- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Rix wrote:
Btw Heber, I read your signature line (from Hawkgirl)…I wonder how she said that quote next week?!
Rix, you’re such a stickler for literal and historically accurate data, aren’t you??? I meant to quote Hawkgrrrl metaphorically, not literally
So Jbelli, are you making the case that the Book of Mormon is a good piece of literature, just as Shakespeare? As such, the value in the Book of Mormon is literary because you can’t seem to make sense to the historical nature of it? I mean if that floats your boat, I guess I have no problem with it. The church has always said the value of the Book of Mormon is the spiritual teachings, so I don’t think you’re too far off there. While there is some archeological evidence for the Bible, many of the important stories have absolutely zero evidence, and many scholars consider these stories myth. Everything prior to about 700 BC has no archaeological evidence. So, some consider Moses, Joshua, Abraham, David, Adam, Eve, Noah, Joseph, Samson, Balaam–pretty much the entire Old Testament prior to Lehi/Isaiah/Jeremiah can be considered as mythical as you seem to be implying the Book of Mormon is. And when we actually look at Christ’s miracles, none of those can be proven either. Not only that, but many of these miracles we all take as fact have been attributed to other figures in history too. Ceasar walked on water, had a miraculous birth, turned water to wine, was a god, etc.
So, yes, I guess if one wants to get meaning out of “non-historical sources” like Shakespeare, Moses, and Lehi, then I think the church would actually support that. The Scriptures are valuable not because artifacts have or have not been found–it is the teachings that we learn from Moses and Lehi that make scriptures valuable. Certainly MWallace’s examples provide some pretty cool allegorical inspiration.
I guess I still don’t understand what you mean by double standard. If one wants to believe Moses literally parted the Red Sea and the sun stayed up for a day, night and a day for the Nephites at Christ’s birth, then you are welcome to do so. If you want to refer to these 2 events as allegorical and find great spiritual meaning–the church would prefer that you find great spiritual meaning anyway, and I don’t think they really care deeply as to the nuts and bolts of the scientific aspects of these 2 stories. Frankly, while I have often wondered why Nephi put on Laban’s bloody clothes or how Ammon cut off all those arms, those stories are far more plausible than Balaam’s talking donkey or Jonah and the great fish, or all the stories attributed to Moses. Most people take these Bible stories as literal, and I don’t find anything in the Book of Mormon that stretches credulity nearly as much as the Bible. (You really believe Christ was dead for 3 days and then was resurrected? Where’s the science to back that up? The Shroud of Turin? Are you comfortable saying the Resurrection story is an allegory too and didn’t literally happen?)
By the way, have you seen this evidence concerning the Book of Mormon location of Nahom? It seems pretty compelling to me… http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/01/28/nahom-archeaological-evidence-of-book-of-mormon/ MH, just read what you posted on Nahom. It is compelling until the experts give their final reasoning: that there was no way JS could have known this. imo, there’s also no way that JS could have been the sole author of the BoM. btw, if the name Nahom appears in all of these places, temples, altars, etc. how could it not be listed on maps? It was only a very well-known place before and after JS’ era? Or, it was called Nahom anciently, then not called that, then called it again in modernity? edit:
I just did a search and found two maps from the 1750’s, one naming “Negem” and the other “Nehem” in the spot where “Nahom” is, just north of Sanaa. Obviously, because it’s a semitic-based language the vowels are insignificant.
Fwiw, there is a very solid argument to be made scientifically for the accuracy of 1 Nephi – and there also is a pretty good argument to be made for the cultural accuracy of Ether. It’s the stuff about which we know next to nothing of the location that is most problematic when it comes to scientific verification. Once we are on this path, each of us travel alone, deciding at what level we think these things are literal or historical. I had this thought when reading through your clarification jbelli21 (which was really good, thanks): I get the impression you are looking for a comfort level and peace with your view, not so much needing an intellectual justification. This can be hard at times in the Church because so many others are not where we are at (and that is fine). It really seems like you are reconciling things in a good way for yourself. I resonate a lot with your ideas to place high value on the practical, spiritual effects for you, above the questions of history, archeology and the literal nature of the stories. While those are all fascinating topics, the key really is enlightenment and spiritual progress from these stories, whatever their source and origin.
