Myth vs Literal Historical Account

First, I believe that the only valuable literal historical accounts are those that have some spiritual analogy. For example, Jesus healing the blind is a powerful metaphor. Did it happen? Your choice. What it means to me and my situation is no different whether it is myth or literal. So, I don’t necessarily think that a story must either be myth or literal.

IMO, when we literalize stories, we have a tendency to lose the spiritual metaphor. Conversely, if we spiritualize a story, we devalue its literalness. I would prefer to err on the side of the latter. I believe the spiritual sides of stories are superior because they are metaphors for US, in our own lives, today, and in our current situations. Taken literally, they are stories about people who died long ago.

Better? I’m not sure they’re better and in some ways they would be easier to believe were they literal. I think maybe as believers in “truth” it’s easier for us to believe the stories, like Noah and Moses, if they are literal because there is a tangible truth there. If Noah did not build an ark with all the animals or Moses did not literally part the Red Sea, there is an element of fiction, and we’re all taught in elementary school that fiction is not true. However, when we start to examine the stories critically and scientifically we realize they must be fiction or myth because these things likely did not really happen. But we know all kinds of stories that teach moral lessons that are true so we can still believe the message. The rest is really what OON said. In most cases it doesn’t really matter if it actually happened or not, what matters is what we learn from it and how we apply it.

I used the word better. It was this quote that prompt me to start this thread.

I think that the story of the Fall is more powerful as a myth and a metaphor than as a literal historical story.

Why can a myth be more powerful than a literal account?

A side question might be: Is it only my belief in Jesus that heals me or is there actual power from an actual Heavenly Being that heals me?

I used the word better. It was this quote that prompt me to start this thread.

I think that the story of the Fall is more powerful as a myth and a metaphor than as a literal historical story.

Why can a myth be more powerful than a literal account?

A side question might be: Is it only my belief in Jesus that heals me or is there actual power from an actual Heavenly Being that heals me?

I can’t answer those questions for you, Rich. No one can. I can answer for me.

In my mind myth can be more powerful than a literal account simply because myth can take on fantastic qualities that literal stories cannot. I can’t believe in Moses parting the Red Sea as a literal story, but I can understand it as a myth. Maybe it has something to do with suspension of disbelief (remember that from high school English?), but I can’t suspend the disbelief in a story that’s supposed to be literal but is so fantastic as the parting of the Red Sea and the Egyptian army being swallowed up. Mythologically, this is a great story of faith and following the prophet, among other things. (I wonder if they knew about the 14 Fs?) But that’s my point of view – everyone here has at least a slightly different point of view than I do, and some here have radically different points of view. I don’t know if it’s a belief in Jesus that will heal me or some actual power like the priesthood or the Holy Spirit that will do so – I only know that to be healed I must believe Jesus can do it. The caveat here is that I am speaking on a totally spiritual level – I don’t expect Jesus, God, the priesthood or the Holy Ghost to physically heal me – but I hope one, all, or some other combination of that does heal me spiritually.

nibbler beat me to it, but I will add one more thing:

I like to consider every story every way possible and take whatever meaning is the most powerful for me, personally. If I tie myself to A literal interpretation, I lose so many possible meanings.

Also, just to say it, interpreting something as mythological, figurative or allegorical allows me to reject the messages that are concrete within a literal reading. For example, I can read the story of Abraham attempting to sacrifice Isaac literally as written (that god commanded it) – or I can read it as a literal event but accept the details of the story as having been “translated (in)correctly” (that Abraham thought God wanted it, due to his religious upbringing [like Brigham Young and the Priesthood ban], but God really didn’t want it and made sure Abraham didn’t follow through with it) – or I can read it mythologically (that Abraham never lived as an actual person but represented God, the Father, being willing to allow His son to die so other people would not have to be sacrificed – which makes the entire story one of replacing human sacrifice with animal sacrifice – which makes it acceptable to me) – or I can read it allegorically but accept some of the details as having been “translated (in)correctly” (that God was testing Abraham to see if he had let go of the “incorrect traditions of his fathers” and would have the spiritual maturity and confidence to question God – and that Abraham failed the test) – or any other interpretation that resonates with me.

My favorite interpretation right now is the one that parallels the Priesthood ban situation, that Abraham relied on the incorrect traditions of his fathers and had to be taught a lesson for a terrible practice / policy to end – but it’s one of many that is available to me when I don’t bind myself to complete literalism (and inerrancy).

Literal would be much better than myth. Myth is used when it is realized literal can not be true.

I would say myth is used when the literal cannot be known.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk