called as bishop to replace me. I have zero confidence in the inspiration of callings after that. And in case you think the SP was a bad guy or a poor leader, he is actually a very nice man who is now a general authority.

It's these kinds of stories that fuel my own story that I would never want to be called as a bishop. I realize that may sound jaded but it is more our of genuine abject fear of things unfolding like this. I don't think I have the temperament to process these types of experiences without suffering a breakdown so some such. : (

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had a very similar experience with Quentin Cook. It was in a meeting for Stake Presidencies and Bishops for our area. I asked (what I thought was an innocent question) about an issue we were facing in the area. Similar to your situation he basically went on the attack, shot the question down and moved on quite aggressively. I was pleased when the next person he called on followed up with the exact same question I had asked saying something like "I would really like to hear an answer to that last question". That too was shot down and he moved on. It was a horrible experience. I was sitting next to my SP at the time who just patted me on the leg, knowing that Cook had responded poorly.

As much as I know that these men are imperfect, it still annoys me that they are imperfect. 

I got mistaken for Quentin Cook once, by the way, and apropos of nothing in particular. When I first moved to the UK, on my very first home teaching visit we went to see this sister who was living in an assisted living facility. I had no idea who she was, really. My companion did most of the talking, and she counseled with him over a situation she was experiencing with another denizen of the facility. He clearly helped her deal with the matter, and there was good feeling in the room. A day or three later, my wife told me that our ward relief society president had visited the sister afterwards, and the sister was gushing to her about how pleased she was to have been visited by Elder Quentin Cook! Me, in other words. Aside from the glasses and American accent Cook and I don't resemble one another at all. Might have been the surname. My real surname begins and ends with the same letters as Cook's, so maybe that was it. I've thought I should write a letter to Elder Cook to let him know that I did not bring disrepute upon his name.

Later, I understood that the sister was in the early stages of dementia, so that might have contributed to the confusion, too.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That was a Christmas Vacation reference  

I still think you are assuming too much.  You assume people DON"T FOLLOW IT THEMSELVES when in fact I think most do. I know I did. But when faced with new information later in life sometimes we receive a different answer than we did previously.

Then follow it.

We all need to grow, or was doubting Moroni the "new" answer

If you literally follow Moroni, you must follow his teaching.

Which is it?  Maybe there is more God wants to teach you

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That was a Christmas Vacation reference

No clue what you are talking about.

Clark has been gone now for a few years, God bless him, hope he is doing well in his new calling.

[rchorse]

11 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

It's these kinds of stories that fuel my own story that I would never want to be called as a bishop. I realize that may sound jaded but it is more our of genuine abject fear of things unfolding like this. I don't think I have the temperament to process these types of experiences without suffering a breakdown so some such. : (

I have a temperament very averse to confrontation. My time as a bishop was definitely a time of growth and stretching. 😄

Luckily, I had a stake president who always backed me up. But I sure had a lot of members who thought I was off base and went over my head several times. As with most things, it would be helpful to have both sides of the story and know all the details to really understand what was going on these incidents. That said, I've seen members, bishops, stake presidents, and general authorities all do and say some things that I thought were in poor taste or worse. 

In general, I think church leaders are great people who do their best. There are exceptions, as in every human-based enterprise.

[Vanguard]

17 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I have a temperament very averse to confrontation. My time as a bishop was definitely a time of growth and stretching. 😄

Luckily, I had a stake president who always backed me up. But I sure had a lot of members who thought I was off base and went over my head several times. As with most things, it would be helpful to have both sides of the story and know all the details to really understand what was going on these incidents. That said, I've seen members, bishops, stake presidents, and general authorities all do and say some things that I thought were in poor taste or worse. 

In general, I think church leaders are great people who do their best. There are exceptions, as in every human-based enterprise.

I absolutely agree with you. I served as executive secretary to a bishop who I had known all my life. I frequently did not agree with his decisions nor his communication style though I will always recognize the sacrifices he made to manage his calling. I also don't think I could tolerate, as you have reported, people I have known for any extended period of time going over my head on issues nor could I handle an SP circumventing my authority without conferring with me regards to his rationale  only to pull rank on me. Those kinds of things would push me out of the church simply for self-preservation alone. : ( 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Novice or not, I can't wrap my mind around that (denying an endorsement without the person knowing it first). 

 

Yes, it was a very odd thing to do and should never have happened that way.  I think he learned a valuable lesson about communication when it was all said and done.  He's a really good man and a good bishop.  He tries so incredibly hard to do what he believes is right.  Just goes to show that having good intentions and trying really hard doesn't mean you aren't going to do the wrong thing. 