I think some scriptures are clearly meant to be taken as metaphor, such as the book of Revelation. In the very first chapter it is made clear that it is a vision featuring metaphorical elements (many of which whose meanings are interpreted right there in the same book). With others it is uncertain – Jonah and the big fish is an unbelievable story, but it makes no indication that it is metaphorical. Adam and Even in a garden with a talking snake seems unbelievable, yet geneaologies in the Old and New Testament are traced back to Adam as though he were a real person. How can a literal person decend from a figurative person? It seems that many such stories are meant to be taken literally, whether I believe them or not. Unless we have a reliable indicator to suggest a figurative reading, we should probably assume that literalness was intended. Otherwise it’s an arbitrary “I believe this actually happened, but this didn’t” kind of scenario based solely on opinion.
Intended literalness should be the default, imo, because the texts read like historical accounts, giving times and specific places and names.
Brian Johnston wrote:Once we are on this path, each of us travel alone, deciding at what level we think these things are literal or historical.
…
I resonate a lot with your ideas to place high value on the practical, spiritual effects for you, above the questions of history, archeology and the literal nature of the stories. While those are all fascinating topics, the key really is enlightenment and spiritual progress from these stories, whatever their source and origin.
Some may solely be interested in their own personal benefit from the stories, but other people are also interested in what is true and what is false (history, archeology, etc). Little red riding hood may have a good moral to it, which I will happily glean, but I am also interested in whether or not it actually happened – or at least I would be if it had any significant consequence in my life, lol.
Jbelli, so where do you stand on the Bible? Is it literal, myth, or a combination? MapleLeaf wrote:Some may solely be interested in their own personal benefit from the stories, but other people are also interested in what is true and what is false (history, archeology, etc). Little red riding hood may have a good moral to it, which I will happily glean, but I am also interested in whether or not it actually happened –
or at least I would be if it had any significant consequence in my life, lol. That last part is a double-edged sword.
Just to preface my next comment, I also love the questions of history and factual truth. I think the above comment usually relates to us thinking about the Church telling us what to do based on scripture.
But here is the idea taken to an extreme — If the Bible is not literally true, and Moses never existed, then the ten commandments were just made up. They are fiction. Can I therefore murder someone without spiritual consequences? (answer: of course not!)
Pondering those extremes leads me to an
intuitiveconclusion that the personal benefit is more important than the factual truth. It is why I tend to look at scripture as poetry instead of a history book or technical manual. I don’t mean poetry because it is silly creative fiction. I mean that in the sense that the meaning transcends the history. It is why these books survive as “scripture” for thousands of years sometimes in spite of a lack of “proof” to the rational mind. They appeal to the intuitive mind. That is the target audience within us. I also am interested in whether the things in the scriptures actually happened – but much more as an academic exercise than as a way to accept or reject them. I said this in a different way in the thread about whether or not Jesus actually existed, but I started my career as a high school Social Studies teacher. I am FAR more interested in what I can learn from historical accounts than I am about the exact accuracy of those accounts, especially since I believe we can learn more about people from learning their myths (their ideals and what they envisioned as their ultimate relationship to each other and deity) than from most recitations of the actions of their daily lives. “Factual History”, after all, until very recently, is the story of a few leaders and their impact on people – not the story of the people themselves. “Myth”, in many ways, is the story of the people – and myth always is a combination of the actual and the imagined. (and I DON’T mean “true and false” when I say “actual and imagined”.)
Quote:But here is the idea taken to an extreme — If the Bible is not literally true, and Moses never existed, then the ten commandments were just made up. They are fiction. Can I therefore murder someone without spiritual consequences? (answer: of course not!)
Taking it one step further, if Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, then there was no Atonement wrought, and therefore no salvation. I think there are definitely things we as Christians assume, or at least have faith and hope, really happened.
