- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Personally I don’t believe most of the bible or any other scripture for that matter should be taken literally but it is to be applied, in most circumstances, as allegorical or metaphorically. Most people would agree with this in terms of certain stories in the bible especially the OT but for some reason there seems to be a double standard when members try and use this type of hermeneutics with so called “revealed” or “modern” scripture aka POGP, BOM, D&C, etc… My question is why is this so and why in general do you believe that scripturaly literalism is so universal within the mormon tradition juxtiposed to such a vehement rejection to figurative interpretations? (Please send intelligent responses) jbelli21 wrote:(Please send intelligent responses)
Yikes, this may eliminate me from posting right off…
..but I’ll go ahead and answer anyway…
I think in the mormon religion there is a tendency to believe in the scriptures literally, because of the belief that God literally speaks to prophets to reveal His words to us.
I am not sure it is a double standard to view the bible metaphorically or symbolically as opposed to modern day revealed scriptures (BoM, PoGP, etc), but more of the Article of Faith #8 that the bible was just corrupted over time and more difficult to rely on literal accounts, and modern scriptures are more “correct”. But even so, I think most mormons believe Adam and Eve were literally in the Garden with a snake, and Moses, Noah, and the other OT prophets were literal people, many of whom have returned as angels in the last dispensation. I do hear more open-minded approaches to this idea from this group in this forum than I generally do in my experience at church.
Maybe you can expound on your assertion of why you think a double standard exists? I’m not sure I see it.
Hey, welcome to the board! I haven’t seen you around here before. I hope you find this a welcoming place to be. I can’t guarantee I am intelligent
Article of Faith 8
- Direct quotes of scripture by angels
- Joseph Smith’s culture of honor personality that required defending things always
- The high cost of Mormonism demands, for many, something literally worth paying for
Heber said most of what I would reply. I am not sure LDS members think of the Bible less literally than others in our “standard works.” I think they take them all very literally. One thing I think is very different in LDS attitudes about the Bible vs modern scripture is resolving conflicting story elements and theology. Our modern scripture has the advantage (and I mean this in a literary sense) of having only one author for all of them which was Joseph Smith (for the most part, like 98%). They were also created in a much more compact time span. So two things happen. There is much more internal consistency. In the Bible, Christians often have to balance one author against another, or even one passage against another to sort out a coherent theology. This isn’t as much of a problem in LDS scripture.
The other thing that happens, like Heber and Tom mentioned, there’s the idea in the back of LDS members heads that the Bible has errors (which is in fact true). Therefore when it comes to conflicts of interpretation in the Bible, or between the Bible and other modern LDS scripture, they tend to value modern LDS scripture as more accurate and clear.
So in that way, I think it may seem they take modern LDS scripture more literally. It’s not really that, they just believe LDS scripture is more “true.”
I think the answer is multi-faceted. First, I agree with what the others have said, but would add that one factor to consider is the “age” of the religion. IOW, even though the BoM is purported to be a history of a certain people on the “American continent” from 600 BC to 400 AD, it wasn’t “published” until the early 19th Century…and I think the newer the religion, the more literally the “scripture” is believed by the members. I’m a bit familiar with Buddhism, and find that although many people are “Buddhists,” they generally don’t worry much about whether “the Buddha” really did all that the legend claims. They take the principles and apply them to a lifestyle today. Frankly, that is what I see happening with Christianity, and eventually Mormonism as well.
Since someone is bound to say it, I guess I will. I see this as an orthodox religion issue and since mormonism is most commonly practiced orthodoxically, it tends to be magnified. I like what Rix said. The muslim faith is relatively new and has similar challenges with orthodox thinking/practice. What the prophet mohammed wrote was directly from the mouth of God, therefore it trumps all. I guess I just see this as an aspect of practicing orthodox theology.
“If God said it, it must be literally true”. “And, since God can do anything, literally anything is possible”.
