Scriptures & Doctrine As Parables - How Far Can This Be Extended???

[Anonymous Mormon]

As a long-time reader and lurker, I am often intrigued by the ideas and sentiments expressed by other active church members regarding doctrine. 

One of the things that I have found most intriguing is during conversations about the location of the Book of Mormon, I have seen MFBUKOWSKI and others hypothesize that maybe the Book of Mormon is more parable than literal and there may not be an actual location where Zarahemla was.

(note: @mfbukowski- I am trying to accurately portray what I think you are saying. I am not trying to criticize or pass judgement. If I have not accurately portrayed your views, please correct me).

I have heard many others also express similar sentiments about stories from the Bible ranging from Adam and Eve, to the flood, to many of the miracles.  And many others have expressed this about the endowment ceremony. That these are all stories with morals and parables for us to learn from, not historical records of the past.

On the other hand, there are people not in our church who teach that all scripture and religion is just parables written by our ancestors to help us live better lives. By making it all just parables, they completely take God out of the equation, as well as God's law & the concept of sin (see 2 Ne 2:13). Taken too far, having scriptures be parables seems to be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

So my question is two fold:
1) How far do those on the board who consider yourselves 'faithful' or 'active' members of the church extend the idea of parable in scripture and doctrine? Are there things that you consider to be parable that you would be hesitant to say in Sunday School, for example, because it would be more than most members would want to hear?
(note: I am more interested in those who are 'faithful' & 'active' because a large percentage of those who have left the church are in the camp of the all scripture is just parable, so it's less of interest to me)

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

 

Thanks in advance for everyone's opinion on this! 

[teddyaware]

23 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As a long-time reader and lurker, I am often intrigued by the ideas and sentiments expressed by other active church members regarding doctrine. 

One of the things that I have found most intriguing is during conversations about the location of the Book of Mormon, I have seen MFBUKOWSKI and others hypothesize that maybe the Book of Mormon is more parable than literal and there may not be an actual location where Zarahemla was.

(note: @mfbukowski- I am trying to accurately portray what I think you are saying. I am not trying to criticize or pass judgement. If I have not accurately portrayed your views, please correct me).

I have heard many others also express similar sentiments about stories from the Bible ranging from Adam and Eve, to the flood, to many of the miracles.  And many others have expressed this about the endowment ceremony. That these are all stories with morals and parables for us to learn from, not historical records of the past.

On the other hand, there are people not in our church who teach that all scripture and religion is just parables written by our ancestors to help us live better lives. By making it all just parables, they completely take God out of the equation, as well as God's law & the concept of sin (see 2 Ne 2:13). Taken too far, having scriptures be parables seems to be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

So my question is two fold:
1) How far do those on the board who consider yourselves 'faithful' or 'active' members of the church extend the idea of parable in scripture and doctrine? Are there things that you consider to be parable that you would be hesitant to say in Sunday School, for example, because it would be more than most members would want to hear?
(note: I am more interested in those who are 'faithful' & 'active' because a large percentage of those who have left the church are in the camp of the all scripture is just parable, so it's less of interest to me)

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

 

Thanks in advance for everyone's opinion on this! 

If Lehi, Nephi Jacob, King Benjamin, King Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Mormon and Moroni aren’t real people, the Book of Mormon is a book of lies and the Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ is a massive hoax. People who think they can have it both ways, with the Book of Mormon being a work of fiction and yet somehow being “true” at the same time, are  delusional and will sooner or later fall unless they repent.

[pogi]

By believing in scripture as myth, one need not take God out of the equation of their lives.  Hopefully we are able to find God outside of the scriptures. 

If a belief or principle bears good fruit (figuratively speaking, of course), does the good fruit care if it is based in something literal or mythical?   Does a true principle become less true if it is based in myth?  Does the atonement work less for people who believe it is not literal but repent and seek God's face anyway?

The difficulty can come with the mythical approach when the church is founded on and teaches a literal narrative of the plates, Moroni visiting Joseph, etc. etc..  It can generate some tension for sure when one has difficulty accepting the literal narrative, but tastes of the fruit when taken from a mythical approach.  It becomes difficult to reconcile our history and narrative of what is presented as literal events, while holding onto principles and scriptures as myth.  To accept it as inspired myth, how do we avoid concluding that our early leaders were lying, or confused, or delusional in some way; or that God intentionally deceived them into believing that it was all literal for some reason.   I am in the midst of all these questions right now. 

