Church news reiterates immigration stance

[Doctor Steuss]

55 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Well, it sure is a good thing we have Dan around to correct Jewish and Christian scholars and the Lord's prophets.

Whew! The ark feels much more steady now.

Maybe I need to expand my library, but Dan isn't correcting Jewish and Christian scholars here.  He's parroting them.  I think you may be conflating scholars with apologists.  Even in Rabinnics, the story of Eden is generally seen as a mythic explanation told through a tribal epic to help make sense of the traumatic experiences the Jewish people had suffered up to that point.  Essentially, the mythic Eden story is the groundwork for introducing cosmic dualism into ancient Hebrew thought as the tribal identity and cult of YHWH was being codified.  In other words, these aren't viewed literally as God's words said in a literal place during literal events, but rather a divine myth to help teach life's truths.

Even Pres. Brigham Young, at least once, seemed to advocate for a non-literal Eden.

It's not about whether the deity present in the garden was telling the truth or lying (the God of ancient Judaism wasn't so impotent that He was incapable of saying whatever He wanted, even if it weren't true).  That's tangential to the lessons.

Edited February 21, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Maybe I need to expand my library, but Dan isn't correcting Jewish and Christian scholars here.  He's parroting them.  I think you may be conflating scholars with apologists.  Even in Rabinnics, the story of Eden is generally seen as a mythic explanation told through a tribal epic to help make sense of the traumatic experiences the Jewish people had suffered up to that point.  Essentially, the mythic Eden story is the groundwork for introducing cosmic dualism into ancient Hebrew thought as the tribal identity and cult of YHWH was being codified.  In other words, these aren't viewed literally as God's words said in a literal place during literal events, but rather a divine myth to help teach life's truths.

Even Pres. Brigham Young, at least once, seemed to advocate for a non-literal Eden.

 

I know he suggested that the creation from mud could be non-literal- haven't seen the same about the actual Garden itself. Perhaps you could share a quote.

6 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

It's not about whether the deity present in the garden was telling the truth or lying (the God of ancient Judaism wasn't so impotent that He was incapable of saying whatever He wanted, even if it weren't true).  That's tangential to the lessons.

 

[Doctor Steuss]

19 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I know he suggested that the creation from mud could be non-literal- haven't seen the same about the actual Garden itself. Perhaps you could share a quote.

 

Great googely-moogely, thank you for this correction.  Rather embarrassing how much my brain (and memory) misfires nowadays.  It definitely was just the creation account.  Brigham seemed to be an adherent of the Missouri/Eden view.

Edited February 21, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Even Pres. Brigham Young, at least once, seemed to advocate for a non-literal Eden.

Could you provide some references for this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

know he suggested that the creation from mud could be non-literal- haven't seen the same about the actual Garden itself. Perhaps you could share a quote.

54 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

He called Genesis baby stories

https://bhroberts.org/records/06h81W-0JkXDS/brigham_young_teaches_the_saints_that_adam_was_not_literally_created_from_the_dust_of_the_ground_account_in_the_book_of_genesis_is_similar_to_baby_stories

Edited February 21, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

He called Genesis baby stories

https://bhroberts.org/records/06h81W-0JkXDS/brigham_young_teaches_the_saints_that_adam_was_not_literally_created_from_the_dust_of_the_ground_account_in_the_book_of_genesis_is_similar_to_baby_stories

J Stapley has a paper on it over there as well. 
 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Great googely-moogely, thank you for this correction.  Rather embarrassing how much my brain (and memory) misfires nowadays.  It definitely was just the creation account. 

And perhaps the "Eve was formed from Adam's rib" thing, which Pres. Kimball said is "of course, figurative."