Fwiw, I know LOTS of members who take lots of things figuratively – but conversion (drastic change) often must be founded on a feeling of literalness – and differentiating (comparing differences to establish supremacy) often is the root of conversion. Thus, many new converts ground their testimonies in literalism – and it takes maturing in the Gospel to begin to be able to let go of that and embrace figurative interpretations that generally are highly personal. Iow, conversion to the group requires a degree of uniformity that is served best by literalism. The individual exploration that follows one who matures as a disciple requires one to let go of that literalism (to some degree and with regard to some concepts) and embrace a more figurative perspective. Otoh, even most of the more liberal members of ANY religion hang onto a literal interpretation of something – some core concept or principle that remains literal for them.
Literalness provides safety; figurative-ness can be dangerous and scary. Therefore, literalness is NOT a bad thing for those who need safety more than they need to explore. It just appears restrictive to the explorers.
Jbelli21 I’m not sure what double standard you refer to. It seems to me that most Mormons view the Bible quite literally. Most believe the flood literally covered the entire earth, Moses really did part the Red Sea, Jonah really was swallowed by a great fish, etc. Perhaps the Garden of Eden story would be one story that Mormons may find allegorical, but I think most believe Adam and Eve literally existed. Stories such as these are pretty absent in the BoM. There is no talking donkey in the BoM as the story of Balaam contends. Can you expound a bit more on this double standard?
I do find a lot of metaphors in the BofM. For example (just from 1st Nephi) The Sword of Laban represents justice. It is significant that this is a two-edged sword, which can smite one whether it is held on the right hand or the left.
It is also profound to think that Laban was killed with his own sword.
The Hunter’s Bow: represents a man’s ability to work, earn a living and provide for his family. The broken bow represents unemployment, inability to provide and the necessity of reliance on the Lord.
The Ship: Ship or vessels are often used in the Book of Mormon or Old Testament. They often represent salvation for those who board and destruction for those who are left behind.
The wicked or rebellious brother(s): We are all brothers and sisters in the Kingdom of God. This represents our stewardship toward are fellow men and women.
The “Lamb of God”: represents Jesus Christ, the figurative “sacrificial lamb”
The Compass or Ball which pointed the way in the wilderness: this is a metaphor for spiritual direction and guidance.
This list goes on and on
So many great comments already. I think Brian is right on target for why many take scripture literally. I also agree that it’s an orthodoxy question. The other thing I will add is the admonition to “like all scripture unto ourselves.” For the literal minded, this generally means to imagine that these people literally did and said exactly what the scriptures say. For those who find more spiritual meaning in metaphor (only about 15-20% of people even find metaphor appealing and/or understandable), they might take an approach more like MWallace. I think many of us are simply in the minority in preferring metaphorical interpretations and finding more personal meaning in them than in a literal interpretation which often strains credulity. For example, whether the BOM is historical or not, a few things strain credulity, IMO: – Ammon cutting off all those guys arms, but they didn’t die. No mention of torniquets. I have a hard time believing this story. This sounds like campire braggadocio to me.
– Why did Nephi cut off drunk Laban’s head BEFORE he took his clothes off? Weren’t the clothes covered in blood after? That seems like poor planning for someone who so thoughtfully contemplated killing him.
– Why so little mention of women? (Actually I have a good answer for this – Mormon, the general who abridged it, was in the military from age 15 – probably a rampant sexist as a result).
– Did the followers of King Benjamin really all fall on the ground together and all say the exact same thing? People just don’t do that in real life.
I think the real issue is what Joseph Campbell said, that people view others’ myths as allegory, but they view their own as if they literally happened. It requires more objectivity than most possess to view them all allegorically and to see that as the way they have value.
