Prophet/President, Community of Christ
There are those (especially among Evangelicals) who believe that the Bible is inerrant and literal. For example a scriptural literalist will claim that Noah’s flood covered the entire earth. A non-literalist may say that the flood was merely a large localized flood.
Pres. Stephen Veazey is the prophet for the Community of Christ, and he gave a sermon on scriptural literalism. The videos can be found on the CoC website, and this quote comes from Chapter 4. Let me quote from Pres. Veazey directly:
Scripture is authoritative, not because it is perfect, or inerrant in every literal detail, but because it reliably keeps us grounded in God’s revelation. And here is the heart of our challenge: over the last several centuries, a doctrine of scripture emerged in Christianity that insists that all scripture, every single word, was directly dictated by God, and is inerrant in every detail. This belief emerged as a response to the questioning of religious authority from those who held that human reason alone was the most reliable pathway to truth. So a doctrine of scripture emerged that enshrined the literal words of scripture as inerrant and as the sole authority on all matters.
This view still dominates much of global Christianity today. It also strongly influences more than a few members of the Community of Christ who have adopted it from the larger religious culture. However, that doctrine, that view of scripture is not how scripture was understood in Christianity since its birth. It’s not how Jesus Christ used and viewed scripture. And it is not how the community of Christ officially views scripture today.
The church affirms that scripture is inspired, indispensable, essential to our knowledge of God, and the Gospel. In addition, we believe that scripture should be interpreted responsibly, through informed study, guided by the Holy Spirit working in and through the church. Scripture was formed by the community of faith to shape the community of faith, therefore, interpreting scripture is the constant work of the faith community. Community of Christ also stresses, that all scripture must be interpreted through the lens of God’s most decisive revelation in Jesus Christ
So if portions of scripture don’t agree with our fullest understanding, of the meaning of the revelation of God in Christ, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and discerned by the faith community, the teachings and vision of Christ take precedence. This principle applies to all of our books of Scripture, especially any passages by some to categorically assign to God’s disfavor, or negative characteristics, or secondary roles to others.
This is why our belief in continuing revelation is so important. This belief keeps us open to yet more light and truth so we can grow and understand of God’s supreme will as revealed in Jesus Christ. Doctrine and Covenants 163:70 states, “Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge and discernment must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God.” Follow this pathway, which is the way of the living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.”
I find tremendous agreement with the CoC position. What are your thoughts? Do you lean for or against scriptural literalism?
Hmmm, either an event occurred or it didn’t. Let’s take modern prophets for example. Do we consider any of their stories of actual reality to be fake? When President Monson tells one of his beautiful stories, is any part of that story untrue? How are we to tell which stories from scriptures are real and which are not? There is no guide that would explain to us so we are not confused. So in case of the flood, did it actually happen or not?
The bible is not literally true. It is also not inspired, in my opinion. Read about the Inquisition and how many people were tortured and killed based on passages of the bible. By its fruits, ye shall know it. The fruits of the bible are bright red blood stains and charred human flesh. Has any other book caused more pain and suffering on this earth? I doubt it. But the Koran is trying to catch up.
Dexter,
The “devil made me do it” excuse doesn’t work. It is not the bible that caused pain and suffering on this earth, but how people of their own free will and choice interpreted the Bible that did them in.
Back the the mid 80′s, this offshoot of the LDS Church proudly proclaimed that they had ordained women to the priesthood. FMH also pointed out in a blog that this church has women apostles like they are pointing the right way.
Regarding the first statement, how can you give what you do not have?
Given this viewpoint, how can we take their president seriously when he quotes scripture?
It seems like some posts so far have missed the point of the original question: “Do you lean for or against scriptural literalism?”
#1: So do we take each of Christ’s parables literally? Did Jesus actually see a good Samaritan helping out a guy who got beat up and robbed? Possible, but not likely. He was using a story to provide a teaching moment. President Monson (and any other public speaker worth his salt) will do the same thing. Stories don’t have to be 100% factual to be useful. Does it really matter if the flood literally covered the whole earth? If it just covered 99% of the earth, would that invalidate the whole scriptural account due to such a minor miscalculation? Of course not.
#2: You are certainly welcome to believe that the Bible (or any book of scripture) is/not inspired. But Dan is right: you can’t judge a book by the acts of a malicious and errant few who misinterpret what they read and take it as a God-given mandate to sack/pillage/kill. The Bible doesn’t tell people to do those things (at least, not the way I read it). Neither does the Koran, for that matter. But individual interpretation can skew any scriptural text. People will twist the meaning of scripture to their own purposes, whether intentional or not. There are plenty of folks who are happy to mis-interpret scripture just so they can keep being the nasty, cruel people they are. But that doesn’t mean it’s the scripture’s fault.
#4: Don’t just discredit Veazey’s statements because you don’t believe other things his church believes/does. So they have female apostles. So what? Does that invalidate everything he does and says? Certainly not. Every person has a portion of the light of Christ, and every person can receive revelation, in or out of the LDS church. In my opinion, most of the statement above makes a lot of sense.
Here is my take on Veasey’s statements: We certainly can take scripture literally and by doing so learn lots of stuff. But folks who do so will miss out on many of the beautifully crafted and intricate parables and lessons the scriptures can provide. If we read any scripture literally, then we should only have to read it once: a second reading would be pointless because the meaning would not change. But I find the non-literal interpretations can be much more fulfilling. Those are the times when personal revelation can open up a person’s understanding and make the scriptures personally meaningful. Christ’s parables are just one example of scriptures that are meant to be understood in many ways, and interpreted by many different groups of people. I think Veasey is right to state that continuing revelation is a vital part of the mix–without it we stop learning from the scriptures that are meant to be our guide. Scripture is not a static set of words with a single meaning, but more of a living, growing body of instruction that can be applied (with wisdom and righteousness) in all societies for all individuals. So while I think the literal stories are great, the non-literal readings can be even better.
Dexter,
How many jealous husbands murdered their wives? How many passionate lovers dueled each other to the death with rapiers or other weapons? How many suicides? How much abuse?
I suppose I’d better go and conclude that the fruits of love “are bright red blood stains and charred human flesh.”
Bryce,
#1. The point of parables is that they are not real. The story of the flood is historical in nature, and not allegorical. It is told in chronological order by Moses to give the Israelites an account of the history of their fathers. However, it is contradictory for me to believe the flood was literal while not believing that God made the earth in six literal days. I don’t really know what to say about that. One feels right and the other doesn’t.
I agree in general with Pres. Veazey.
“The knowledge of the secrets of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. This is why I speak to them in parables, ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand’”
I think this applies to a good deal of the scriptures. I don’t see most of Genesis as literal, though there might have been seeds of truth there. When Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is like leaven, or faith is a mustard seed, people don’t feel lied to. But if it’s suggested that Noah is a parable about faith or the preservation or the Lord, people feel lied to, despite the fact that Jesus came to Earth and demonstrated to everyone that His M.O. is to teach in parables, sometimes almost exclusively.
Dan,
“Let’s take modern prophets for example. Do we consider any of their stories of actual reality to be fake?”
I realize that Paul Dunn wasn’t a prophet, but he was a GA. Yes–we do consider his stories to be fake.
Thomas S. Monson misquoted The Voice and misidentified a snake.
Dan, I personally don’t like dichotomous reasoning. “either an event occurred or it didn’t.” That leaves out so many possibilities. For example, I believe a flood actually happened, but it wasn’t a global flood. I guess this puts me in the literal but errant crowd. Your proposition seems to leave out my position by claiming that no flood or global flood are the only possibilities. Very few choices in life are dichotomous–even multiple choice tests often allow 4 or 5 possibilities.
Dexter, there are plenty of people outside scripture who have committed atrocities. Human sacrifice was rampant among the Maya. Atheist leaders in the Nazi and Communist regimes have killed countless numbers of people. To blame this only on religious fanatics is an oversimplification.
Additionally, while I’m sure you believe the Bible is full of errors, it is not completely mythical. It has been the source of countless findings in archaeology. Jericho does exist and has been found. It’s walls were probably destroyed in an earthquake, similar to the Biblical record. Now dating the earthquake to the Biblical time is problematic, but without the Bible we’d have no knowledge of Jericho. So the Bible is not completely made up either.
Parables are in a whole different category. They were meant to be stories, not literally true. When I’m talking about literal events, I’m not talking parables. Certainly parables have value. I’m talking about things like “Did Balaam’s donkey really talk?” There is a gnostic gospel telling a story where the Apostle Paul talks to a lion, and then baptizes him. Why do we assume Balaam’s talking donkey is true, but Paul’s talking lion is not?
MH,
Regarding the flood. For me the laws of physics gets in the way, though the more I think about it, there is one scenario which would allow for a localized flood that would cover mountains. Water gets pulled by the gravitational pull of the moon. Get another large enough astronomical object, and water could be pulled in that direction for a period of time while not affecting any other area of the planet, thus allowing for a localized flood that would cover mountains. Genesis 7:11 is interesting:
The gravitational pull of an astronomical object would explain why such waters from the great deep rose, and it would not affect much of the earth except the area where the pull was strongest.
I’m no physicist, but I’m not sure that something large enough to pull Earth’s water miles high would only affect the water. It would affect Earth’s orbit and rotation as well. Also, the Moon actually pulls and flexes the Earth’s crust. You raise and lower a few inches every day due to the pull of the Moon. Tidal forces pull and stretch Io (the satellite) so much that the crust cracks and volcanoes spew out everywhere.
I’m not sure that’s the best explanation for a flood.
Awesome post.
It’s interesting to me the way some LDS can look at other religions’ works of scripture and find so much beauty in them, even direction for living their lives. Most don’t have any angst over these works because they do not consider them to be actual scripture, that is, handed down from God. They can sense some divine inspiration, but do not consider them to be the literal “word of God”. So, no pressure, no binding expectations. These works can just be enjoyed for the inspiring literature that they are.
But, if anyone suggests that the Bible or BoM have alot of the same qualities, those same Mormons freak out.
IMO, the Bible contains alot inspired literature. I like to believe that Adam and Eve acutally existed, but I just don’t know. I don’t know if Noah ever built an ark, or if he even existed. DH has studied this and no one can find any geological evidence of the great flood. And a talking donkey?…Whatever! So far, there has been little scientific evidence that supports the BoM as historical. ALL THAT SAID, I can honestly say that these books are “true” even if they are not always factual. Truth speaks to my heart, fact speaks to my brain. My belief system lies somewhere in between the two, probably leaning more toward the heart.
I believe in the BoM for the way it makes me feel and the way it makes me want to live my life. I feel the same way about the Bible. I try to incorporate those things of beauty into my life and heart, while quietly putting away the things that I just can’t accept. I try to be a good person and to live by the spirit of all that is good in the scriptures.
Pinkpatent,
Agreed–I think it is best to always approach others’ religious beliefs with the attitude “What if God inspired them too?” If anything, our belief in the BoM, D&C, et al. should make us more open to the idea that God probably has inspired–and will continue to inspire–many more people around the world than just within the membership of the LDS community. There are too many good people out there to believe otherwise. I also tend to believe that Christ’s statement about “other sheep I have which are not of this fold” didn’t just include a small tribe of Nephites. Once we start really looking for how other groups have been given inspired doctrine, it can be remarkable to see how many remarkable similarities LDS doctrine has to theirs.