The Creation narrative is interesting, as it seems to include both necessarily figurative and necessarily literal elements.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, the Creation narrative is interesting, as it seems to include both necessarily figurative and necessarily literal elements.  Being literally formed from the dust is to be construed figuratively, as is Eve being formed from Adam's rib, and Satan as an actual serpent. Other elements, however, appear to be intended as literal. There was an actual garden, an actual "Adam" and "Eve," an actual tree, actual fruit, etc. Is this correct?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that is largely correct. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the Creation narrative is understood as containing both figurative and literal elements. The Church does not subscribe to a strictly literalist or strictly metaphorical interpretation but rather sees aspects of both within the account.

Figurative Elements

Several aspects of the Genesis and Pearl of Great Price creation accounts are generally understood to be symbolic or figurative:

• Adam being formed from dust – Often interpreted as a metaphor for Adam's mortal nature, his creation from the elements of the earth, or his transition from an immortal to a mortal state after the Fall.
• Eve being formed from Adam’s rib – Typically viewed as a symbolic representation of the close relationship between man and woman rather than a literal event.
• Satan appearing as a serpent – The Book of Mormon clarifies that the serpent was symbolic: “That old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies” (2 Nephi 2:18). Thus, while Satan was real, his portrayal as a literal talking snake is not taken as strictly literal.

Literal Elements

Latter-day Saint doctrine also affirms several literal components of the Creation story:

• Adam and Eve were real individuals – The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first human beings placed on Earth, and they are considered the literal progenitors of the human family.
• There was an actual Garden of Eden – LDS teachings suggest that the Garden of Eden was a physical place, often associated with a location in present-day Missouri (D&C 116).
• There were literal trees (Tree of Life & Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) – While they have deep symbolic meaning, the Church teaches that these trees existed in some form.
• The Fall was a real event – The Fall of Adam and Eve is considered a literal, transformative event that introduced mortality, sin, and death into the world.

Doctrinal Balance of Symbolism & Reality

The LDS understanding of the Creation aligns with the principle that scripture teaches truth through multiple layers of meaning, blending figurative representations with historical realities. This aligns with teachings from modern prophets who acknowledge that scripture often conveys truth through symbols, parables, and real events.

Would you like references to specific statements from LDS leaders or scriptural insights on this interpretation?

You said:

Yes, please.

ChatGPT said:

Latter-day Saint References on the Creation: Literal and Figurative Elements

The LDS perspective on the Creation account draws from scripture, modern prophets, and official Church teachings, showing that some elements are literal while others are symbolic. Below are references that reinforce this view.

---

1. Adam and Eve Were Literal Individuals

The LDS Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people, not just symbols of humanity.

• Doctrine and Covenants 107:54–56 – “And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.”

  • Interpretation: Adam is literally Michael the Archangel, reinforcing his real, historical existence.

• President Russell M. Nelson (2015, Ensign):

  • “Adam and Eve were real. They lived as husband and wife. They were the first parents of the human race.”
  • Interpretation: The Fall was an actual event, and their existence is foundational to LDS theology.

• The Family: A Proclamation to the World (1995):

  • “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.”
  • Interpretation: Adam and Eve were not mythological but literal progenitors of the human race.

---

2. The Garden of Eden Was a Real Place

The LDS Church uniquely teaches that Eden was located in present-day Missouri.

• Doctrine and Covenants 116:1 – “Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people.”

  • Interpretation: This associates Eden with a literal geographical location in Missouri.

• Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, 11:337)

  • “Joseph, the Prophet, told me that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.”
  • Interpretation: The Church traditionally identifies Eden as a real-world location.

---

3. Figurative Elements in the Creation Story

While certain aspects of the Creation are literal, other elements are symbolic or figurative.

A. Adam Being Formed from the Dust

• Moses 6:59 – “Inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit … even so ye must be born again.”

  • Interpretation: This passage shows that the "dust" metaphor could symbolize the mortal body formed from the elements of the earth rather than literal sculpting from soil.

• Elder Bruce R. McConkie (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 294)

  • “What is meant by dust? It means that man’s physical body is composed of the elements of the earth.”
  • Interpretation: The formation from dust is a figurative description of mortality.