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

If Lehi, Nephi Jacob, King Benjamin, King Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Mormon and Moroni aren’t real people, the Book of Mormon is a book of lies and the Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ is a massive hoax. People who think they can have it both ways, with the Book of Mormon being a work of fiction and yet somehow being “true” at the same time, are  delusional and will sooner or later fall unless they repent.

Repent of what, exactly?

[Kenngo1969]

Pretty much every Latter-day Saint must come to a conclusion regarding the Book of Mormon without knowing for sure, for example, where the Hill Cumorah was, where Zarahemla was, and so on and so forth.  I don't want to put words in Mark's mouth (aka @mfbukowski), either.  It seems to me that he has "surfed some totally-tubular, gnarly philosophical waves" [my phrase, of course ] in coming to the conclusion that, whatever the correspondence between people, places, and events described in the Book of Mormon, on the one hand, and actual people, places, and events, on the other hand, the book's strongest power and its truest message lie in its ability to bring people to Christ. 

Some people arrive at a locale that is similar to the one described above through an "inspired fiction" theory.  Some people, as Mark has (largely, though I'm not downplaying, in any way, the spiritual experiences he has had), arrive at that point through plumbing the depths of Rortyian philosophy.  Mark is right that whatever agreement exists among people who use the same word to describe something, still, the word is not the thing: That's true, especially of metaphysical, spiritual experiences.  How, exactly, does one describe something that may make sense only to that person?

Where is Zarahemla?  Where is the Hill Cumorah—and is there really such a thing as "the" Hill Cumorah, or is there more than one?  What, exactly, is it like to receive a personal visitation from God, the Father, and from His Son, Jesus Christ.  I don't know the answer, for certain, to any of these questions.  But I do know that Jesus is the Christ.  I do know that Christ "did, in reality" speak to Joseph Smith.  And I do know that the Book of Mormon contains the word of God.  Lacking the answer to the first three questions with which I began this paragraph does not, in any way, diminish the answers I have received regarding the latter three matters I mentioned.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As a long-time reader and lurker, I am often intrigued by the ideas and sentiments expressed by other active church members regarding doctrine. 

One of the things that I have found most intriguing is during conversations about the location of the Book of Mormon, I have seen MFBUKOWSKI and others hypothesize that maybe the Book of Mormon is more parable than literal and there may not be an actual location where Zarahemla was.

(note: @mfbukowski- I am trying to accurately portray what I think you are saying. I am not trying to criticize or pass judgement. If I have not accurately portrayed your views, please correct me).

I have heard many others also express similar sentiments about stories from the Bible ranging from Adam and Eve, to the flood, to many of the miracles.  And many others have expressed this about the endowment ceremony. That these are all stories with morals and parables for us to learn from, not historical records of the past.

On the other hand, there are people not in our church who teach that all scripture and religion is just parables written by our ancestors to help us live better lives. By making it all just parables, they completely take God out of the equation, as well as God's law & the concept of sin (see 2 Ne 2:13). Taken too far, having scriptures be parables seems to be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

So my question is two fold:
1) How far do those on the board who consider yourselves 'faithful' or 'active' members of the church extend the idea of parable in scripture and doctrine? Are there things that you consider to be parable that you would be hesitant to say in Sunday School, for example, because it would be more than most members would want to hear?
(note: I am more interested in those who are 'faithful' & 'active' because a large percentage of those who have left the church are in the camp of the all scripture is just parable, so it's less of interest to me)

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

 

Thanks in advance for everyone's opinion on this! 

God can very much be found in the parable equation. He taught through them. The Holy Ghost will bear witness of the things of God, or influence the direction in our thinking (whatever the substrate) to find Him.

I think Sunday School allows us to suggest that a scriptural passage, doctrinal point or temple rite can be taken both literally and figuratively. I mean, they are read and heard (literal aspect), and the content is applied to our personal life in myriad ways (figurative aspect). The Lord took us way beyond the “thou shalt nots” in His Sermon on the Mount.

