If not literal then what?

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Cadence wrote:

When I was a believer especially when I was young I believed everything literally. Adam and Eve lived in the garden. Noah built an ark. Moses parted the Red Sea The stripling warriors really never lost a man. Then I became aware of science and critical thinking. I realized none of these things really happened. I lost my belief in the literal nature of the scriptures…So if not literal then what? If we take the literalness out of the story what do we have left? We have just stories. They may teach a lesson or maybe even inspire you but how can they be any more valuable than that? How can we chart a course on that?…I know many turn to mythology when their shelf collapses and the have to face the fact none of these things they were taught actually happened. I guess I can not make that leap. If I were living long ago and I needed mythology to explain things perhaps, but today we have something called the scientific method that takes care of that…For me when it was literal it was true, when it was not it lost its value

In the case of the Bible, at least some of it did happen. For example, it sounds like King Nebuchadnezzar really did destroy Jerusalem and the temple and took many Jews captive into Babylon in 587 BC. Also I see little reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified or that Paul was convinced he was still alive after this. Sure skeptics can suppose that Paul was mistaken for whatever reason but personally I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. To me, not having to take everything literally as a package deal mostly makes things better and more interesting overall.

Instead of feeling obligated to believe all this at the same time and make excuses for things that sound highly questionable mostly because everyone else does and because of the idea that it supposedly came from God now I feel free to judge for myself and believe whatever makes sense to me on a case-by-case basis. Many questions people care about the most especially regarding politics, morality, philosophy, religion, etc. are never going to be answered to everyone’s satisfaction by raw facts and data but instead mostly depend on judgment calls and what people value the most in a personal and subjective way.

I’m learning that I’m a cynic by nature, so a lot of literalness has fallen by the way this last year or two. But sometimes I jump forward to a future eon. I don’t want it to be said: “In the case of Ann’s resurrection, at least some of it did happen.” Looking forward and hoping for a literal, complete and perfect resurrection keeps me more open-minded and soft-hearted than I am naturally disposed to be.

[Anonymous]

Curtis wrote:

Cadence, exactly where in this thread have I claimed the mainstream church believes the heterodox things I believe? I think the point of labeling them as personal and heterodox is to avoid that claim – and I often add, “if I had a chance to talk with them personally and explain what I mean,” when talking about things I think most members believe that aren’t quite orthodox. Often, it’s just that they have never heard something expressed in “acceptable” terms by someone they respect as fully active and believing; some times, they don’t agree, but, in those situations, they generally smile and let it pass.

I never made the claim the church believes as you. I believe the church as a whole would label you semi apostate. My point is if you have views so outside the mainstream there is a price to pay if you want to stay part of the church. Generally that price is silence

[Anonymous]

I guess we simply disagree about that, based on my own experiences.

[Anonymous]

Curtis wrote:

I guess we simply disagree about that, based on my own experiences.

Maybe I should come to your ward.

[Anonymous]

That would be cool. If you ever are in or passing through north-western Nevada, let me know.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I think there is room in the church for the unorthodox if we make room ourselves. It is not going to be given freely.

I think this is a great way to sum up the issue.

It isn’t given freely. There are some things we grow up and take upon ourselves as “my” testimony, “my” faith, “my” religion. Sometimes we have to fight for those, to wrestle with the Lord until we get there. But it can be done.

The old saying I used to carry with me on my mission was:

Quote:

Popularity comes from pleasing people, greatness comes from pleasing God.

This means something very different to me now than when I was on my mission. Popularity within the church, or with church leaders, is not what is most important. Life is easier when I fit in, but I’m past finding easy explanations. I need real stuff, because that is how I’m wired and God knows it.

I got to some point I don’t really care if others agree with me or understand me, or if the Church gives me permission to believe what I believe. I just can’t take the bible literally, and I just can’t let go of the spiritual connection with God by reading the scriptures and being in Church.

I think embracing paradox means it doesn’t have to be popular. It just has to have meaning to me in my life. Many things are just not shared with others who are not ready or prepared to hear my sacred views. That doesn’t make it “right” or “wrong” … it just is.

I like the comparison to hymns, art, or relationships with love and trust. Science and History have their limits in our experiences. They have their value, but they have their limits. I have accepted that.

[Anonymous]

The more and more I study and ponder and consider alternatives, The more I am open to see more and more figurative story in certain parts of the scriptures

– Creation

– Fall

– Flood

– Old Testament in general

– and open to more but I will stop there

[Author]

Posts