- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think the discussion meanders a bit, but I really enjoyed the topic. http://mormonmatters.org/2015/04/22/277-does-powerful-faith-require-scriptural-literalism/ Quote:“In speaking at the April 2015 General Conference about the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland boldly stated that “the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death–in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter–without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it” (“Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet”; lds.org; italics in original). In making such a strong claim about the importance of a literal understanding of the Garden story, he caught many Latter-day Saints off guard.
Does genuine, transformative faith in and appreciation for the Atonement, Resurrection, and the many other gifts that we can experience through the gospel of Jesus Christ require literal understandings of the Fall exactly as described in scripture? Can one still attain and sustain transcendent faith if one understands these as powerful, even if not literal, stories?In this episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon along with three good friends–David Bokovoy, Stephen Carter, and Bill Turnbull–discuss their reactions to the direction taken in Elder Holland’s remarks, as well as their own journeys with the issue of whether or not scriptural accounts should be seen primarily through literal vs. figurative lenses? How would one know which is appropriate, and in which instances?
What is gained and what is lost when we view scripture literally? Can we find ways to value both ways of reading and exploring scriptural texts?And what about when we teach scriptural stories in LDS devotional settings? Is it possible that within these contexts our teaching scriptural characters and stories as real people and literal events can be very helpful in eliciting potentially transformative spiritual experiences, and we can therefore feel un-conflicted about doing so, whereas when speaking in more academic settings it would be more appropriate, yet still not being unfair to the accounts, to teach more metaphorical and figurative readings?” Nope – not for me, even if for others. It really is that simple for me .
I’m looking forward to listening to this one. I’d be interested to hear anyone else’s reactions. Just remember, all of us require what we require. Literalism is important and even critical for some people. I will come back to comment after I listen to the episode, but my initial reaction to the title is “of course not.” In my opinion a deep and stable faith requires the appropriate sorting of scriptural stories with “more literal” and “less literal” interpretive lenses. I am aware that other personalities with have other opinions, Elder Holland obviously has strong opinions. As I try to grow toward a mature ideal in faith and religious life I must realize that — just as strictly literal interpretations can become toxic for me, non-literal interpretations can be toxic for others. I know others may want me to adopt their views, I must not seek to force my views upon them in a reversed effort. Recently in a discussion about the loving nature of God I was shocked to hear a good LDS brother stand firm in his view of God being a little more concerned about justice than grace/charity. It is an inconceivable idea to me, but I realized we would get nowhere butting heads. I realized to have a productive conversation I needed to ask him what attracted him to to the image of God that he held.
First off, we can’t take ALL scripture literally. Jesus taught in parables – these were not meant to be taken literally but figuratively. Literally….Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, adopted and twisted into the Christian script to gain more acceptance of Christian stories for the masses during the dark ages, which were literally during the time mormons teach was the Great Apostasy. Elder Holland couldn’t have been talking about literal Christmas and Easter, right? So…literalism is actually messier than some think, and does not always lead to powerful faith or useful truth, as Pres Packer taught.
I generally liked Elder Holland’s talk, except for that part. In the depths of my FC I used to talk about GAs not knowing what they’re talking about sometimes – and this is an example of that. Indeed, as others have said, if Elder Holland needs to believe in a literal Adam and Eve in order to believe in Easter or Christmas, that’s fine for him and it apparently works for him. I believe in Easter (I don’t know why we celebrate Christmas other than the above mentioned pagan adaptation – but I like the presents) and I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. It’s abundantly clear we all sin and it’s abundantly clear to me that I sin, and for me that’s enough for the atonement that I don’t understand, either. The atonement itself isn’t literal as far as I can tell – but I agree with Elder Holland that we don’t and can’t understand it anyway and I don’t spend much time thinking about it. Overall I think Elder Holland gave a great Easter sermon and I put the Adam and Eve part in the “personal opinion” bucket (very much like the opinions I heard yesterday in F&TM).