Without the gift of the Holy Ghost, we would persistently err in our understanding and application and be misled by the errors in the scriptures and the fallibility of others’ shared interpretations. Without grace, we would not improve.

How does someone get a witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book or Mormon is a parable 9or whatever else)? Does it matter if it accepted as the word and will of God? The Lord judges us all, so anyone can believe and say whatever they choose and remain member in good standing until they meet the criteria for apostasy as provided in the Handbook.

I think people do best when they express themselves charitably when sharing any gospel-related observation. This includes using language and terminology that is fairly well understood among the congregation and audience, as the Lord did with the parables.  

[Anonymous Mormon]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If Lehi, Nephi Jacob, King Benjamin, King Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Mormon and Moroni aren’t real people, the Book of Mormon is a book of lies and the Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ is a massive hoax. People who think they can have it both ways, with the Book of Mormon being a work of fiction and yet somehow being “true” at the same time, are  delusional and will sooner or later fall unless they repent.

So your answer to my 2nd question "Are there certain doctrines or scripture that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?" seems to be yes, and The Book of Mormon is one of these.

What about my first question? Are there things that you consider parables and not literal that other members do not?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As a long-time reader and lurker, I am often intrigued by the ideas and sentiments expressed by other active church members regarding doctrine. 

One of the things that I have found most intriguing is during conversations about the location of the Book of Mormon, I have seen MFBUKOWSKI and others hypothesize that maybe the Book of Mormon is more parable than literal and there may not be an actual location where Zarahemla was.

(note: @mfbukowski- I am trying to accurately portray what I think you are saying. I am not trying to criticize or pass judgement. If I have not accurately portrayed your views, please correct me).

I have heard many others also express similar sentiments about stories from the Bible ranging from Adam and Eve, to the flood, to many of the miracles.  And many others have expressed this about the endowment ceremony. That these are all stories with morals and parables for us to learn from, not historical records of the past.

On the other hand, there are people not in our church who teach that all scripture and religion is just parables written by our ancestors to help us live better lives. By making it all just parables, they completely take God out of the equation, as well as God's law & the concept of sin (see 2 Ne 2:13). Taken too far, having scriptures be parables seems to be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

So my question is two fold:
1) How far do those on the board who consider yourselves 'faithful' or 'active' members of the church extend the idea of parable in scripture and doctrine? Are there things that you consider to be parable that you would be hesitant to say in Sunday School, for example, because it would be more than most members would want to hear?
(note: I am more interested in those who are 'faithful' & 'active' because a large percentage of those who have left the church are in the camp of the all scripture is just parable, so it's less of interest to me)

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

 

Thanks in advance for everyone's opinion on this! 

Tomorrow

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

1) How far do those on the board who consider yourselves 'faithful' or 'active' members of the church extend the idea of parable in scripture and doctrine? Are there things that you consider to be parable that you would be hesitant to say in Sunday School, for example, because it would be more than most members would want to hear?

Sure. For example, my daughter and I were attending the annual seminary kickoff fireside for our stake last night and the keynote speaker went on for a good bit about Esther. However, I'm fairly certain that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars believe the book of Esther to be a work of fiction, making it a rather strange entry in our shared cannon.

Now, it doesn't bother me personally whether or not there was a 'real' Esther, but that probably counts as something I would be hesitant to bring up in a typical Sunday School class.

 

Quote

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

I don't think I've ever met a faithful member of the church who didn't believe in a literal Jesus, so that's possibly a baseline. There's probably a bit more wiggle room for a number of other items though.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

As to where a person begins with their faith:

Quote

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

If the scripture as parable is the portion, so be it.   The issue becomes whether you nurture that portion or particle with which you begin in productive, fruitful ways.

Quote

It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

For instance, the deeply spiritual William Blake wrote this marginalia in a book by a minister that attempted, poorly in his view, to defend the Bible against the arguments of Thomas Paine.