B. Eve Being Formed from Adam’s Rib

• President Spencer W. Kimball (BYU Devotional, 1976)
  • “The story of Eve being made from Adam’s rib is, of course, figurative.”
  • Interpretation: This represents the unity and partnership of marriage, not a literal surgical procedure.

C. The Serpent as a Symbol

• 2 Nephi 2:18 – “That old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies.”

  • Interpretation: The Book of Mormon clarifies that the serpent in Genesis is symbolic of Satan, not a literal talking snake.

• President Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 82)

  • “The representation of the serpent is figurative, indicating Satan's subtlety.”
  • Interpretation: The serpent is a symbol of deception.

---

4. The Two Trees: Literal and Symbolic

The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are considered both literal and symbolic.

• Alma 12:22–23 – “Now we see that Adam did fall by partaking of the forbidden fruit, according to the word of God; and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people.”

  • Interpretation: The Fall is a literal event, and partaking of the fruit had real consequences.

• Elder D. Todd Christofferson (2009 General Conference, The Power of Covenants)

  • “The Tree of Life is a representation of eternal life.”
  • Interpretation: The tree was likely real, but its deeper meaning symbolizes God’s presence and eternal salvation.

---

Summary: Literal vs. Figurative Elements in the LDS View of Creation

Element	Literal or Figurative?	Source
Adam & Eve	Literal	D&C 107:54-56, Nelson (2015)
Garden of Eden	Literal	D&C 116:1, Brigham Young
Dust of the Earth (Adam’s Formation)	Figurative	Moses 6:59, McConkie
Eve from Adam’s Rib	Figurative	Spencer W. Kimball
Serpent in Eden	Figurative	2 Nephi 2:18, Joseph Fielding Smith
Tree of Life & Tree of Knowledge	Literal & Symbolic	Alma 12:22-23, Christofferson

---

Final Thoughts

In LDS theology, the Creation story is neither entirely literal nor entirely figurative. Instead, it reflects divine truths using both real history and symbolic imagery.

Would you like additional insights from LDS scholars or early Church leaders on this topic?

You said:

Yes, please.

ChatGPT said:

In Latter-day Saint (LDS) theology, the Creation narrative is interpreted with a blend of literal and figurative elements. Insights from LDS scholars and early Church leaders provide depth to this understanding.

Insights from LDS Scholars

• Interpretative Approaches: LDS scholars recognize that interpretations of the Creation story vary, with some elements viewed literally and others figuratively. This approach allows for a nuanced understanding that accommodates both doctrinal teachings and symbolic meanings.

  fairlatterdaysaints.org

• Creation Accounts: The LDS canon includes multiple accounts of the Creation, notably in the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham. These parallel narratives offer rich material for interpretation, suggesting that some aspects may be symbolic while others are historical.

  dialoguejournal.com

Statements from Early Church Leaders

• 1909 First Presidency Statement: In a doctrinal exposition titled "The Origin of Man," the First Presidency declared:

  "God created man in his own image." It is more explicitly rendered in the Book of Mormon thus: "All men were created in the beginning after mine own image."

  churchofjesuschrist.org

  This statement emphasizes the literal belief in humans being created in God's image, while also acknowledging the spiritual and physical aspects of creation.

• Spiritual and Physical Creation: Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that all forms of life existed as spirits before their physical creation:

  "Man and all forms of life existed as spirit beings and entities before the foundations of this earth were laid."

  churchofjesuschrist.org

  This teaching supports the belief in a literal pre-mortal existence, with the physical creation serving as a subsequent step.

Balancing Literal and Figurative Interpretations

The LDS approach to the Creation narrative involves discerning which elements are literal historical events and which serve as symbolic teachings. This balanced interpretation allows adherents to appreciate the doctrinal significance of the Creation while embracing the rich symbolism that conveys deeper spiritual truths.

For those seeking further study, the Gospel Topics section on the official Church website offers extensive resources on the Creation and related doctrines.

Interesting stuff.