I think scriptural literalism requires enormous faith. I believe in the series “Answers to Gospel Questions” By Joseph Fielding Smith there is a question asked about evolution. The response was that the theory of evolution precludes a literal fall. If Adam was the product of evolution then death must have been present before Adam and thus there could be no literal fall. Without a fall there is no need for an atonement. Thus the logic went that those that espouse evolution invalidate the very life and mission of Jesus Christ. The Creation, The Fall, and The Atonement have been called the “Three Pillars of Eternity.” Bruce R. Mckonkie and Russel M Nelson gave talks on this very subject long before Elder Ballard gave this most recent address. He is just echoing those that came before.
IMO this is just another example of boundary maintenance. Essentially declaring that evolution or figurative Adam or non-literal BoM or [insert non-literal teaching] is not acceptable orthodox belief. In some instances they double down as in saying that evolution invalidates Christ or that the church is either all true or is the most damnable of lies. In doing so they reinforce the binary proposition. One cannot examine or question one particular part of the whole because if that part is false then the whole must be false. Thus the false dichotomy proceeds.
Evolution specifically seems to now be ok for members to believe in the moden church. We do not talk about it in church settings but it is taught in BYU science classes and is accepted fairly widely. It would be interesting to ask Elder Ballard if his belief in a literal Adam precludes the theory of evolution or if he has found a way to harmonize the two.
(as a side note – the church’s battle against evolution follows pretty closely the fight of God vs. evolution seen in the larger public sphere. I believe that most mainstream Christian churches now either accept parts of evolution or remain silent on the subject).
Specifically to answer the question in the OP – there are many ways to contruct faith that can be very compelling and powerful. There are many people that I admire that construct their faith in various ways.
Roy wrote:I believe in the series “Answers to Gospel Questions” By Joseph Fielding Smith there is a question asked about evolution. The response was that the theory of evolution precludes a literal fall. If Adam was the product of evolution then death must have been present before Adam and thus there could be no literal fall. Without a fall there is no need for an atonement. Thus the logic went that those that espouse evolution invalidate the very life and mission of Jesus Christ.
I remember reading something very, very similar to this in Doctrines of Salvation. In fact, back in the day I wrote a letter to my local newspaper (that was published) about how you couldn’t be Christian and believe in evolution, using his arguments as the basis of my letter.
Kids these days. What’cha gonna do?
😳 nibbler wrote:I remember reading something very, very similar to this in Doctrines of Salvation.
“Doctines of Salvation” and “Answers to Gospel Questions” were both compiled with teachings from Joseph Fielding Smith. He seems to have been a busy guy.
Roy wrote:IMO this is just another example of boundary maintenance. Essentially declaring that evolution or figurative Adam or non-literal BoM or [insert non-literal teaching] is not acceptable orthodox belief. In some instances they double down as in saying that evolution invalidates Christ or that the church is either all true or is the most damnable of lies. In doing so they reinforce the binary proposition. One cannot examine or question one particular part of the whole because if that part is false then the whole must be false. Thus the false dichotomy proceeds.
I agree. This goes hand-in-hand with “if Joseph Smith is a prophet then the BoM is true then so is the church” etc. While I’m fine with people who believe that, I don’t believe they’re really connected in that way – that is, I don’t believe the dominoes necessarily fall. I would have to say the same for your connection, Roy. One part does not invalidate (or validate) the whole thing. I’m sure I’m not alone here in this kind of thinking being a part of my FC.
I would argue that powerful faith requires a non-literal approach to the scriptures. Too much of the stories are unbelievable — an Ark with all pairs of species? God put all the animals to sleep? Jonah swallowed by a whale and survives? The person who bases their faith on literal interpretations, I believe, may well be at greater risk of losing that faith due to disappointment. Just as the person who puts their faith in infallible leaders, or leaders who are always inspired etcetera, will eventually be disappointed. The person who looks at the scriptures as allegorical, symbolic, or otherwise non-literal, is not as susceptible to disappointment when the experience of living suggests literalism is wrong…
From the comments section of a BCC post about transubstantiation. I thought it fit in this thread and drives home the point that different people need different things. http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/06/05/the-god-eaters/#more-56664 Quote:I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater. (She just wrote that book, “A Charmed Life.”) She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn’t opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. . . . Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them.
Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”
That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.
Flannery O’ Connor
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.