Quote

I cannot concieve of the Divinity of the books in the Bible to consist in who they were written by, or at what time, or in the historical evidence, which may be false in the eyes of one man & true in the eyes of another, but in the Sentiments & Examples, which, whether true or Parabolic, are Equally useful as Examples given to us of the perverseness of some & consequent evil & the honest of others and its consequent good. This sense of the Bible is equally true and plain to all. None can doubt the impression which he receives from a book of Examples. If he is good, he will abhor wickedness in David or Abraham; if he is wicked he will make their wickedness an excuse for his & so he would do by any other book.  (Blake's Poetry and Designs, 436)

I'm a fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, and which for most of the time Pratchett wrote them, he claimed to be an atheist (in later years, he reported a spiritual experience convincing him of the existence of the Divine), one of the strongest and most appealing features of the books is their powerful moral sense.  They are not fluffy, pointless wit, giggling at the meaningless of life, like the Norse Loki destroying everything because nothing matters.  There is a deep yearning for meaning and morality that matters.  Here is Death's granddaughter having a conversation with Grandpa about morality:

Quote

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Starting with something, a particle, a portion, something to believe in is a start. Not the end.  And we do not get to the end here in this mortal span, but we do get to see what grows.  Personally, I have seen a lot more significant growth and enlightenment and fruitfulness and promise among those who nurture the portions of historicity, and who also as a matter of course respect the importance of symbols, myths, parables, and typology, and realize that "all things have their likeness" and that "and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him." (2 Nephi 11:4), which means to me, among other things, that Harry Potter is given of God.  (The crucial chapter in the books is titled "King's Cross" and if you think only of the London Train station, you have not been paying attention to anything.)

If a person wants to see the Book of Mormon as a myth, fine. Start there.  You get choose which portion, which particle.  But grow something meaningful that expands the mind and enlarges the soul and is fruitful and promising.  The meaning I get from reading things like Mormon's Codex and Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, and "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" and The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, and Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, and the Book of Mormon and The Bible and the Lidar Surveys of Mesoamerica leads me here:

Quote

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good. (Alma 32: 35-36)

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 14, 2023 by Kevin Christensen

[manol]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

whatever the correspondence between people, places, and events described in the Book of Mormon, on the one hand, and actual people, places, and events, on the other hand, the book's strongest power and its truest message lie in its ability to bring people to Christ.

Well said! 

Imo the real value is in the teachings themselves, their purpose and power being "to bring people to Christ."  I don't expect there to be significant rewards or penalties attached to the accuracy of one's views on historicity. 

(@Anonymous Mormon I am no longer "active LDS" so feel free to discount my response accordingly.)

[mfbukowski]

IMO Pragmatism presents the way to go, and stop worrying about history and "what really happened" which IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW FOR "SURE" ANYWAY, AND SO ULTIMATELY BECOMES IRRELEVANT!!

Once you adopt this attitude the NEED for literalism goes away like a bad addiction.

What you learn from the parable and stories is all that is important.

Did the person Jesus exist?

How has your life been bettered because of your BELIEF ALONE?

He still remains as a model of the "ideal and perfect human" even if he never existed!

Who has seen him?

Spoken to him?

And still we believe!

At the very least the IDEA ITSELF is what "saves us" as our lives change to become like "him"- the Ideal perfected human.

Really we have no option anyway EXCEPT for those with direct experience!  But even that can be doubted so you are back to square one.

Faith is the only way to go, because through conventional logical means you can't "know" anything else any way.

Even visions can be doubted; but a pragmatic approach ALWAYS works 100% of the time!

Believe the philosophy and forget the need for history because history can be an illusion, but one can KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that the philosophy is the best available!

Be loving, peaceful and full of grace, and love your enemies as yourself, yet gently stand up for what your heart knows is true.

Spread the word!  That is the best paradigm for humanity regardless of who said it or when!

What a world it could be!

Heaven on earth!

Edited August 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't think I've ever met a faithful member of the church who didn't believe in a literal Jesus, so that's possibly a baseline. There's probably a bit more wiggle room for a number of other items though.

It's not the only baseline; one can be the philosophy alone.

I learned that through pragmatic thinking. What "Jesus" suggested remains the best paradigm for getting along on this planet anyway, just as a philosophy.

But personal experience trumps it all.

If you want CERTAINTY, that is the beginning.

But that's why we stress "faith". Certainty can be fickle. 

 

[Vanguard]

18 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

This is the 64K dollar question. How far do we take this notion of all things religious simply being a parable? IMO, you should have listed the Atonement as the first consideration as this is the pinnacle. IMO, if the stories of the BoM can be taken as parable then so too can the Atonement and Christ's salvific role in it. I don't think I can go that far.