24 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Brigham seemed to be an adherent of the Missouri/Eden view.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Gotta love Dan's "The meaning of the text is only negotiated and what we assign to it, unless I say otherwise, in which case my interpretation is the only way to go" approach to biblical interpretation and exegesis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 21, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Gotta love Dan's "The meaning of the text is only negotiated and what we assign to it, unless I say otherwise, in which case my interpretation is the only way to go" approach to biblical interpretation and exegesis.

This is a pretty bad understanding of Dan. Not sure if it’s intentionally so. In Dan’s view no text has inherent meaning. Text is just a bunch of atoms arranged in a particular way. Meaning is generated by the reader of the text. That doesn’t preclude us from using what we know to construct the most likely intended meaning of the text. 

Negotiating with the text is a different matter. Because the Bible was written by myriad authors across centuries, it does not have a single univocal message on anything. To generate such a message we have to negotiate with the text. Disregard some ideas to promote others. Reinterpret some parts to fit our current needs. See here:

 

[Doctor Steuss]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

[...] In Dan’s view no text has inherent meaning. [...]

It took me a while to wrap my noggin' around Dan's quasi Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus view of words and language.  It still makes my brain itch.

I get it... but I don't like it.  Why do I not like it?  Reasons.  All of the reasons.  None of which I can name... but they are there.  

Now my brain is itching just thinking about it.  I want to talk to the Wittgenstein manager.  There's metaphysics in my soup.

[smac97]

On 2/21/2025 at 3:19 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a pretty bad understanding of Dan. Not sure if it’s intentionally so. In Dan’s view no text has inherent meaning.

And yet here comes Dan "The Bible Has No Inherent Meaning" McClellan, insisting that the passage in Genesis can only be construed in one particular way.

On 2/21/2025 at 3:19 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Negotiating with the text is a different matter. Because the Bible was written by myriad authors across centuries, it does not have a single univocal message on anything. To generate such a message we have to negotiate with the text.

Except, of course, when Dan declares that the passage in Genesis has only one viable meaning.  When we interpret the text, it's "negotiation."  When he interprets the text, the thinking has been done, and the only viable interpretation is the one he assigns to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 8, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet here comes Mr. "The Bible Has No Inherent Meaning," insisting that the passage in Genesis can only be construed in one particular way.

Except, of course, when Dan declares that the passage in Genesis has only one viable meaning.  When we interpret the text, it's "negotiation."  When he interprets the text, the thinking has been done, and the only viable interpretation is the one he assigns to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

So it was an intentional strawman of Dan’s position then. I assumed as much but wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.

Edited February 21, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Genesis presupposes God's perfection, such that explicitly saying "God cannot lie" would be axiomatic, like declaring that water is wet or circles are round.  

That said, Genesis 18:25 states: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"  From this rhetorical question (attributed to Abraham), I infer that God is perfectly just and cannot act deceitfully.

In 1 Kings God seeks out a lying spirit to deceive Ahab and get him killed because God wants Ahab dead. So God is okay with others lying on his behalf?

In the D&C God is more blatant saying he is okay with implying that hell is eternal punishment even though it almost never is and God knew we would misunderstand it and left it that way.

Edited February 21, 2025 by The Nehor

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In 1 Kings God seeks out a lying spirit to deceive Ahab and get him killed because God wants Ahab dead. So God is okay with others lying on his behalf?

In the D&C God is more blatant saying he is okay with implying that hell is eternal punishment even though it almost never is and God knew we would misunderstand it and left it that way.

Do you use the JST?

"JST, 2 Chronicles 18:22. Compare 2 Chronicles 18:22

The Lord does not put a lying spirit into the mouths of prophets.

"22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath found a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.""

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think Genesis presupposes God's perfection, such that explicitly saying "God cannot lie" would be axiomatic, like declaring that water is wet or circles are round.  

That said, Genesis 18:25 states: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"  From this rhetorical question (attributed to Abraham), I infer that God is perfectly just and cannot act deceitfully.

In 1 Kings God seeks out a lying spirit to deceive Ahab and get him killed because God wants Ahab dead.

Well, no.  See Ben Spackman's comments here.