Getting back to the original point of discussion, I think it’s easier to assume most of the BOM are literal events while there are allegorical elements included because they’re clearly called out (Lehi’s dream and the parable of the master of the vineyard in Jacob 5). On the other hand, there are parts that are clearly intended to be taken literally. For instance, Moroni’s parting testimony in Moroni 10:27 indicates he will be present at our final judgement. It’s pretty difficult to make sense of that verse if Moroni is not a real person.
OTOH, it’s more difficult to determine which parts of the Bible are real history and which are allegories. I’ve read that a few biblical scholars now believe that the story of Job was metaphorical and Job the individual never really existed. But the narrative never calls that out.
Quote:Frankly, while I have often wondered why Nephi put on Laban’s bloody clothes or how Ammon cut off all those arms, those stories are far more plausible than Balaam’s talking donkey
We just started reading the BOM as a family as one of our New Year’s resolutions. When we read the account of 1 Ne 4, I commented that I wondered about Nephi putting on Laban’s bloody clothes. My TBM wife said she’s wondered the same thing. Maybe she’s on a journey I don’t know about? Also, it’s likely that Balaam’s donkey didn’t really speak to him, but you have to admit it makes for some great one liners.
Quote: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.
They do on Broadway! Actually, I wonder if this was coordinated in advance, like they do at temple dedications with the Hosanna shout.
Quote: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.
Actually, I’ve attended some Jewish worship services, and they have specific prayers that are repeated. I’ve heard that King Benjamin’s address is similar to Jewish customs. So, while it may be the case that this BoM passage could be characterized not as a spontaneous display, but rather as a “staged” presentation (in the same way that repeated Jewish prayers are all “staged” because the people in the services read the prayers out of a prayer book), then I think that this could lend a semitic evidence for authenticity in the BoM.
On my journey for truth I’ve discovered that “truth” isn’t what I thought it was. Truth is not defined by something being historical or not. And things that are “true” historically may not be good at all. Everything is symbolic of where we are as a people and as individuals right down to our myths. I find myself in this unique (to me) place where I can reject the literal historicity of ALL sacred text and still embrace its symbolic meaning. We liken the scriptures unto ourselves. We are to read them as if we are every character in there. That is where I find meaning now. It is the his-story of our spiritual journey.
I can no longer believe in a god who is also a murderer. Sorry. I just can’t. And if the God of the OT really exists I hope that he will help me understand why murder, genocide, rape, black magic, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, genital mutilation, sexism, slavery, lying, etc, etc are justified behaviors.
So, yeah, once I took a critical look at the BoM I couldn’t help but look at the Bible with the same critical eye. One might say that it is a slippery slope.
Everything is true at the symbolic level.
Quote:But here is the idea taken to an extreme — If the Bible is not literally true, and Moses never existed, then the ten commandments were just made up. They are fiction. Can I therefore murder someone without spiritual consequences? (answer: of course not!)
Good point. Likewise, can a person claim God told them to commit murder and be free from spiritual consequence? No. It is truth that murder is hurtful to the spirit. That is why every culture and religion has a code of conduct that forbids it (usually with several exceptions). Just because man created the 10 commandments and all other codes of conduct does not make them fiction.
so first of all i’d like to say that i love it that i’ve found a forum where I can get so many great responses and opinions. second of all, since i’m new i’d like to ask a quick technical question, how the heck do you guys do the quote thing where you grab a quote from someone else’s post and quote it in yours? btw i just started using this at work, and i’m only a 22 year old rm of a year so i feel as though there is probably a whole lot more experience here than what i got so really, thanks for the posts. anywho.. to answer your question “mormonheretic”, i think at this point i believe that the bible is a combination of history and myths. There is some archaeological evidence for parts of the bible (mostly the boring repetitive stuff) and lots of manuscripts and so obviously it’s pretty difficult to eliminate the historicity of those parts. The BOM does not have that (the gold plates are gone), which is why (as i have learned from your posts) it is harder for members to take it as anything but literal because they believe whatever JS said about it. I think that the church has tried and is trying (but failing) to prove the BOM’s historicity, but honestly I’m not too impressed with FARMS (and neither is the rest of the scientific community). I do believe that a lot of the stories in the bible are metaphorical but that does not mean that I devalue history. We MUST know the history behind those who originally wrote the stories in order to come to a better understanding of what they originally meant by it (even if the story they wrote was intended in their mind to be historical but was actually fictional). I’m sure that the authors who wrote the creation story in the bible (according to the documentary hypothesis, P for 1:1-2:3 and J for 2:4 to the end; probably not moses) thought that whatever they were writing, or translating, or copying was literal history but I don’t think it is, but when I read it I still need to consider that they did. i really like what “just me” stated, (sorry i don’t know how to quote posts so i will just copy and paste)
Quote:“I find myself in this unique (to me) place where I can reject the literal historicity of ALL sacred text and still embrace its symbolic meaning. We liken the scriptures unto ourselves. We are to read them as if we are every character in there. That is where I find meaning now. It is the history of our spiritual journey.”