I guess in a layman's defense of MFB's argument, the parable of Christ might simply be how a God desires us to conceive of His relationship with us. It's not so important whether the Christ really did the things we believe He did but that by propagating this parable, we as humans can more take on the attributes of what this God desires of us. Who knows...and my head hurts. ; )

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Taken too far, having scriptures be parables seems to be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

For me, there is no difference.

All scripture IS philosophy, but not all philosophy is scripture.

But some gets pretty close.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's not the only baseline; one can be the philosophy alone.

I learned that through pragmatic thinking. What "Jesus" suggested remains the best paradigm for getting along on this planet anyway, just as a philosophy.

But personal experience trumps it all.

If you want CERTAINTY, that is the beginning.

But that's why we stress "faith". Certainty can be fickle. 

 

To take that further, my present testimony IS the same philosophy I had when I joined the church. The change was adding SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE to what I first felt about philosophy.

So the philosophy was first, the spirit confirmed it later.

I was a materialist humanist, and still am.  And God in his acceptance of his mission to be seen as our "Father", through his decision to use immanence can be seen that way as well.

Humanism's aim is to perfect mankind, and so is ours, but from a different angle.

God works through "natural law", both in science and religion. Science IS just a human interpretation of natural law.

Matter and energy (spirit) are one.

That makes us all humanist materialists.

Starting with philosophy changes the way you see the church, and church changes the way you see philosophy!

Edited August 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If you really want to get into it, ALL LANGUAGE is parables anyway.

Symbols!   Squiggles on a page trying to "represent" the richness of human experience through squiggles.

Wittgenstein and Rorty show that well.

So religion and scripture reflect the philosophy of language.  It's inescapable!

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

This is the 64K dollar question. How far do we take this notion of all things religious simply being a parable?

All literature is a parable!

Language itself tries to represent human experience!

How can the three letters "RED" capture the experience of RED?

PARABLES

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As a long-time reader and lurker, I am often intrigued by the ideas and sentiments expressed by other active church members regarding doctrine. 

One of the things that I have found most intriguing is during conversations about the location of the Book of Mormon, I have seen MFBUKOWSKI and others hypothesize that maybe the Book of Mormon is more parable than literal and there may not be an actual location where Zarahemla was.

(note: @mfbukowski- I am trying to accurately portray what I think you are saying. I am not trying to criticize or pass judgement. If I have not accurately portrayed your views, please correct me).

I have heard many others also express similar sentiments about stories from the Bible ranging from Adam and Eve, to the flood, to many of the miracles.  And many others have expressed this about the endowment ceremony. That these are all stories with morals and parables for us to learn from, not historical records of the past.

On the other hand, there are people not in our church who teach that all scripture and religion is just parables written by our ancestors to help us live better lives. By making it all just parables, they completely take God out of the equation, as well as God's law & the concept of sin (see 2 Ne 2:13). Taken too far, having scriptures be parables seems to be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

So my question is two fold:
1) How far do those on the board who consider yourselves 'faithful' or 'active' members of the church extend the idea of parable in scripture and doctrine? Are there things that you consider to be parable that you would be hesitant to say in Sunday School, for example, because it would be more than most members would want to hear?
(note: I am more interested in those who are 'faithful' & 'active' because a large percentage of those who have left the church are in the camp of the all scripture is just parable, so it's less of interest to me)

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

 

Thanks in advance for everyone's opinion on this! 

So you accept historicity on faith, right?

Skip a step. 

Just believe in the story AS IF it really happened.

What's the difference in accepting the HISTORICITY on faith than just accepting the story as worthwile on its own?

[manol]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How can the three letters "RED" capture the experience of RED?

Omigosh this is priceless!!

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you accept historicity on faith, right?

Skip a step. 

Just believe in the story AS IF it really happened.

What's the difference in accepting the HISTORICITY on faith than just accepting the story as worthwile on its own?