I also like your statement “these books are “true” even if they are not always factual.” True does not necessarily mean Factual. Although I think godly principles generally qualify as both, the stories that teach us those principles don’t have to.
Arthur,
True enough. Surely objects on the surface of the earth, say, objects weighing about 150-200 pounds would probably be pulled up into the air by that kind of gravitational pull.
Well, that leaves me with the same view, that the flood was worldwide.
Dan:
Let me put you at ease on the physics. There was an ice age going on when our species appeared. Sea level was several hundred feet lower, because so much water was locked up in ice sheets covering much of the Northern hemisphere. When global temps warmed, that ice went back into the oceans, often topping topographical obstacles like the Persian Gulf, the Black Sea, or what are now coastal plains suddenly and decisively. People noticed and passed down the stories for thousands of years, reinterpreting their significance in light of their growing concepts of religion and traditions. That’s why you find similar traditions of great floods in cultures all over the planet.
If you want to know what flooded when, a Wiki will do nicely.
While we obviously don’t have access to the authors of the Bible or The Book of Mormon to consult with, I still think that the best approach is to try and understand their intent. In other words when Jesus says “The Kingdom of Heaven is like…”, I think it is safe to say that this is a parable and perhaps not based on a literal specific historical event. Jesus made no allusion that such was the case, in fact quite the contrary so nobody is concerned with trying to see if it is true. When Nephi says “in the commencement of the first year of the reign of the judges…”, the intention seems to be pointing towards some actual historical event.
A second observation, but I don’t believe that Jesus employs miracles in his parables. We have examples of normal everyday life being framed into stories that everyone can relate to. What he does not do is confine God’s miracles to parabolic interpretation. When instructing his apostles on his forthcoming resurection (Which we believe to be literal) he refers to Jona’s “burial” in the belly of a fish, which comes across as something to be taken literal. But he does not similarly try and teach miracles in such a way that they only occur in parables. For all intents and purposes, the scriptural authors give no direct indication that things such as the flood, be it global or local, the wizardry in Pharoahs court, the plagues, the miracle of Jesus works – healings, feeding the multitude, resurrection, etc – are not to be taken as historical realities in most cases. Therefore natural inconsistencies within the standard works cannot be easily brushed aside with parabolic interpretation.
After being distracted by answering Dan’s post — sucker for physics questions that I am — let me go back to Steve Veazey’s point knowing a little about the context in which the Community of Christ is discussing it.
The CofChrist has gone through several decades in which a theological split between progressives and fundamentalists over the literalism of scripture has been widening. Progressives have decisively won this debate in terms of institutional leadership, and it affects not only the view of the Bible, but of the BofM as well.
The question for us at the moment is not “is it literal?”, but instead, if “Scripture [including explicitly Restoration Scripture] was formed by the community of faith to shape the community of faith”, how do we look at the scriptures without simply seeing a mirror of our own cultural narcissism? If we think of ourselves as the most advanced culture that has ever been, do we run the risk of letting our interpretation of scripture destroy our ability to let it judge and correct us?
#16. Pulled up into the air? What? Maybe we should just leave physics out of this altogether.
The point of my post was to discuss what you think. For example, I think very few people believe God created the earth in 6-24 hour days, so few people will claim to be a literalist here. Does evolution play a part? Is the creation story literal, or figurative? Do these “days” represent 1000 years, or even 1 million years?
Did God literally appear in a burning bush to Moses, or was it a vision? The book of Exodus claims that over 1 million people crossed through the Reed Sea. Is that the Red Sea, or a now extinct lake of Reeds as some people claim now? Even still, 1 million people should have left garbage and other artifacts. Why can’t we find these artifacts? Why are the Egyptians silent on the Exodus? Did the Exodus happen? Some Jewish scholars either claim it didn’t happen, or the figure of 1 million people is highly inflated. Where do you stand? How literally are we to believe this story?
Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish? Is it a fish tale?
The story of Job is interesting, because there are absolutely no known locations in it. Is it a parable, or a literal event? Did God really talk to the devil regarding Job?
Did Christ really walk on the Sea of Galilee? Did he turn water to wine? There are stories of Ceasar doing this too. Are Christ’s stories borrowed from Ceasar? How literally should we take these miracles?
Some scholars claim that crucified people were left to rot on the cross, so this is an explanation for why Christ’s bones were never found–they were scattered by dogs. Other scholars claim Christ never existed. There are plenty of gnostic texts which claim Christ never existed, or was completely human. Do we assume gnostic writings are heretical simply because early church priests did? How literal of a figure should Christ be? Is it possible the current Gospels are no more accurate than Gnostic Gospels? Many claim the Gospel of Thomas is really the oldest gospel, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written later, and may have even used Thomas as a source.
If one is member of the LDS Church, why depend on someone’s opinion on scriptures who is not a member of the LDS church?
It’s like reading the Apocrypha. [see D&C 91} – care should be taken. But I like reading the Apocrypha.
who said I was depending on Veazey? I found an interesting quote and we are discussing it.
MH, I like that you used Veazey as a reference. I loved what he said about using scripture, combined with current teachings and the promptings of the holy ghost to guide our lives. The literalist approach usually comes from a position of strict obedience to rules and acquiescence to authority, both of which have their place in certain aspects of religion. But, IMO, they should not comprise the body of one’s faith. The goal should be to attain a level of spirituality that is not driven by fear of retribution, but by a desire to that which is good, simply for the sake of doing that which is good.
Bryce, I liked what you said about parables. I do not believe there was an actual prodigal son, or man who fell among thieves. There was probably not a fiend that sowed tares in with the wheat. Parables work because we already understand the basic premise, which makes learning the doctrinal lesson that much easier.
MH:
You write in the preamble: “I find tremendous agreement with the CoC position”.
But wouldn’t you agree that is like reading the Apocrypha and care should be taken?
agreeing doesn’t mean “depending upon.”
and what about the 13th article of faith, sxark? particularly that last part: If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Can the Community of Christ not produce virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy things of good report?
Andrew S:
Sure. However, it’s still like the Apocrypha and it would be wise to follow D&C 91 when studying these matters.
Thank you Andrew. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Sxark, can you comment on your feelings of the Exodus story? How literal or errant is it?
MH:
I like the Exodus story, as it is told the old fashioned way. The modern way. somehow diminishes the power of God.
D&C 91 in the LDS canon is identical to D&C 88 in the CofC canon. That section was given in 1833 in Kirtland when there was one church.
Are you using CofC scripture to tell us not to believe the CofC prophet?
Oh snap.
Phouchg:
No. [see #22]
sxark:
I agree–of course we should be careful. But I think the same can be said of anything we read: we need to use our good judgement and the inspiration of the Spirit to ensure we are not led astray by the sophistry of men. But barring that, we should also not discount ideas and beliefs that come from sources outside the LDS canon. Like I said in #5: Every person has a portion of the light of Christ, and every person can receive revelation, in or out of the LDS church.
Thus, if we really want to seek after all truth (like Andrew S referred to with AofF 13) then we have a couple of responsibilities. First, we must follow D&C 109:7 and “seek ye out of the best abooks words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.” But to your point, our other responsibility is to heed the warnings of the Spirit (like D&C 91 states) and ensure what we are learning is of God. I think the Lord lays out the “truth litmus test” in D&C 50:13-24. The Spirit will testify of truth, regardless of the source. We just need to be in tune. Certainly that’s more easily said than done, but at least we know how the process should work.
But I see your point–we can be easily fooled if we do not attend to the Spirit during our studies. Let’s proceed with caution. But still proceed!
Thanks for the defense, people. I always feel like I have better things to do than respond to every piece of sxark comments toward others’ beliefs.
I got it Sxark. Let’s not discuss facts for fear of losing fragile testimonies. But isn’t that the same as building our testimonies on the sand? I’d rather have my testimony on the Rock. Sometimes I wonder if the church is much more interested in keeping sandy testimonies in the church. I always thought Joseph Smith wasn’t afraid of wherever the truth led, but I think many church members are, because their testimonies are built on sandy foundations rather than rock.
Even if we read the Exodus as a non-literal history, there is tremendous spiritual benefit. (FWIW, I lean toward a literal though errant history.) If your faith is threatened by it, then I think you need a testimony built on rock rather than sand. Facts shouldn’t cause you to doubt your testimony, and say that non-literal (or modern understanding) “diminishes the power of God”. I think thoughtful faith helps me see God’s hand more clearly, without the myth messing up the truth. Whether Job was a real person or not should not affect our testimony, unless we have a sandy foundation.
MH:
No, you didn’t get it. I agree with Bryce #34
MH:
I will also wait for the living Prophet of the LDS Church to make changes in the Exodus story or any other Biblical story. And I don’t believe that one’s testimony is built on sand because they like and believe these Biblical stories as they are now accepted by the LDS Church.
Firetag:
What are you so defensive about? There was no attack on the CoC. Don’t you feel that the President of the CoC has more authority than the President of the LDS Church. If the preamble contained a statement from President Monson, I would expect a CoC member to say the same things that were said in #34 and #22, substituting LDS with CoC.
#38-”I will also wait for the living Prophet of the LDS Church to make changes in the Exodus story or any other Biblical story. And I don’t believe that one’s testimony is built on sand because they like and believe these Biblical stories as they are now accepted by the LDS Church.”
No need to wait.
Brigham Young——-”Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say…. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.” (Journal of Discourses 2:6).
Thanks Holden. It seems Brigham Young is not a literalist. I know that Joseph wasn’t a literalist either. I wonder why many in the church seem to embrace literalism and inerrancy when the 8th article of faith and Joseph Smith seem to imply many errors in the Bible.
“And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul…” Moses 3:7 [As revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, in Dec. 1830]
Perhaps, we will have to wait for that time when all things are revealed, for an answer to this one.
#41-the point was not who was born where or how. The point was a latter-day prophet was not a literalist when it comes to scripture. At least, in the case of Brigham Young, on October 23, 1953 speaking in the Tabernacle in SLC in his capacity of president of the church.
I’ll stick with #38
Sxark, do you honestly think that the prophet has time to give revelation on every possible scripture? Are we not supposed to study things out in our minds, and ask if it be true? You sound like a robot who can’t think for himself, and you rely too much on the prophet for every passage of scripture, IMO. We have brains, as well as the gift of the Holy Ghost–we should use these. You’re too scared to think for yourself, and think you have to rely on a prophet for every scriptural interpretation. I think you’re intellectually and spiritually lazy.
Well,.. you go right ahead, at your leizure, and put together your own version of the Exodus story and don’t forget to modify how Joshua crossed the river Jordon.
I will study things out in my mind and ask if it be true, if and when, the living Prophet receives a “revelation” that “changes” need to be made in Bible stories.
sxark, I just read AOF #8 and wonder how to interpret the statement “as far as it is translated correctly”. Who is to determine what is translated correctly, especially those areas where historians have identified errors?
Sxark, you have much in common with Oliver in D&C 9:7 “Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask [the prophet].” If only you’d do a little study and thinking, you’d probably have some real epiphanies. I’m not saying my interpretation is right–in fact I’ve been careful not to state my opinion, but rather illustrate other people’s opinions. You sound like Laman when talking in 1 Ne 15:9: “the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.” You think God only speaks to prophets and not to you.