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So God is okay with others lying on his behalf?

No, I don't think so.

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the D&C God is more blatant saying he is okay with implying that hell is eternal punishment even though it almost never is and God knew we would misunderstand it and left it that way.

Well, no.  See FAIR's explanation here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Well, it sure is a good thing we have Dan around to correct Jewish and Christian scholars and the Lord's prophets.

Whew! The ark feels much more steady now.

The leadership were the ones who screwed up with the ark and were why it almost fell in that story. They weren’t transporting it correctly at all.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  See Ben Spackman's comments here.

Which says God is okay giving the wrong impression. That is what I said.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think so.

It is hard to find that in scripture. In the Doctrine and Covenants we have prophets offering things to people on God’s behalf and then taking it back saying it was just a test. So God can explicitly offer us something through a prophet and expect us to reject it because we discern that it is wrong.

Follow the prophet unless your conscience or the Spirit says otherwise?

If God offers something but doesn’t intend to give it if you take it isn’t that deception?

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  See FAIR's explanation here.

That doesn’t address the verse where God said that he allowed the misunderstanding to persist intentionally to serve His purposes.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  See Ben Spackman's comments here.

These ones?

”Note that God still sends a spirit to “entice” Ahab to be destroyed, (and the Hebrew here means to “deceive, to make a fool out of someone”). God then approves of the spirit’s deception, because the people have sinned against God. The JST changes in no way support the idea that spiritual messages from God speak nothing but truth, understood in an absolute fashion. God’s purpose and will is carried out through a deceiving spirit.”

[The Nehor]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

These ones?

”Note that God still sends a spirit to “entice” Ahab to be destroyed, (and the Hebrew here means to “deceive, to make a fool out of someone”). God then approves of the spirit’s deception, because the people have sinned against God. The JST changes in no way support the idea that spiritual messages from God speak nothing but truth, understood in an absolute fashion. God’s purpose and will is carried out through a deceiving spirit.”

Yeah, it is pretty much saying what I said.

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The leadership were the ones who screwed up with the ark and were why it almost fell in that story. They weren’t transporting it correctly at all.

Agreed. In fact, I've made that very point many times (probably even on this forum).

But it wasn't his job to steady it. We let the Lord correct His chosen servants on His timetable.

We go where they keys are, humble ourselves, and minister for our dead in the Houses of the Lord- and let Him deal with administrative issues... Like He did with Eli's boys.

** Edit: Speculative modern example:

Harold B. Lee dying suddenly at a relatively young age in spite of having no previously known health issues. 

 I believe the Lord found in Pres. Kimball a man who's heart was sufficiently prepared to reverse the priesthood ban.

Edited February 22, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[SeekingUnderstanding]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  See FAIR's explanation here.

“

It is natural to assume, given our understanding of the words "endless" and "eternal," to believe that punishment would continue forever. In fact, the Book of Mormon states:

”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Edit: Speculative modern example:

Harold B. Lee dying suddenly at a relatively young age in spite of having no previously known health issues. 

 I believe the Lord found in Pres. Kimball a man who's heart was sufficiently prepared to reverse the priesthood ban.

Careful, before I fully apostatized, I speculated that God had Joseph removed because the whole polygamy thing was going off the rails. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Careful, before I fully apostatized, I speculated that God had Joseph removed because the whole polygamy thing was going off the rails. 

I've already been down the faith-crisis track, just in a different way. I walked away from the Church not the Restored Gospel- thankfully that nightmare is over and I'm back on track now.

Clarification: I don't believe Pres. Lee was some great evil man, just that Pres. Kimball was better prepared to do what needed to be done in that moment in history. President. Lee was still a great and worthy man.

Edited February 22, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[The Nehor]

In the Romney letter we learn that God kills off US Presidents for…….ummmmm…….reasons.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the Romney letter we learn that God kills off US Presidents for…….ummmmm…….reasons.

Which Romney?  Or maybe I should ask which letter?

Edited February 22, 2025 by Calm