I feel the same way. my faith in scriptures or other texts for that matter is no longer dependant on historicity. Even Jesus may or may not have been a real person to me(I do hope that he was) but if he wasn’t, the atonement (or in other words reconciliation to goodness) and his example of charity are “literal” because they have been experienced by me in my “literal” history. I’ve always pointed out that if we were to read the Garden of Eden story strickly as history then it does you absolutely no good at all. You learn that snakes talk to people and eat dust and that god gets pissed at us for eating the wrong kind of fruit (supposedly apples). But when we aren’t worried about whether or not adam and eve actually existed or not then the story teaches us about agency, the fall, hope, the marriage union, and the whole reality of existence.
“just me” I also can’t accept god as a murderer, violent, or demanding animal sacrifice. (you should read rene girard) but if i read the OT literally then that’s what I would be forced to accept; that occasionally god goes against the 10 commandments and destroys sodom and gomorrah or commands that we kill the Canaanites so that we can have our promised land or tells Nephi to slay Laban. But when I go with what is true inside me, I realize that is ludicris! And so to stay consistent with my belief that the scriptures and other texts are inspiring I have to take those stories as metaphorical or at least representative of someone else’s incorrect worldview. to quote “just me” again, “Just because man created the 10 commandments and all other codes of conduct does not make them fiction.”- it’s almost like we take the stuff that’s suppose to be the most real and concrete and turn them into myth and somewhat disregard them, while the stuff that doesn’t matter we demand that it be historical!
I love the story of the anti-nephi-lehi’s how they just lay down their weapons and refused to use violence. I used to think that story had to be taken as literal history to have any significance but now that I don’t care it still inspires me and hopefully one day i can get to a point where if i were somehow in a similar situation i would act the same way. I have serious doubts that there is any historicity at all to the BOM, at the most I would have a view similar to blake ostler, that he had some kind of historical source (maybe gold plates) but what ultimately came out was a product of his own worldview his answers to the religious questions of the time. I guess after all my rambling I realize that I probably wasn’t asking the right question. I guess i’ll just have to make another post
I think what most of the previous posts are saying is that if you believe the original author, you have to take everything that goes with it – Joseph Smith = prophet = translates BOM = exactly what he said about it = accurate historical record of ppl’s spiritual and cultural experiences; Bible = mostly inspired people and prophets = mostly historical record of ppl’s spiritual and cultural experiences = possibly some leeway as to interpretation but not much. While on the other side of the posts they’re saying that there is a whole lot more to be considered than just what the original author said and believed. I’m just trying to sum up everything in my mind, tell me if my conclusions are wrong. I suppose that I was thinking about a whole bunch of ideas rather than the original question when writing this post so sorry if it is totally random, haha, i tried to stay on topic!
Quote:I think what most of the previous posts are saying is that if you believe the original author, you have to take everything that goes with it – Joseph Smith = prophet = translates BOM = exactly what he said about it = accurate historical record of ppl’s spiritual and cultural experiences
Not really, although I personally have chosen to look at it that way. I think we are saying that if you love the content and the spirit and the message of it, then you are free to see it any way you want to that makes it meaningful to you. That means that many of us here who value it highly (even as “scripture” in some cases) see it differently than each other – which is fine, since what we take from it is individual and personal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.