Your unwillingness to study things out means you bring nothing to this conversation. You exhibit fear of learning the scriptures, not faith. You do not seek truth, but you “teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but [you] deny the power thereof.” [JSH 1:19]
JTJ:
I don’t believe that all the ‘mysteries’ of the scriptures will be resolved by individual members of the LDS Church. When those ‘mysteries’ rise to level where historians quible over ‘timelines’ etc., and the subject matter has an impact on our salvation, then I believe the President of the LDS Church will seek to resolve the matter, should he perceive a need to do so.
Many ‘mysteries’ will simply have to wait until that time, when all mysteries will be revealed.
In the meantime, I would follow the advice given in #34 and #22.
sxark, you will then have to excuse me if I do not follow your advice, since you really don’t offer any. Waiting for the prophet interpret who meant what, is a watered down way of saying the conversation ends and we can’t use science, history, and probability to explain our world. I would like to propose a little experiment. MH did an OK job asking some questions in post #21, but let me just ask one simple question and you try to use your best effort to identify what the most probable explanation is. Are you interested? Here it is. Why does John and Mark differ on what day was Jesus crucified, (the day of, or the day before, the passover)?
Dexter, Marx managed to kill a lot more people than the Bible can take credit for. Heck, take all the purges and inquisitions, they probably don’t match the 25 million Russians that Hitler managed to kill in WWII.
You are blinded.
Hmmm, either an event occurred or it didn’t except sometimes it is a matter of how things are read.
Noah had a flood, his grandson divided the land with others, according to their languages which differed from Noah’s, and before the Tower of Babble. You can read that a lot of different ways.
FireTag — the Black Sea did flood, and it appears to be the location for the speakers of the IndoEuropean root tongue.
Why are the Egyptians silent on the Exodus? and why do they have records of terrible defeats portrayed as victories (we know whose records are correct because of where the national boundaries are afterward).
I’ve been meaning to write about a comprehensive alternative reading of the text from the words of the text itself.
I need to find more time. /Sigh.
re 50:
Honestly Stephen, I’m not saying it was ok for people to start playing the numbers game in the first place, but when comparing numbers from the past to numbers in the present, you really can’t go in absolute terms.
The 20th century has a technological and logistical advantage in killing capacity (along with a sheer advantage in global population), so obviously, it makes sense that zealous ideologically driven organization kill more in later centuries than in earlier centuries.
I agree with you on the other aspects.
MH:
I don’t believe I have much in common with ‘Oliver’ at all.
You seem really defensive when you are challenged with a view that you don’t hold and, for the most part, is supportive of official LDS Church policy. You appear to strike out – calling people ‘weak’ in their testimonies etc. and you even suggest in your #36: “Sometimes I wonder if the Church is more interested in keeping sandy testimonies in the Church.”
I don’t even want to suggest what you ment by that statement.
JTJ:
Another reason for AOF #8 is that Joseph Smith added quite a bit of scripture concerning the Gospel of the Bible, that was either left out, or incorrectly translated.
JTJ:
I don’t know why Mark and John differ on that.
sxark,
re: 52, we have both the KJV inserted JST, and the entire JST Bible, which is not an official part of the cannon. This raises the obvious question of why we don’t use the JST Bible if we believe JS was inspired to correct it, and also, why so many errors remain in the KJV after re-translation.
re: 53 “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer to me. “I’ll wait for God or the Prophet to reveal it” is not.
#44 & #47-
MH-
Are you having a bad day? I’m suprised by your comments being to sxark.
Correction:
I’m surprised by your comments to sxark. (not comments being to sxark)
Sxark, you have a habit of saying very insensitive things, especially regarding the people of non-LDS faiths. Frankly, I’m tired of it, and I have decided to use some of your tactics against you. Now you say I’m defensive. I say it’s giving you a taste of your own medicine. It doesn’t taste very good, does it? I’ll call a unilateral cease-fire, but I encourage you to be more charitable in your disagreement. You obviously don’t like having your beliefs challenged either. You have called both me and FireTag defensive. The reason is because our your previous offenses on this and other posts.
Let’s let bygones be bygones.
Ethesis:
The Black Sea certainly did flood, but I believe there is some question whether that occurred once or twice — the first 16K years ago, and the second, larger flood 6K years ago. The suggestion for the earlier flood seems to come out of Russian studiess indicating that much of the Russian Plain was lake bottom (perhaps twice the area of the Caspian Sea as the glaciers of Western Siberia melted, but drainage to the Arctic Ocean remained blocked. Eventually, the Lake began to drain into the Med for awhile through the Black Sea route before eventually the ice opened to the North.
Something similar happened in North America with stirches between the post-glacial Great Lakes draining through the Mississippi and then switching to the St. Lawrence.
I’d really like to understand these geographical questions better to take this post from discussing the literalism of the Old Restament to what’s literal and what’s remembered but reinterpreted history in Ether. But it does give a whole new meaning to crossing many waters BEFORE the Jaredites get to the Pacific.
Jen:
I have seen this behavior from sxark directed at people other than myself on at least 5 blogs. On one of those blogs, one of the people became so incensed that he wrote a separate post about sxark referring to still other blogs I don’t even visit where sxark had done the same thing. The post was backed up with quotes.
So I simply do not engage sxark directly. I have seen too many people try to deal gently with him unsuccessfully to bother. I feel sorry for him. He has a lot of bad days.
FireTag-
Thanks for the info. I haven’t had much exposure to sxark at all, and to be fair, I was just reading the tail end of this post so that is why MH’s comments surprised me, because he doesn’t usually respond in that manner. I understand better now. Thanks again.
Firetag, love this:
sxark: “care should be taken” etc. …. yawn.
Andrew S. re:51 you know that was not the reason for floating Marx. You danced around the better response by deferring to modern weapons making mass murder easier for megalomainacs. Let’s hear your real defense of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. I know you know it.
Look Andrew is not making a case for any mass murderers. Dexter is the one in #2 who said “The fruits of the bible are bright red blood stains and charred human flesh”, as if non-religious folks never engaged in terrible tactics. Andrew was just trying to put things in perspective, so don’t jump on Andrew.
I’m not jumping on Andrew, I’m encouraging him on. I think he knows a better argument, but it can be a bit insensitive to believers, however it needs to be said, and it’s a more accurate perspective.
MH: [#57]
A unilateral cease fire? – Let bygones be bygones?
Just when I was ready to ‘unleash’ a quote from Elder Dalin H. Oaks:
“Another strength Satan can exploit is a strong desire to understand everything about every principle of the Gospel. How could that possible work to our detriment? Experience teaches that if this ‘desire’ is not ‘disciplined’, – it can cause some to pursue their searchings beyond the fringes of orthodoxy, seeking answers to obscure mysteries, – rather than seeking a firmer understanding and a better practice of the ‘basic’ principles of the Gospel.”
‘Our Strengths can become our Downfall” Elder Dalin H. Oaks, Oct. 1994.
Actually, his entire article probably affects me more than you. – So it’s a wash – and should not be considered an attack on your position.
For those interested, just go to the official LDS site and plug in ‘Gospel Hobbies’ in the search engine.
If we take “literally” what Elder Oaks says – how would this impact our ‘entire’ conduct/image on the internet? And does this statement have any impact on this blog?
Firetag:
Thanks for the accolade. I just hope that my ‘alleged quotes’ were not taken out of context in a blog ‘dedicated’ to me, myself, and I.
So, back to the original question which I am asking to all: “Do you lean for or against scriptural literalism? It seems like only Bryce and Dexter want to answer that question. I think I lean for a combination. In some stories, I lean toward a literal reading (like Joshua destroying Jericho), while other events (like the creation, or Job) are more figurative. Certainly the ancient writers did not have the same standards of literal/precision as we moderns do. Stories like Samson, Noah’s ark, or the Exodus were probably exaggerated, though I believe they literally happened. I’ve got to say I’m a little suspicious of Balaam’s talking donkey.
MH,
Thank you for your post and comments. I lean away from “literalism” for the most part. Moreover, I find that parts that may may be, unfortunately, literal have made lessons and taking the Lord’s name in vain. For example, if Joshua in fact killed every man, woman and scurrying child drug out of hiding and then had their brains dashed on rocks (well except Rahab and fellow whores) then I suspect that they were falling the asiatic tradition of sending a message/calling card to the other cities and God did NOT command them to do it–they just took God’s name in vain. In fact I see the whole OT as a work in travail (Girardian approach) between the narratives of the historians trying to justify their sins and made up religion and the prophets telling them they were full of falsehoods.
Just a quick example. Look at what Jeremiah had to say about animal sacrifice (and Isaiah and Micah had the same opinion) as to this form of blood letting being man made and not god commanded, and I quote from chapter 7 of Jeremiah:
22: For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
24: But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
Interesting post. For me the symbol/types are universal and not necessarily and often not literal—
MH:
I’ll stay with #30. There is just too much in the Bible to speculate about. And I just feel that when we attempt to explain the Bible with ‘science’ and such and come up with different, but plausible explanations for this or that event, that we ‘degrade’, somewhat, God’s hand in all things.
Why is it so easy for many to believe that Christ rose from the dead without any scientific evidence? Yet, many are quick to dismiss Noah and the flood because there is not enough scientific evidence, except for large localized floods?
And today, some theologins are questioning Christ’s crucifixion experience, on the one hand, and praise the ‘moral’ message on the other.
I look at these Bible stories thru the lens of D&C 59:21 – “And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is His wrath kindled save those who confess not His hand in all things, and obey not His commandments.”
And since ‘God’ seems to be mentioned quite often in some of these stories that others wish to change, so that they conform more to science etc., – it appears that He may be ‘angered’ if we take His ‘fingers’ out of the ‘action’, that we would dismiss, on the one hand, and praise the ‘moral’ message with the other.
Jesus came to show his people and the world what he was really like and not the made up stuff. “You have heard” or “it is written” but I am here to tell you what I am really like and not how you have taken my name in vain wholesale at times.
Much of the old testament was written centuries later well after the histories had been orally transmitted, debated and conflicting narratives fought over to JUSTIFY certain nationalistic agendas. It would be like waiting five hundred years to tell the story of God directing the armies of Israel (USA) to invade Iraq and the wonderful exploits and hand of God in the matter.
Take the near sacrifice of Isaac. Pick the correct version (Ishmael if you are Muslim, Isaac being offered if Jewish). Then pick the correct interpretation of what it all meant and when God spoke of just the voices of religion in Abraham’s head. Incidentally, I personally believe that the religion of his day was the voice Abraham heard telling him to return to human sacrifice and that when he finally had the epiphany that he should not kill humans in sacrifice is when he finally heard the real voice of God and said “I will not do it.” Then the Gods saw that Abraham finally woke up and basically told the voices of orthodox religion to “go to hell” then he became as the Gods knowing good and evil of himself and not needing authority to tell him. Just my take.