I use your "AS IF" approach all the time.  For instance, a great rabbi is alleged to have taught, "Love your neighbor as yourself".  I find this teaching comes to life for me when I take it to mean, 'Love your neighbor as if your neighbor is literally YOURSELF."   I do not know for sure that there is some literal sense in which my neighbor actually is myself, but what works for me is to try to view everyone I encounter as if that is the case.  Well except for people I disagree with on internet discussion boards.... (just kidding! I try but often fail)

It just so happens that this same idea shows up in the Tao Te Ching a bit more explicitly than in the alleged words of the aforementioned rabbi:  "Love the whole world as if it were your self." 

 

[Kenngo1969]

I believe it is our Sister, @bluebell, who put in her signature line a quote attributed to Leonard Ravenhill: "A man with an experience of God is never at the mercy of a man with an argument."

Considered in light of this discussion, that seems apt.  

[Navidad]

Not a faithful LDS member. However, I believe we all err when we confuse parable and myth. Or myth and something ahistorical. A parable is a tool used to teach. Its purpose is not to deceive, or lead someone into error. In that context historicity (said by a historian) is not essential to the message. We probably err more when we reject the sacredness, spiritual benefit, and wisdom in that which is not historical and was not meant in the mind of the author or the initial recipient to be historical. We are reading things that are old. We read works of cultures who taught by means of stories (parables, fables - use whatever word you want), but don't discount the power of a story to change a life.

We must do all with humility. If I insist to the detriment of others that Jonah was historical, or that he was not historical, or that the fish account was historical or not historical, I must do so knowing that I may very well be wrong in the conclusion I reach. Now, remove the historicity and tell the story. What has been lost. It is neither a lie, a myth, or a fable. It is a teaching tool. Something does not have to be historical, or historically accurate for us to learn from it. If I tell you a wonderful or a tragic story about the people of Segbana does it matter if you have ever been there, whether it, or they exist, or whether I have ever been there outside of my mind? I don't think so.  If I tell you the story, it is in the hopes that it teaches you something. Oh, and if you care to, google it. It does exist and it is where I did my mission!

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe it is our Sister, @bluebell, who put in her signature line a quote attributed to Leonard Ravenhill: "A man with an experience of God is never at the mercy of a man with an argument."

Considered in light of this discussion, that seems apt.  

Oooh. I like that! It is good to see a true-blue Evangelical quoted. As a young man in college I met Leonard Ravenhill. If I remember right he was born in England and lived most of his life in Texas. Quite a transition! He and my favorite Evangelical writer A. W. Tozer were close friends. Tozer was a leader in the Christian & Missionary Alliance denomination, of which my uncle Paul was president.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Navidad

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So you accept historicity on faith, right?

Skip a step. 

Just believe in the story AS IF it really happened.

Should we accept historicity on faith because we never will know in this mortality if indeed said event happened or because said event really didn't happen?

Let's take the resurrection of Christ, do you believe it happened but you realize you can't ever really know this some 2000 years later?

Or am I still missing the boat here? ;o

[Nevo]

21 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

So my question is two fold:
1) How far do those on the board who consider yourselves 'faithful' or 'active' members of the church extend the idea of parable in scripture and doctrine? Are there things that you consider to be parable that you would be hesitant to say in Sunday School, for example, because it would be more than most members would want to hear?
(note: I am more interested in those who are 'faithful' & 'active' because a large percentage of those who have left the church are in the camp of the all scripture is just parable, so it's less of interest to me)

2) And what is your opinion on how far an active member of the church can extend the concept of parable before it damages his/her testimony? Are there certain doctrines or scripture (BoM, the NT Gospels, Genesis, the endowment, the atonement, the first vision, resurrection, the pre-mortal existence, etc.) that a faithful member must believe as literal and not parable in order to truly be a 'faithful' member of the church?

These are great questions.

Personally, I extend the idea of "parable" (allegory/metaphor) in scripture and doctrine pretty far—farther than I'm comfortable sharing in Sunday School. For example, I'm not convinced that the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham or the Book of Moses depict historical events (although I regard them as inspired texts). That skepticism extends to many of the stories in the Bible as well.

However, I think it's important for a believer to accept that God can act in history. A God that never intervenes in human affairs may as well not exist. Certainly there wouldn't be much point in placing one's trust in, or in entering into covenants with, such a being. 

I believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. So, logically, I must allow that the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses could be historical. (I'm just not, at this point, persuaded that they are—or need to be—for the restored gospel to be true.)

Edited August 14, 2023 by Nevo