I guess I should clarify my question just a little. What I mean by the “double standard” is that although metaphorical interpretations are sometimes allowed with the bible the same kind of look at the BOM especially is not. I don’t see why not even from a conservative standpoint because if it’s a translation issue, Joseph Smith, just like anyone else, ‘see’s through a glass darkly’. Besides how do we know that the accounts that Mormon complied for the gold plate final edition weren’t altered slightly already? How do we know that Mormon didn’t pick and choice from his own human flawed perspective which records and sections to include in the final edition? Maybe the original authors were actually real and intended that their records be read figuratively perhaps these were just ancient myths passed down from generation to generation and at some later point in ancient america the people started looking at them literally. Sure some of these assumptions are far-fetched but from a more liberal look at our church’s history I think it is quite difficult to believe that Joseph Smith was translating the BOM word for word anyways. The plates were usually in a different room at the time he dictated it. Emma Smith, his own wife, never even saw the plates in her lifetime! At one point Joseph Smith emphasized the fact that he claimed that the title page was a “literal” translation but as far as I know no other time did he reference his translations in that way. There had to be some human aspect incorporated in translation, and from there i believe we can draw upon figurative interpretations inspired by the cultural and historical aspects of Joseph Smith’s life and even possibly his own perspective of the ancient world. Albiet we would still need to remember that these interpretations are not “authoritive” or the final word but we should always keep in mind that different scriptures can mean different things to different peoplees at different times. Within a scriptural literalism POV there can usually only be one answer and one interpretation aplied to all peoples at any point in history. We are all too individual and unique to force such a close minded hermeneutic. On a personal note I tend to believe that the BOM was part Joseph Smith’s creation and part divinely inspired, but either way, the stories contained in it, whether true or not, have changed my life for the better and helped me to connect to the divine within. I guess this view may come to me because I am a metaphorical thinker and metaphors do create a change within me perhaps more than the average person. To me, for example, looking at the story of adam and eve from a literal standpoint does nothing. It just creates an incorrect and unscientific worldview that snakes talk to people, women were made out of man’s rib, and god gets mad at us for eating the wrong kind of fruit. It is when we look at the story symbolically that it gives us any kind of significant meaning, and so the literalness of the story to me is completely irrelavant.
jbelli21 wrote:On a personal note I tend to believe that the BOM was part Joseph Smith’s creation and part divinely inspired, but either way, the stories contained in it, whether true or not, have changed my life for the better and helped me to connect to the divine within.
This is exactly how I see it as well. The purpose is to guide us spiritually, not provide accurate records.The difficult part with the bible is that whether the stories are literal or not, the wording makes it difficult to understand even the meaning or the doctrine it is establishing. I think the BoM, D&C, and PoGB is more clear on the symbolic messages, regardless of literal accuracy. As was mentioned earlier, I think that comes directly from having most come directly from Joseph Smith’s prophetic works instead of multiple prophets, and also fewer language translations over time.
Heber13 wrote:jbelli21 wrote:On a personal note I tend to believe that the BOM was part Joseph Smith’s creation and part divinely inspired, but either way, the stories contained in it, whether true or not, have changed my life for the better and helped me to connect to the divine within.
This is exactly how I see it as well. The purpose is to guide us spiritually, not provide accurate records.I agree too. My oblique take on it though is that Joseph was inspired, just as all of us are inspired — including each of us “normal” folk. IOW, I see each of us being divine, so what we say and do is also divinely inspired.
Btw Heber, I read your signature line (from Hawkgirl)…I wonder how she said that quote next week?!
😆 
I’m a bit of a time traveler. Just for the frequent flier miles, though. This is an interesting paradox: The bible has lots of history and archeology at least supporting much of the geographical and historical framework of the Bible. This document we take with a grain of salt. The Book of Mormon has so many anachronisms. History, science and archeology do not support it in any substantial way and refute much of what has historically been accepted as fact by church members; the idea of pan-continental Book of Mormon peoples is one example. This document we interpret literally. (That is not to say there aren’t allegorical meanings as noted above.)
On further reflection though, it is probably the full disconnect of the Book of Mormon from the sciences and history that allows us as a church and people to interpret it in a literal sense. If it were connected to history or archeology, we would have to tie it to facts, and this would subsequently bring a literal interpretation into question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.