So, here is a jumbled mess called the OT. I like Veazey believe that when it becomes obviously either BS/ made up or ambiguous then use Christ’s life as the filter to judge—his words will tell us all things and the manner to judge. Brilliant. So we instead return to having to make it all fit and make up lots of justifications even as the writer/historians did in OT (all correlated, all God’s will and all literal) and we are just as guilty of falling backwards as Jeremiah, Isaiah and others told Israel they were guilty of–the more insistence on literalism the more idiotic and made up the explanations IMO.
Finally, the resurrection was literal. That is all I need to believe–all else is subject to discernment and further light and knowledge.
Ron M:
A critical element, in all of this, is the power of ‘revelation’. What does it matter if actual revelation occured and was written down 5 days or 500 years after the event. We, sometimes, forget this ‘revelation proccess’ and the actual ‘powers’
of the Sender and Receiver. All members of the LDS church have the potential to receive this ‘gift’ of revelation to various degrees.
Perhaps, as you mention, that there are these several variences in the Bible, – that it would be wise to use D&C 91 as a tool, to determine what is truth and what is not.
Since making ‘changes’ in, for example, The Exodus experience – would be of such great magnitude and have great impact on LDS members, that only the President of the LDS Church could make the change thru revelation. And I wonder, if that were to happen, what items would be taken out and what items would be left in. And would there be an explanation as to why the Exodus experience was recorded ‘incorrectly’.
I welcome truth. I look for truth where ever I can find it. I think there are many beautiful things in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. At the same time, I think this quote is beautiful. I have had amazing profound insights reading Buddha’s teachings, the Gita, the Qu’ran, etc. I have learned more about myself and my relationship with God from them than from much of the LDS literature.
Regarding the “inerrancy” of LDS teachings, while they may be “true” for the time they are given, they actually change quite a bit. At one point, polygamy was required for entrance into the highest kingdom, now it is grounds for excommunciation. At one point, women weren’t allowed to speak in sacrament meeting, now they give better talks than many of the men. At one point, blacks were cursed fence-sitters, now they are in every way equal to you and me.
So, when I hear people get on their high horse and condescendingly talk about others, it makes me quite angry. There are enough changes in our own doctrine that it is hypocritical to look down on others.
MH, your question “Do you lean for or against scriptural literalism?” is really a question for historians, and they have already answered that it is highly probable the scriptures are (for the most part) not literal. What has pervaded this post is everyone’s opinions and or beliefs (excepting your posts where actual evidence is proposed), but this is the business of the historical scientists. We can argue back and forth about the meaning of the scriptures, but if, for example, we argue whether or not Jesus literally saved the woman taken in adultery from being stoned through his famous phrase “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”, we must take into account that this story was added to the manuscripts over a thousand years after jesus lived, and is therefore highly improbable to have occurred.
JTJ,
While I agree that it is often up to historians to tell us whether an event may or may not be historical, many members have testimonies based on the literalness of an event. Some people are so engrossed into whether the Exodus (or BoM, or Creation, or whatever) is a historical event that when they discover that it might not be a literal event, they fall to pieces and decide to become an atheist. If our testimonies are wrapped around the wrong things (ie whether the Bible of BoM is literal), rather than a true testimony of Christ, then we have built our foundation on sandy soil. Then we look to a leader for our testimony, instead of holding to the iron rod and gaining that testimony for ourselves. We worship the Bible when we should be worshiping God, and indeed we are missing the mark. Whether an event literally happened or not is not the point of the Bible. The point of the Bible is to worship God, and follow him. If our testimonies will fall apart when we find out the Exodus never happened, we never had a real testimony in the first place. While literal events can help us learn, often the symbols are more powerful. I think that’s why the temple ceremony is more symbolic than literal–because the symbolism is more powerful than the literalism.
MH:
From your comments to me here, I can see that if one disagrees with you then they must have their testimonies wrapped around the wrong things [ie whether the Bible or BoM is literal] and their testimonies are on sandy soil.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
Take, for example, a side story of Exodus: Moses and Aaron meet Pharaoh and his priests. Moses throws down his staff and his staff turns into a snake. Pharaoh snickers and commands his two priests to do the same with their staffs. The 3 snakes fight and it is seen by all, that the snake of Moses eats the 2 snakes of Pharaoh.
There is not much of a problem for believers that Moses could turn his staff into a snake – for where are the ‘limits’ as to what the ‘God’ of Moses can or cannot do? The great question remaining is – How did Pharaoh’s priests turn their staffs into snakes?
Those who foster an ‘errant’ viewpoint of the scriptures don’t like this side story and just scoff at the last question. and if they have their way, this side story, goes out the window.
Lest we forget, we in the last days have not yet seen the full powers of Satan. The powers of Satan will again manifest themself as in the days of Moses and Pharaoh.
You are correct in one area. As science progresses, some will loose their testimonies. [I'm only interpreting]
What I do not understand from you [since you claim to be active LDS] is why do you appear to be in disagreement with #38, 45, & 48?
Sxark, you are a literalist, I am not. We see this issue differently. I don’t believe that one should naturally lose their testimony when their literal beliefs break down and they embrace science. I think this is a major problem with literalistic thinking. You think science and religion naturally oppose each other. It doesn’t have to be that way, and I think science and religion are compatible, but it requires a more open approach to both subjects. For the record, I do believe you have your testimony wrapped around the wrong things, but I don’t want to engage you any more. I’m not interested in a conversation with you anymore because you are very close minded. We both think we are right here. I’ve been more aggressive promoting my position in this post than normal, because you don’t allow others to tactfully disagree with you. You’re welcome to your beliefs, and I’ll be happy to engage others here.
#74: sxark
None of us are literalists when it comes to the Bible and science – we just differ in degree.
The Bible plainly teaches that the earth has 4 corners. Many people interpreted this to mean it was flat for millennia. As science progressed, we realized that that wasn’t literal. We all survived with our faith in God intact.
Many people also interpreted the Bible to mean that the earth was the center of the universe, that man was God’s crowning creation, and that it had to be so. It started in the centuries around Galileo, but today it is fairly universally accepted that the earth is a round speak in a vast universe. And as opposed to destroying my faith in the Bible and God, I am actually profoundly affected by how vast our universe really is.
So, if you accept that we live on a round world in a vast universe, you already have shown your willingness to accept that some things in the Bible are literal and some things are not. At that point, it’s just a matter of degree. You choose to accept certain things as literal. Other people interpret the same writings as figurative.
In reality, I think there is actually more of a problem with being overly literal than the converse. I believe in God and Christ, and I accept the Bible (and all other scriptures) as holy books containing truth. I also accept that they are written by men with opinions and beliefs that are influenced by their society (much like Bruce R McConkie who I also accept as an apostle), and therefore may not have 100% correct interpretations of things or may use symbolism. Therefore, when science reveals truth that may conflict with something in the Bible, I really don’t have a problem reconciling that as it is just one more thing that has been shown not to be literal (much like a round earth). My testimony can remain intact.
Insisting on too literal of an interpretation, however, can be problematic. If someone insists that scriptures are absolutely literal, and it conflicts with an increasing number of observations that suggest the opposite, the only two options in that mind-set are to either insist that the science is wrong (ie. tool of the devil to cloud men’s mind) or to throw our the scriptures.
I have allways maintained that science is but a mere ‘tool’ of religion and that we will learn the true nature of science during the millennium.
Today, science still has ‘issues’ with religion. Many believers in religion ‘know’ that God exists and that He can travel faster than the speed of light. Well,..science has a conflict with that.
If someone says to me, that based on what I have said here and on other blogs, that I have my testimony wrapped around the wrong things, then I would say that person does not know what testimony is. However, that person may have their own testimony of the truthfullness of things and I would never presume to suggest that it’s based on a sandy foundation.
I have been sandbagged [sucker punched] on this post by Mormon Heretic and Firetag by their statements concerning my style of blogging elsewhere, that have not been verified. However, it may be true that my style may be different, – but MH and FT were way too defensive.
I’m suggesting that MH and Firetag were ‘taken aback’ by #22 & #25. To think that someone had the audacity to suggest that President Veazey’s statement should be analyzed in the same light as one would examine the Apocrypha, using D&C 91 as a guide, was just too much – and from that ‘sxark’, of all people.
MH wasn’t wasn’t trying to use my tactics against me, as he suggests in #57. He was just mad. Attacking my testimony, claiming it’s based on sand, and comparing me with Oliver Cowdery etc.
Sorry MH, that’s just not my M.O. – I don’t use those tactics.
Finally, – no comments on Dalin Oaks statement in #65? And what about #68?
Perhaps, at this point in time, #68 comes under the umbrella of ‘closed mindedness’.
sxark, I think many of us have been taken aback by your inability to respectfully discuss this subject, as well as your relentless dogmatism. The purpose of this post was to discuss literalism, non-literalism, and to which direction we each may lean.
You want people to address #65 regarding Elder Oaks. I will address it to the extent that I, personally, will always view with skepticism any advice to not vigorously reasearch anything that I am profoundly involved in! I have promised to consecrate all I have to this church. That, IMO, REQUIRES me to learn all I can, seek all truth I can find, and KNOW MY OWN RELIGION! If that search leads me to the “fringes of orthodoxy”, so be it.
I think we all have a full understanding of your literalism. If that works for you, great. But please stop casting aspersions at those who feel differently. IMO, MH was beyond gracious for most of this thread. But as your demeanor became belligerant, he tried to turn it back on you.
The tenor of this thread is exactly what frightens me about excessive literalism and orthodoxy; they lead to dogmatism. Dogmatism leads us away from faith and the ability to be led by the spirit and to think for ourselves.
I believe that our scriptures contain both literal facts and non-literal truths. Thank goodness for that! If I want to read all “facts” I will just pick up my daughter’s calculus book. This combination of literal and non-literal requires me to think for myself, ponder what I read, and pray for guidance. I might even be lucky enough to receive a little personal revelation now and again……
pinkpatient:
I guess you can’t detect the ‘relentless dogmatism’ of MH, when he attacks others, who don’t agree with him. And I don’t believe that I’m the one who is ‘casting asperations’. I brought up reasonable questions and didn’t attack anyone.
If you think your ‘frightened’ now about, what you call, excessive literalism and orthodoxy, just wait for the time when it will be ‘illegal’ to have a literal interpretation of scriptures.
Thanks, sxark, for giving me hope for the future.
Being open to a variety of options is pretty much the OPPOSITE of dogmatic. I have found MH to be one who is open to a variety of options.
I am not sure what you mean about “illegal to have a literal interpretation of the scriptures”. No one here has suggested that you don’t have a right to your own interpretations.
I wish you well.
brjones:
But,…what else will be illegal?
pinkpatient:
I’m not really sure that we could live and see that time when it would be illegal. But who knows what it will be like living under the rule of the ‘Anti-Christ?’
Are you referring to Cheney?
However, any references to an ‘Anti-Christ’ in the scriptures would probably be removed by the ‘Academy of Theological Errantcy’ because its negative connotations is not condusive to the ‘New World Order’.
#82 – just kidding sxark.
But 1st, – we have to survive 2012.
sxark:
A few quotes from the Bible:
“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”
“The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises”
“And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH”
There are many other scriptures that, if interpreted literally, suggest the earth is flat, with corners, and doesn’t move, while the rest of the universe moves around it. This was, in fact, the interpretation of them for thousands of years.