A humbling reminder for all of us.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Probably, but it's only devotees of Archbishop Ussher (including those who never heard of him) who are so devoted to the 6000 years in question.

And the 6000 years was never doctrinal, so refutation is pointless.

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Powerful LDS leaders believed it and preached it as doctrinal.

That's because of D&C 77 

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Still doctrinal last I checked.

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No clue what you are talking about.

Clark has been gone now for a few years, God bless him, hope he is doing well in his new calling.

 

 

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Then follow it.

We all need to grow, or was doubting Moroni the "new" answer

If you literally follow Moroni, you must follow his teaching.

Which is it?  Maybe there is more God wants to teach you

Why do you think I haven't followed it?

Perhaps God has taught me more.

Edited January 6, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[thatjimguy]

I was just thinking about this yesterday when I was watching the video about Jesus healing the blind man by placing clay on his eyes and telling him to wash.

There are symbolisms for healing the blind for "seeing" the truth as opposed to living the way of the world.

Jesus also teaches in parables, which may have something to do with the symbolism.

However, so may people take it literally, that they do not even think of the symbolism unless they are taught it, so what good is it to a point as is? I remember thinking about this in art and literature class at BYU-I.  There was a LOAD of symbolism in The Wizard of Oz. However, even seeing it numerous times, I certainly never seen the links. Main because you have to be told about the symbolism to be aware of it. So what is the point of projecting all that symbolism if people cannot "get it" just by reading/watching? 

[Teancum]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

That's because of D&C 77 

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Still doctrinal last I checked.

 

Well you can argue with your fellow believers here that do not believe this and believe that those who insisted on this understanding in the past were wrong and fallible on this issue. It is an odd thing.  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well you can argue with your fellow believers here that do not believe this and believe that those who insisted on this understanding in the past were wrong and fallible on this issue. It is an odd thing.  

I could argue, but I don't see any point in that.
If we consider D&C 77 inspired (ie, from God) that leaves only a couple of options:

- 7000 years temporal existence doesn't mean that exactly but has a different meaning
- the inspired section of the D&C means what it says but contains things that aren't true
- it's actually true and accurate and the time from the Fall to the end of the Millennium totals 7000 years

How other people come to terms with this doctrinal part of our canon is up to them.  I'm not a big one for wresting of scripture.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, thatjimguy said:

I was just thinking about this yesterday when I was watching the video about Jesus healing the blind man by placing clay on his eyes and telling him to wash.

There are symbolisms for healing the blind for "seeing" the truth as opposed to living the way of the world.

Jesus also teaches in parables, which may have something to do with the symbolism.

However, so may people take it literally, that they do not even think of the symbolism unless they are taught it, so what good is it to a point as is? I remember thinking about this in art and literature class at BYU-I.  There was a LOAD of symbolism in The Wizard of Oz. However, even seeing it numerous times, I certainly never seen the links. Main because you have to be told about the symbolism to be aware of it. So what is the point of projecting all that symbolism if people cannot "get it" just by reading/watching? 

I think that it worked for the OT people and the House of Israel because the symbolism was known to them and made sense with their culture.  But we don't understand that culture anymore so we are often lost. 

I really wish that our sunday school manuals would teach some of this stuff so that we at least had a chance of understanding what was going on and what the writers wanted us to learn from it.  Scripture is not only meant to be read in context, and can be very useful and applicable for us today without having to know what it was originally teaching, but I think we create a lot of our own stumbling blocks because we think that the scriptures are teaching something (like how God created the earth, for example) when they weren't. 

[2BizE]

Maybe all of these foundational stories are  symbolic and none of them literally happened?  That’s what I am leaning toward.  It makes the most sense and my mind doesn’t have to have conflicts.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Maybe all of these foundational stories are  symbolic and none of them literally happened?  That’s what I am leaning toward.  It makes the most sense and my mind doesn’t have to have conflicts.

That could be.  

In my mind that's the easy way out (not saying that in a snarky way at all) so it makes the least sense to me (since life is rarely that easy to understand).  But it is certainly a possibility.

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Maybe all of these foundational stories are  symbolic and none of them literally happened?  That’s what I am leaning toward.  It makes the most sense and my mind doesn’t have to have conflicts.

That has its own issues for those who believe in the restored gospel.
Don't forget Joseph and other modern prophets have met some of these "symbolic" archetype characters.  In some cases, they have spoken with them or made physical contact.

[MiserereNobis]

On 1/5/2022 at 2:18 AM, mfbukowski said:

We worship the Ideal Family and seek to emulate it.

Look at your Catholic background showing up with veneration of the Holy Family