So my simple questions for you:
- Do you believe these literally (that the earth is flat and fixed in space), or can the Bible be symbolic when talking about “scientific” things?
- And if you believe these aren’t literal, who decides what other things are literal (ie. flood, 6-day creation, etc.)? You, me, random people on this blog, leaders of our church or any other church? And when Brigham Young talks about the inhabitants of the sun and missionaries on the moon, how do we know which interpretations of what is literal and what is not literal are actually true?
- Finally, do you think it possible that if God were to reveal scientific truth to the earth in the last days, when all knowledge will become available, that He might reveal it through scientists and not Church leaders? Even if, just like with the flat earth and other things, it might require us to reinterpret views of the Bible that have been around for thousands of years.
MH,
re: 73, what if you substituted Greek oral tradition for Bible & BOM, and Zeus for Christ in your sentence, “If our testimonies are wrapped around the wrong things (ie whether the Bible of BoM is literal), rather than a true testimony of Christ, then we have built our foundation on sandy soil.” you can see how erroneous that statement is and how dangerous of a position it is to discard literal events or natural explanations. We can’t use science, probability, and rationality in every other facet of life and not with respect to spirituality. Our testimonies MUST be tied to the literalness or reality of an event. This is how people know to discard unfounded beliefs like Scientology, Paganism, Astrology, or any of the other 500 dead religions in addition to inaccurate beliefs in things like people living on the moon.
Mike S:
I believe in the 13 Articles of Faith of the LDS Church and what I wrote in #68.
In #29, MH asked for my opinion on the Exodus story – whether it was errant or literal.
I take it as ‘generally’ literal. Especially, since reading it recently due to an interesting segment on the History channel concerning Moses and new theories as to where the Red sea was ‘parted’.
If there is to be ‘chunks’ of Bible stories relegated to the status of ‘fables’, I say that it will be up to a living President of the LDS Church to receive a revelation to that effect. And then I will consider the truthfullness of the revelation.
What is most amazing to me, is that some theologins, today, actually question Christ’s crucifixion and rising from the dead, but celebrate the great moral messages of Jesus.
LDS prophets are not infallible and the membership has to confirm any revelations they might have. LDS prophets are also free to express their ‘opinions’ on a matter and the membership are responsible to confirm ‘opinions’ – if they wish.
A good ‘test’ for all LDS members, should they hold the ‘errant’ viewpoint, is to frequently bring up their veiwpoints in Priesthood, Relief Society, and Sunday School meetings – with humility, of course.
Actually – forget that. That’s not a good test.
My #77 answers your science question.
jtj, you make an excellent point. certainly there are some events we must take as literal. that is part of the reason I asked which way a person leans. i’m not advocating that we move to a position like dexter where we believe the bible is complete myth, but even still, I think there can be some considerable leeway.
for example, I did a post a month or so ago asking what if Christ’s bones were found. now my personal belief is the he was resurrected. but if it were proven to be his bones, then we would have to re-evaluate the resurrection story. some literalists would fall apart at such a notion, but as simcha jacobovici said, such a finding would also prove Christ was a real person.
Christ, Himself, would have to appear and say: “Yes,…those are my bones”, before I could believe that. No scientist or President of the LDS Church would convince me otherwise.
spoken like a true literalist. and in the face of overwhelming science I expect you would lose your testimony if the prophet disagreed with your literalist viewpoint.
read #92 again.
re 62:
What JTJ? Poor ideologies + more people + better technology = more deaths than poor ideology + less people + worse technology. This is pretty standard. I’m not making a defense. In fact, I don’t have to defend. I’m making a realistic accounting of things.
The fact is you have fanatics everywhere. This is as insensitive to non-God-based fanatics as well as God-based fanatics. Regardless of the brand of fanaticism, beware those with better guns.
Re MH throughout the conversation:
MH, don’t let this guy get you. We *know* from elsewhere that sxark is a paper tiger. He has been shut down several times elsewhere, and he knows it. He is a liar to deny it, to say that he has been taken out of context. He does not know the scripture or the gospel, doesn’t seek for further understanding, and doesn’t seek to live it. In this way, he is further away from these things than even many of the apostates who visit this site or elsewhere, because he is blind to his ignorance…He tries to point out the mote in others eyes, and misses the beam in his. Oh, how unfortunate it will be if he meets his maker, as he so often points up, cries out all that he has done in the vineyard (as he often points up as well), but Christ says, “I never knew thee.”
Now, back on topic, I could say I’m a non-literalist to a certain extent, but sometimes, it’s tough. Some scenarios are meant to be literal, and it is to stretch them out to take them nonliterally. I can take leeway with which of these are or which of these aren’t (so Adam and Eve? Probably not literal, even if some would argue it is to be taken literally. Saul’s experience to become Paul? Probably meant to be taken literally, even if it is counterfactual. It loses meaning if one ascribes it merely allegorical status.)
Now, THAT being said, that’s very important. When I say I am literalist or non-literalist, i think that gives a measure for evaluating…not the conclusion from evaluating. So, if Jesus’s resurrection is literalist, then that doesn’t mean I believe it actually happened, but rather that if you believe, you should believe it based on its actual occurrence. If it did not happen, you should not take something like this on ‘allegory.’
no, you’re right andrew. we can’t take all of these events as allegorical. in the previous post on Christ’s bones I pointed out a few different ways to view Christ’s resurrection that we would not have considered which could still make the resurrection real but in a different manner than traditional thought on the subject.
I have never been shut down – there have been cowards that refused to post my comments – but that’ it.
I have done very little in the vineyard – which I have made clear – several times.
It seems that some here are ‘losing their touch’ – they don’t read as well as they used to. I can’t believe how many times I’ve been misquoted. Take #93, for example, – Is that a real answer to #92?
I’m not important enough for everyone to verify that what is said about me – is not true. Who wants to do all that reading?
It’s much easier for critic’s to say anything. After all, no one will check. And if the critics say it long enough and loud enough, those that they wish to influence, will start to believe. – For, who has the time to check?
re 97:
I do believe it was you who ran away from Irresistible (Dis)Grace; this is a fact and anyone can check for themselves. All of your comments were posted; they were simply shown to be inadequate and they were summarily shut down.
I encourage everyone to read that one, in particular, from begining to end. “What does not bother me about Mormons etc” at Irresistible [Dis]Grace.
Andrew S. The classic argument against non-belief is the death count. Marx is one of the classic examples of non-belief, and therefore the statement “Marx managed to kill a lot more people than the Bible can take credit for”, is the incorrect analogy of non-belief causing violence. As many have proposed, the regimes of Pol Pot, Hitler, and even modern day N. Korea are not examples of an abundance of reason and scientific inquiry, but what happens when megalomanic regimes resemble religions.
sxark:
I’d continue this “discussion” with you, but see it’s pointless. I hope you don’t travel much so you don’t fall off the edge of the earth.
Mike S
I guess you didn’t understand #90.
re 100:
I understand, JTJ. As I clarified (probably hitting on the point you wanted), fanaticism [of which non-belief, BY DEFAULT, cannot be fanatical. I guarantee every time someone THINKS an atheist is being fanatical, it's not because of their *lack of belief* in gods but because of some belief in something else] for poor ideologies will lead to deaths. More technology will lead to more death.
Poor ideologies are an expected constant…seeing as we don’t have some satellite relaying truth to people. We’re just stumbling in the dark.
Andrew S. – Precisely.
“Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge and discernment must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God.”
I like this scripture.
Which, by the way, is Section 163:7d rather than Section 163:70. There’s a typo in the OP.
RE: #105
“Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge and discernment must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God.”
Sounds like the Anglican triad of scripture, reason and tradition as the basis for judging spiritual truth. And along with that the Episcopalian tradition of not having to check your brain at the door.
Firetag,
Is that section available for online reading? Would be nice to read it in the context of the revelation.
I found it at http://www.cofchrist.org/D&C163/section163.asp
If I wrote a book like Natural Born Killers and it inspired people to commit terrible acts I would feel awful, despite the fact that the book would have clearly been fiction and any one who acted based on its contents would have done so of their own free will. I would imagine some of you would be disgusted if I described in detail horrible acts of torture that others carried out. But when it comes to the Bible, there is no doubt that men have used portions of it to carry out awful deeds for hundreds of years. And this book is not clearly fiction, but is hailed as the word of god. But in that case, god has no fault? The book teaches that the death penalty applies to anyone who worships graven images, or takes the lord’s name in vain, or doesn’t honor his parents. It also endorses genocide and slavery. But it is the “good” book? That is the worst name I have ever heard for it.
To me, the bible is clearly fiction, but it is described by its fans as true. This is a shame.
Dexter, your hyperbole is a shame.
I can understand why some like Dexter would feel that way even if “hyperbole” is use to make a point. But for perspective sake, hyperbole is just a manner of expression and could be overdone, but “shameful”? Heck, shameful I would reserve for shoving a grandma out of the way so that I can get ahead of her in line or maybe shameful to murder all the inhabitants of a city (except the prostitutes) and call it God’s command There are parts of the bible that are IMO indefensible and if that is the real God and not just murderers and plunderers taking His name in vain in some part such as the invasion of Palestine by Joshua and his army, then I could see why someone would not see the OT as GOOD.
But for me the OT is a text in TRAVAIL–borrowing a Girardian term. In other words, the Bible has competing narratives. One is a non christian/ us against them narrative that attempts to justify all sorts of evil, while the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and others are condemning Israel’s narrative/fictional self justifying in brutal terms—maybe as inflammatory to Israel then as Dexter is to us in his post. I do disagree with Dexter in that I think the OT is a book that has the words of Holy, inspired prophets that are condemning the nonsense that Israel is trying to pass off as the will of God.
The Word of God is 100% truthful. There are stories in there that may be just stories (ie:parables), but storied like those of the flood are true. How can one believe certain parts of God’s word yet not believe other parts. Here’s my point: You either believe it or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose which parts you’re going to believe. Even the parts in the OT are to be used for guidance. No I don’t believe in following the law. Jesus fulfilled the law. Do I believe that everything in the OT is to be used for doctrine, of course not; however, it cannot be discounted simply because it’s the OT. I believe that ALL scripture is given of God. Yes, I’m one of “those” Christians.
For Dexter: It’s a fallacy for you discount the Word of God simply because humans choose to use their free will to use it inaccurately. There are those in this world, both past and present, who will use any means necessary to justify their behavior. It is that individual’s fault, NOT the Word of God. That’s likened to blaming my son for my actions. People have a free will. What they do with it is the issue.
There is a struggle and conflict as to accuracy even within the text of the OT. Jeremiah tells Israel that God did not command them to engage in animal sacrifice
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
24: But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
25: Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them:
26: Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.
But they did it anyway and called it god’s will. The prophets are contending with Israel’s stories/ fables/ made up religious narratives and the OT is a struggle in how to define the nature of God accurately==what He really is like or is NOT like. That is why the Lord when he came to earth kept saying “it is written of old” or “is it said of old” such and such but I am here to tell you what I am really like and not what you imagined I was like in your errant, yes errant interpretation of my will in your scriptures…
All scripture is and has been filtered through men and subject to error–the writers of the BOM recognize that reality–:”faults of men”. They are approximations. The Lord said Isaiah came the closest and so check out Chapter 1 of Isaiah and see how condemning the Lord is in Isaiah’s time of their religion/rituals based on the OT.
Ron, I don’t know if you follow Dexter’s comments here, but he has a real habit of grossly exaggerating his point of view to make a point. He does not believe in moderation to post his point of view. He is an extreme antagonist of religion in general, Mormonism specifically.
Deedee, “You can’t pick and choose which parts you’re going to believe. “ Why not? Are you forcing people to accept your point of view?
Ron, I don’t think it is animal sacrifice Jeremiah is referring to there–it’s human sacrifice. That was a real problem in the days of Jeremiah.
Rigel:
MH’s link is correct. In general, the Community of Christ has no online Scriptures except the most recent. However, some of the splinter RLDS groups do (go figure), so if you google “Doctrine and Covenants Section” with any section number too high to be LDS (like 152), you’ll get to a copy of Sections for the last 40-50 years rather quickly.
Ron M.
Your notion of a text in travail is correct, IMO, and perhaps in even a deeper sense than you mean. We learn from the prophets that God’s goals are, but in the OT we often don’t get guidance about what the effective means are.
Look up at the thread discussing the Word of Wisdom and animal cruelty above. Notice how difficult it is, even when people agree on the goal, to figure out what course of action is actually morally right — even when the question is as simple as how many animals die and how much animal suffering is there depending on whether we eat meat or broccoli.
What was the way to establish Israel with minimum Canannite suffering? Was establishing Israel a good strategy for minimizing human suffering over history? We hope, in faith, that it was, but we try to learn by considering the moral issues in depth.
For me, I’d be very interested in knowing what Joshua was feeling the night after his battles. It would tell me a lot more about evaluating the morality of his tactics and how tuned in he was to the spirit of God.
#116, MH you may be correct as to what Jeremiah was referring to, but I think Isaiah chapter 1 does include all Israel’s rituals including animal sacrifices. Good point and I appreciate your comments
#118. I see your point and coming to know God and His ways is a process. I think the Pres. Veazey is correct if I understand him in some of his writings that we should evaluate all scriptures through a Christ-centric approach, ie, we look at how He sees the world and how he approaches issues and then use His words and life as a template to judge. For example, does he engage in “the ends justify the means”? Not in my opinion. He is rather the means is everything even unto death we do not resist evil lest we begin to become as the evil we deplore–mimetic nature of resistance is that we begin to emulate the very thing we deplore when we resist of seek to kill it (Rene Girard). So for me the conquest of paradise is directly contrary to the Christ revealed in the meridian of time..IMO and therefore makes the very means to seek an end suspect in ascribing it to GOD IMO…
Ron M:
I see your point, too. The “conquest of paradise” is indeed a booby trap within a booby trap. That is a very strong argument for pacifism as a general Christian principle. However, while I am in total agreement with the notion that we must look to Jesus to chart our course, my problem lies in realizing that during most of the situations depicted in the NEW Testament, the major Christian positions toward military violence (i.e., pacifism, just war, and Christian realism) ALL predict that Jesus should behave non-violently because violence can achieve nothing against Rome in that era.
So to hold strictly to the pacifist position as the explanation of what Jesus wants in general situations, I have to discount some NT scriptures, as well as some revelations from the D&C, and a lot of situations in the BofM and OT. Pacifism certainly has a lot going for it in the argument, but so do the other positions.
To me, I try to look to situations where I’m more confident that only the divine and not self-serving human sin is involved before I conclude that God/Jesus is inherently non-violent.
On my blog heading I have a picture taken by the Chandra telescope of something going on right now. As I explain in the ABOUT: The Fire Still Burning page there, the picture shows planets being destroyed by the thousands. What God/Jesus is doing that? Not, obviously, a non-violent one.
So I hold to Christian realism, and recognize that all of the “travail” issues you raise are STILL in effect as we try to hear what is right.
When it comes to evolution there are four possible views:
1 Young-earth creationists assert that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and that all species were unchangeably created at that time by the direct action of God.
2 Old-earth creationists reject natural selection as an explanation of biological species, but they do accept the age of the earth as established by scientific techniques such as radiometric dating. In this view, each “day” described in Genesis was a long time.
3 Theistic evolution is a common Christian view. In this view, evolution was the method of divine creation. (This is the official view of the Catholic church, for example.)
4 Materialists believe that evolution is solely a natural physical process. A difference between the materialist view and theistic evolution is whether the outcome of natural selection was foreordained. Materialists reject the idea that natural selection is aimed at a predetermined goal.
I’m guessing that very conservative Mormons are young-earth creationists and that “liberal” Mormons believe in theistic evolution. It would interesting to know what proportion of the LDS population falls into each of these buckets.
If you search YouTube for “Darwin’s Legacy Stanford” you’ll find a series of useful lectures on evolution. Lecture 2 is especially relevant to this thread.
A world-wide flood that would cover mountains up to 20,000 feet would require something like 2 billion cubic MILES of water. that is a lot of water…. In addition, the ark, a relatively small boat in comparison with ships of today, could in no way hold representatives of all of the animals that were living then. I look to the scriptures for the *why* of things pertaining to the earth, and I look to science for the *how* of those things.
I used no hyperbole. I did not exaggerate. Where do you get those claims? If you think I was using hyperbole you are grossly ignorant of history.
And mh, why do you resort to labeling me? Comment on my post on this topic, not my history of making brilliant posts on various topics.
If the scriptures are unreliable on the ‘how’s, why do we believe they are any more reliable on the ‘why’s?
Dexter, please. If you don’t see your own hyperbole, then you are not as smart as I thought. Honestly, who in their right mind would honestly try to compare Natural Born Killers to the Bible? If you were a theologian or a philosopher, or even a grad student studying this stuff, you’d be kicked out of school for a ridiculous comment like that. Please. If you think that is not hyperbole, then you are clearly deluded, and I have nothing further to say to you. You are ridiculous.
MH and Dexter. Remember what Thumper’s mother said.
#26–I hate it when people quote Shakespeare. I had to google it.
Mh, you obviously misunderstood my initial post. Read it again before commenting further. Thanks.
I read it, and I will restate my reaction. “If you were a theologian or a philosopher, or even a grad student studying this stuff, you’d be kicked out of school for a ridiculous comment like that.”
Natural Born Killers wishes it could be as gory and murderous as the Old Testament. That’s not hyperbole, that’s simply an observation.
#114 – It’s also a fallacy to characterize many of the atrocities done in the name of the bible as simply people using their free agency in an unrighteous way. It’s tough to make a case that someone who stones a heretic to death is unrighteously interpreting the bible when the bible says clearly that heretics should be stoned to death. Your analogy about being held responsible for your child’s actions would be more appropriate if you wrote a how-to manual for your son on how to kill someone and then told him who to kill, and then he did it. In that instance it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be held largely accountable for his actions, and you would be. The Old Testament contains some of the most vicious, hateful, violent anecdotes, not to mention explicit instructions ever put in print. As Dexter pointed out, the real difference between the bible and a grotesque piece of fiction (apart from the relative mildness of the work of fiction) is that a work of fiction generally doesn’t purport to pass itself off as based in fact, nor does it explicitly command human beings to follow its instructions. The bible does both, which makes it exponentially more dangerous than any work of fiction ever has been or ever could be.
MH, your ignorance grows by the comment.
First of all, since when is being a theologian or philosopher or grad student the measuring stick for intelligent discussion? It means nothing.
Further, most graduate programs encourage independent and original thought. To say I would be kicked out for having this opinion is strange and untrue.
I can’t help you if you cannot understand plain English. You need to have someone translate my comment because you are still failing to grasp it.
brjones:
“As Dexter pointed out, the real difference between the bible and a grotesque piece of fiction (apart from the relative mildness of the work of fiction) is that a work of fiction generally doesn’t purport to pass itself off as based in fact, nor does it explicitly command human beings to follow its instructions. The bible does both, which makes it exponentially more dangerous than any work of fiction ever has been or ever could be.”
A minor point. The Bible doesn’t do anything. It’s a thing. People who read and interpret it and use is as an excuse for action are the ones that should be blamed or praised as the case may be. Things like loving and caring for their neighbor, caring for the widow and orphan, visiting the sick, helping for the poor are actions justified by the Bible but they seem to be absent in the discussion. Maybe it’s because those in this discussion chose to see the Bible through their own lens to the exclusion of anything to the contrary, something they see to be happy to blame others for. Those in this discussion have expressed all possibilities as to whether or not the Bible is inerrant or open to interpretation but now it seems that the discussion has become dangerously close to casting aspersions on the other person’s mother. Sometimes when a civil response is not possible, just ignoring the other person is good enough.
Holden, to not recognize the most widely quoted line by a mother from a movie shows your relative youth. Ah to be young.
#132 – I’m not really sure what the point was about the mother. Did someone insult someone else’s mother?
I agree with you that the bible can be interpreted in any way the reader chooses, and I will readily accede that there are many good exhortations in the bible as well. I do, though, think it is a little disingenuous to take the position that the bible is essentially a neutral book and that those who have done evil in its name are no different than those who would do evil in the name of, say, the phonebook. At some point, there has to be a concession that there are some awful things in the bible which have, at the very least, indirectly encouraged individuals to do some very bad things. That is obviously to say nothing of the many bad things that have been done in the name of other books, people, religions, movements and beliefs. I only bring this up with respect to the bible because that’s the book we’re discussing. I think you must also concede that it’s inconsistent to praise the bible as the source of so much good feeling and behavior in the world while completely divorcing from it any of the bad things that have been done explicitly in its name. Obviously it goes both ways.
My point about Natural Born Killers was totally missed by MH.
The point was not that NBK is like the Bible. The point is, if I authored NBK, and even if I put a dislcaimer at the beginning warning all readers not to try any of this at home and that it was pure fiction, if I later learned that people were inspired by it and did terrible things because of it, I would feel awful.
The bible has no disclaimer. There is no warning not to do what is done in the book. There is no statement that this it is fiction. In fact, it is claimed that not only is it “the good book” but it is also TRUE, and INSPIRED, that following its teachings will increase the reader’s chances of getting to heaven and that it is authored by god himself. Wow. The effects of this book should be pretty great, right? Well, history shows that while many people may have been motivated to live better lives by reading the bible, we know for certain that hundreds of thousands (at least) have been tortured and killed based on this good book. And you expect me to believe that the author (god) feels no remorse for that, and that god feels no need to set the record straight? It is inconceivable to me. He is more merciful than me, right? But I would feel bad about my stupid little book but he would sit on his throne in the heavens while his book is used to burn people? I THINK NOT!
Now, before you all say that because of free agency god would let horrible things be done in his name and in the name of this wonderful book, let me take it a step further. I do not believe god sits idly by while people use the bible to hurt others. How could anyone believe that god made a book that is so poorly written? It contradicts itself, and it has many passages which could be easily construed to mean that slavery is acceptable and people should be killed for taking the lord’s name in vain and for not honoring your parents. If god wrote it, I’m not interested in knowing such a god. If he didn’t write it, which is what I believe, then its just another book written by men.
brjones:
“Obviously it goes both ways”
No argument there.
Dexter:
“If god wrote it, I’m not interested in knowing such a god. If he didn’t write it, which is what I believe, then its just another book written by men.”
I think this time I got it. Actually, I got it five times ago but I’m being sarcastic
That being said it’s time to move on. No new points are being scored or made. Have a good evening.
Dexter, if as you said in 111, “the bible is clearly fiction”, then none of the atrocities happened. They’re just misguided stories about God. Jesus and Moses never lived, never told us to love one another, never commanded atrocities, etc. I’m sorry the writers never included the disclaimer as you think should be there. I guess the legal system in 600 BC wasn’t smart enough to predict the myriad of lawyers that require disclaimers as you mention.
You’re welcome to your opinion. I believe your comment is clearly designed as an inflammatory comment, and bears no resemblance to rational thought. If you haven’t noticed by now, I usually try to quote well-respected people to comment on religion here at Mormon Matters. These include Pres Veazey, Fawn Brodie, Richard Bushman, Richard Van Wagoner, John Dominic Crossan, John Hamer, Margaret Young, Rabbi David Wolpe and a multitude of other people who give thoughtful responses to religious topics–both liberal and conservative. If you want to give an opinion that wouldn’t be viewed as an intelligent response by any of the people I mentioned above, you are welcome to do it, but you’re also showing that you’re at best thoughtless in your comments, at worst, unintelligent. I strive for thoughtful communication, not inflammatory comments. I dare you to find a well-respected person who thinks your Natural Born Killers comment is an intelligent comment. It is ridiculous.
Now, to brjones comment. Yes, there are some terrible things in the Bible purportedly in the name of God. I have condemned these in the past. There are also some wonderful sermons. I try to follow these. Many of these sermons are worth emulating, whether they are literal or not. Whether these sermons are literal or not, clearly “love thy neighbor” is something that is a timeless, inspired universal truth. If Jesus was literal figure or a myth, certainly this is a valuable admonition that we should all try to practice.
D&C 8:3
In looking over the comments here I think much of the issue has to do with whether or not “true” and “fact” mean exactly the same thing. If one sees the two as identical, then there are only two options: the Bible and other Holy Writ are either factual and true or nonfactual and untrue. There can be no middle ground. If, however, “fact” and “true” do not mean exactly the same thing, then a few more options present themselves: something might be factual, non factual, or a mix and still be true. (They could also be false.) Of course this makes the question, “What is truth?” a bit harder to define than simply asking whether something happened or not. I find this last situation to be something that sometimes makes people very nervous. It seems to them that questioning the meaning of truth is just playing into Satan’s strategy. For others it is a necessary part of being faithful. Put the two groups in the same room and the results are often not very pretty.
In another vein of thought, one of the basic rules of biblical interpretation is to ask, “What kind of literature am I looking at?” The Bible is a collection of writings and most folks know better than to interpret the poetry of Psalms in the same way they would interpret a theological essay like Romans. Where things get a bit more dicey is when a passage isn’t quite so clearly marked as to its genre. Jonah, for example, might be a record of a sacred event or it might be a sacred work of fiction. There really is no way to tell for certain, though many will feel quite certain that they do.
One question that I personally ask myself when confronted with such stories is, “If I saw this story in someone else’s sacred writings, how would I interpret it?” I find this approach keeps me a bit more intellectually honest and a bit more open to the beliefs of others. I would add that it is also one of the reasons that I respect the Book of Mormon and LDS teachings, even though I am not a member of either the LDS or C of C. Were I to simply run your ideas through the buzz saw of rationalistic thinking while claiming special revelatory privilege for my own beliefs I would doubtless feel superior–and at that point would be light years from the teachings of Christ, to say nothing of missing out on the wisdom contained in your religion and the kindness it produces in so many of its adherents.
I hope that people of faith, be they literalists, non-literalists, or quasi-literalists, can grasp the wisdom of these words of Wordsworth, “He who feels contempt for any living thing hath faculties that he hath never used, and thought with him is in its infancy.” Or as a LDS bishop friend of mine put it, “Christ is not the author of contention.”
David, I really appreciate your perspective. You should post more often! (I loved your 3rd paragraph.)
GBSmith, your comment was boring and pointless.
MH, you can have your fawn brodies and bushmans. I’ll take Einstein any day of the week. He believed the bible was childish superstition. So do I. But you are mr. intelligent bc you are able to take the good and disregard the bad? Give me a break.
My comment was more rational and intelligent than anything you have said. You seem to get angry and lose your ability to think coherently because of the words natural born killers. Relax, dude. The point remains, no omniscient, omnipotent, loving god would write such a childish book full of superstitions. And if you disagree, take it up with Albert Einstein and hundreds of other intellectual giants, who all dwarf your sad little list of mormon scholars.
And I don’t see why I am being lumped into some dirty corner when Brjones and I completely agree. Why I am being attacked while he is praised is beyone me.
#141 – I’m not sure where anyone was praising me, but I do think it’s fair to say that I generally agree with Dexter on this issue. MH, is your main problem that Dexter used an analogy that is offensive to you? The fact that a comment is intended to be inflammatory does not mean it cannot also be rational. You’re obviously bothered by what you perceive to be extreme tactics by Dexter to make his points. That said, I think his underlying question is valid. Ignoring for a moment whether it is intended to be literal or figurative in nature, I think it’s a compelling question to consider whether the book, when the good is weighed against the bad, comes out as an overall positive book. If someone were to write a book that contained a certain amount of vile anecdotes in addition to instructions of how to live one’s life which were socially unacceptable, but that also contained a number of wholesome and uplifting stories and exhortations to treat people with kindness and be a good person, I think most of us would agree that that book should be put to some serious criticism before it was roundly praised as an overall wonderful book. Somehow the bible seems to be immune from such criticism by those who adhere to its religion. Instead of a critical analysis of its content there is more often a tepid acknowledgement that, sure there is “also some bad stuff,” or a weak condemntation of the things that don’t comport with Jesus’s teachings in the New Testament while simultaneously praising it as an overall wonderful work. If someone were to add an appendix to Marx’s Communist Manifesto praising capitalism, democracy and western culture, I sincerely doubt that most reasonable westerners would suddenly add it to their recommended reading lists or conclude that, on the whole, its message is. What’s the difference?
My point is not to say no one should read the bible or even to say that it is ultimately a bad book. I just don’t understand why it essentially gets a pass on all its offensive content.
Dexter, I think the reason you’re getting lumped is that pretty much all your posts/comments are the same, not just for this topic but for everything. They have the same content and tone and over time become more and more irritating and inflammatory. The tone of the discussion is distorted and any civility is lost. I remember Ray, blessed be his name, once said to the effect that it was best to not encourage you and as I’ve observed your posts over the last year, I have to agree. You’ve managed to turn this and about every discussion you’re in to an e-mail fight and I for one wish you’d stop. One of the things that I’ve appreciated about MM is the willingness for people to be reasonable and civil and you’re not. If you have something to contribute that you’ve not already stated over and over, I’d be happy to read it otherwise, give it a rest.
Did you really say “blessed be his name”?
My goodness.
I love how someone who disagrees with the mormon way of thinking is therefore irritating and inflammatory and wrong. Talk about irrational.
And I love how faithful members can continually say things like, “I know it is true bc God blessed me with this knowledge” and that “those who haven’t been blessed with this knowledge haven’t had enough faith” and other offensive and arrogant things.
But if I disagree on something, I am intolerant and uncivil. I have never once said “I know” that the bible is not true. I have never once said “I know” that joseph smith was not a prophet. I don’t use ridiculous “I know” comments because I am open minded enough to realize that many possibilities exist and that some things are unknowable. And why is it that everyone is more concerned with tone than the actual logical arguments?
Many of you are unable to set tone apart from what is actually being said. Brjones said “Natural Born Killers wishes it could be as gory and murderous as the Old Testament. That’s not hyperbole, that’s simply an observation.”
This is more offensive than anything I have said. But because Brjones generally is more careful about his tone than I am he is not attacked for this comment while I am labeled as a trouble-maker. Its laughable to me. Wake up and learn to read what is being said, instead of just latching onto someone’s tone or history of posts.
#144 – Dexter, stop making trouble.
#143 – It’s never seemed to bother Jen.
Dexter,
When you continually try to pick a fight, nobody respects what you have to say. When inflammatory comments are your primary means of communication, people get tired of the bickering, and write you off as a blowhard. It’s not what you say so much as how you say it.
I have honest disagreements with Cowboy and Andrew S. Andrew is an atheist, so we obviously disagree on just about every aspect of God, yet did you notice that Andrew defended me in 95 and I defended him in 63? I have no problem with respectful disagreement, but a big problem with inflammatory comments. You pick fights with your comments. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be respectful of others’ beliefs. Andrew and Cowboy are respectful. You should learn from their tactics if you want to be taken seriously.
I can’t believe I have to explain why your comment is ridiculous, but since you seem sincerely bewildered, I’ll oblige. I teach math 1030 at the local community college. Chapter 1 is entitled “Thinking Critically”, and section 1 is called “Recognizing Fallacies.” This is a freshman level class. Example 4 on page 16 is titled “Hasty generalization.” Since my book is an older edition, you can purchase this for less than $6 including shipping on Amazon. Go to http://www.amazon.com/Using-Understanding-Mathematics-Quantitative-Reasoning/dp/0201717115 (The new version is $106)
The idea behind Hasty Generalization is that A and B are linked one or a few times; therefore A causes B (or vice versa.) The example in the book is “Two cases of childhood leukemia have occurred along the street where the high-voltage power lines run. The power lines must be the cause of these illness.”
“The premise of this argument cites two cases in which leukemia occurred on the street with the power lines. But two cases are not enough to establish a pattern, let alone conclude that the power lines are the cause of the illnesses. This argument illustrates the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which a conclusion is drawn from an inadequate number of cases or cases that have not been sufficiently analyzed.
Let’s do a hasty generalization in your direction. Apparently, you enjoyed Natural Born Killers. I have not seen the movie (excuse my ignorance), but according to IMDB, the story goes like this: They [Mickey and Mallory] travel across Route 666 conducting psychadelic mass-slaughters not for money, not for revenge, just for kicks. The Nazi’s used to kill Jews just for kicks. You have much in common with the Nazi’s.
According to your reasoning, I am stating facts here, not engaging in hyperbole or hasty generalization. You do enjoy Natural Born Killers. The Nazi’s did kill some Jews just for kicks. Therefore, you have something in common with Nazi’s.
If you want to gain some respect, once again, don’t disrespect others with inflammatory hasty generalizations.
Brjones, just because the movie and the Bible are violent, isn’t enough to make them connected. Lions, sharks, and Jack the Ripper are violent killers too, but I don’t think you’d compare them to the Bible. If you want to use a more realistic example, comparing the people who justify killing in the Bible to Jihadists is a much more appropriate example. Mickey and Mallory had no purpose for their killing. Jihadists have a purpose, as did Joshua. I already condemned this as genocide in my very first post here. See Joshua’s Unholy War. I was also accused of launching “an unholy war against holy scripture.”
Andrew calls me an apologist. Others have called me an anti-mormon. Apparently I’m both, depending on which extreme one leans.
MH, I don’t think there is any connection between the bible and NBK, which I also have not seen. I think his intent was probably just to pick a piece of media that is very violent and offensive and point out that such media is generally considered to be unacceptable in our society, and then compare it to the bible, which he considers equally violent and offensive, and then pose the question why society thinks the one is so evil and the other is so good. I don’t think the logical fallacy you pointed out applies to such a construct. You are certainly free to reject it, but I know I wasn’t trying to draw any connection between NBK and the bible beyond the level of violence and hatred contained in both. In any event, I would re-pose the question I posed in my last comment, and which is summarized above. Namely, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the majority of society would be very critical of a piece of media that is filled with violence, hatred, racism, bigotry, etc., even if that piece of media also contained a large amount of positive messages as well (especially if those messages could be found in other, non-offensive sources). Why then is the bible generally free from such criticism?
brjones, I’m sure you’re probably right about his intentions, but I think it is an extremely dubious example. Certainly he could have chosen a less inflammatory, and more relevant example to make his point. There are lots of better examples out there which wouldn’t pick a fight.
Is the Bible free of such criticism? Did you see my Joshua post?
I suppose the Bible is free of such criticism within Sunday School class, but I don’t think anyone who has really studied the Bible is comfortable accepting the more outrageous parts. People who really study the Bible often become non-literalists by saying, “I don’t believe God commanded Joshua to wipe out every man, woman and child.” I think that is why the more outrageous parts don’t get talked about as much in church. The parts like the Sermon on the Mount get taken more literally and emphasized more. Also, people begin to reject some of the Old Testament ways as “the Law of Moses” which has been superseded by the “Law of Christ.” The Genocide in Joshua is recognized as no longer an appropriate response, and the real lesson is then that we must “obey God as Joshua [thought] he was obeying God.”
For me, this particular story a dubious example, because even if we believe Joshua believed he was obeying God, we need to understand that extremism is bad. We should never resort to Crusade or Jihadist (despite some fundamentalist/literalist) beliefs that would try to use Joshua to justify atrocities. That’s why the story of Joshua is a bad example, and I can frankly understand why Dexter would reject it. Frankly, I reject the idea that God would command the atrocity. I like the idea that Joshua says, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”, but I think we need to temper that with the idea that God would never command genocide, and if we think he will, then we’re sorely mistaken. Serving the Lord needs to be more along the lines of the Savior–Love God, Love your neighbor.
I think the church could do more to reject bad teachings. But I think it’s a difficult line to walk because of the over-emphasis on following the prophet because he’ll never lead us astray. The church is sold on this line of reasoning, so it’s tough to undermine Joshua without undermining the current prophet. That’s why I like Pres Veazey’s approach: “if portions of scripture don’t agree with our fullest understanding, of the meaning of the revelation of God in Christ, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and discerned by the faith community, the teachings and vision of Christ take precedence. This principle applies to all of our books of Scripture, especially any passages by some to categorically assign to God’s disfavor, or negative characteristics, or secondary roles to others.
This is why our belief in continuing revelation is so important. This belief keeps us open to yet more light and truth so we can grow and understand of God’s supreme will as revealed in Jesus Christ.”
I would think that people like Dexter would appreciate this approach which tries to distance itself from the bad doctrines in favor of the good doctrines, but from his comments so far, it doesn’t seem like he thinks the Bible has any redeeming value in it at all. All he seems to see are atrocities, and I don’t think he looks at the Bible as a whole. Most Christians pay much more attention to the New Testament than the Old Testament, because the laws of Christ supersede Old Testament customs. Therefore, the New Testament is the more important part of scripture, and deserves more attention than previous laws/understandings of God. Thou shalt not kill gets superseded by don’t get angry. Certainly the New Testament has fewer problems than the Old Testament regarding bad doctrines or poor understandings of God.
After reading all the comments I see many who simply lack faith. Just because the Red sea was parted and the children of Israel crossed on dry land defies the laws of science, does not mean that this event did not happen. [read D&C 8:3]
LDS members are free to read, study, and ponder what they will, but when this study concerns non-members of the LDS Church [as Pres. Veazey of the CoC], it would be well to use D&C 91 as a guide.
I encourage everyone to read again all 150 entries.
#150 – But sxark, you know that not everyone posting here is an active LDS member, or even an LDS member at all. I assume your comment is directed at your fellow members, correct?
brjones: re #151
Yes.
Is this topic still going on? Geez.
Instead of commenting about anything commented on before, I will try to give a break down of argumentation and persuasion.
Come on guys…persuasion is about three things: logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos is the appeal to logic (whatever logical premises and conclusions one will us). There’s a lot of this here, although people in some cases haven’t been too keen on even trying to touch base on premises. People haven’t even attempted to show WHY certain premises should be agreed upon (so, the various arguments for or against x part of the Bible…obviously, all sides are approaching things from a different angle…it’s not just two sides either. I see the Dexter kind of side…and then kinda over a ways is the MH kind of side…and then over a bit is the sxark side.) Every side is trying to make a point and try to justify it according to some logical thought process.
BUT THIS ISN’T ENOUGH.
The two other modes are pathos and ethos. This is really basic. Pathos is about the emotional appeal. Quite simply, pissing people off, although it will get attention, isn’t a good way to try to PERSUADE. So, Dexter, I don’t care how right (a logos thing) you think you are. If you piss people off (and you acknowledge this in comment 144), then this is something YOU must fix. You can’t just default to blaming the other person and saying that some people cannot set the tone apart from what people are saying. The simple fact is that you as a rhetor must be able to control a persuasive tone AND speech. If you cannot control your tone, you will continue to burn up in a fiery burst. You CANNOT say, “Wake up and learn to read what is being said, instead of just latching onto someone’s tone or history of posts.” Because the TONE and HISTORY OF POSTS are both VITALLY important.
This gets into the third factor: ethos…this is the perceived moral character of an individual. It’s not just about doing moral things. Rather, it is precisely about character credibility. WHEN PEOPLE SAY THAT YOUR POOR HISTORY OF POSTS PRECEDES YOU, THIS IS AN ETHOS SUICIDE. This is something you must rectify if you want to be persuasive, not something your audience must rectify. Then again, if you don’t want to be persuasive, then you don’t have to care about any of these factors.
I mean, this is BASIC stuff guys. And I don’t know why it’s so hard to learn. Because I guarantee you — all of you — have been in a situation where YOU were paying attention to your opponent’s ethos and pathos over logos. And you were COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in doing so.
I mean, this isn’t just directed to one person. Everyone’s falling apart in this discussion. A lot of this comment was directed to Dexter this time around, but I guarantee in particular that I have made these same comments in one way or another to sxark and others. And I’ll continue making them whenever they need to be made. How can there be any communication and shared understanding at this point?
Because I’ll tell you truly: if you cannot learn to properly cultivate all three modes of persuasion, you will find your arguments failing every time. You will find your communication and conversations falling apart every time. But if you will just TRY to improve ethos and pathos (and this involves understanding the other person, and what things appeal to them), I can promise you that you will find — it’s like magic — that you will suddenly be able to engage in conversations that don’t lead to frustration, regardless of if the conversation still ends in disagreement.
I’ll stick with the simplicity of #150 instead of the complexity of #153. And I would say that it is dangerous for LDS members to consider Bible stories, such as the Exodus story, as not being literate – as Mormon Heretic suggests with his question #29. Then instead of stating his reasons for not accepting the Exodus story as literate, he berates, in #36, those who do.
Had Mormon Heretic, [or those that side with him], been one of the 2 spies who visited Rahab [lady of the night of Jericho], he probably would have dissuaded her from her stated position [Joshua 2: 9,10,11]. As it was written, the Exodus story had great impact on the enemies of Israel.
Does Mormon Heretic and his friends and Pres. Veazey want to change all that to wonderfull fables instead of fact? And how can that be justified in light of D&C 8:3? “Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground”.
Once one starts to doubt one thing, then it’s only a matter of time before one starts to doubt all things. Not a very good character reference for one who should have the power to flatten mountains and turn water into mud.
sxark still keepin it classy. still reaching no one because of a fundamental failure in persuasive rhetoric.
It is a little tough for those that have ears but do not hear or those that have eyes but do not see. – but not impossible.
nice counter. of course, pot, meet kettle. mote, meet beam, etc.,
Does the Heretic send an Atheist to answer for him?
No, the Heretic doesn’t send anyone. The atheist does not answer at the Heretic’s — or anyone’s, for that matter — beck and call. The atheist merely steps in to attempt to clean the mess that the Self-Righteous has caused.
Only an Atheist or his friends would label #154 a “mess”.
Actually, it seems that many people disagree with your approach. So, either I have many, many friends, or your statement is incorrect.
again, I have told you what you can do if you don’t want to create mess. But I guess you won’t hear it from me. after all, I’m just one of those apostate atheists and you’ve got that old-time religion.
I love (i.e. begin sarcasm here) this comment from sxark “Once one starts to doubt one thing, then it’s only a matter of time before one starts to doubt all things.” I think it’s wonderful advice. If it were only that easy to move to complete doubt by introducing one singular one. In fact, this reminds me of some great examples of doubt in the apocryphal story of Daniel. A nice summary is found here http://turgonian.blogspot.com/2008/10/adveniat-regnum-tuum.html It seems not all doubt is bad, but why should you believe me? Naturally, you shouldn’t.
Your partly right! You have some friends and you are one of those “apostate atheists” who can’t give a reasonable answer to #154 or #150. And you probably fear and abhor the thought that someone might agree with #154 and #150. After all, your entire present belief system appears threatened if one were to do so. You feel much more confortable with Mormon Heretic’s position. Anyone who promotes doubt and validity concerning a literal interpretation of Bible stories is just fine with you.
You truely have a condescending viewpoint when you set yourself up as one who can teach others how to write this or write that in a manner that you find satisfactory when discussing religeous matters and it’s a poor excuse for not answering #154 or #150. If you or others wish to use my “approach” as an excuse not to engage in reasonable dialog, then so be it. I can understand why.
sxark, actually, the last sentence wasn’t sarcastic, you really shouldn’t believe me, the more I learn, the less I know. But I propose you can’t say you don’t doubt, you just choose what to doubt based on your current beliefs. I think the story of Daniel, literal or metaphoric (and I hope it is literal, because it’s one I share with my kids), illustrates my proposal of doubt being healthy, and that there is actually good historical and faithful evidence to support this. Perhaps you didn’t read the summary blog? As tempting as it is to engage your proposal to address 150 & 154, I don’t want you to mis-understand my argument that doubt should not necessarily be heretical, that doubt does not necessarily lead to poor character, and that it exists in you. Did you take that as my point in #162 and what would yo propose in return?
JTJ:
Sorry, I didn’t see your #162 until #163 posted. It crosses like that sometimes.
I believe we all may float around a bit with doubt now and then concerning this or that. Many times its just momentary until the mind sparks in a manner where doubt is placed to the side.
Some however, may have great difficulty just brushing doubt to the side and it just gnaws and gnaws at them until it takes a stronger foothold.
D&C 8:3 actually speaks volumes concerning the literacy of Bible stories. For if one were to believe D&C 8:3 to be true, then there would be no reason to disbelieve the story of Daniel.
Sxark,
If you haven’t noticed by now, I’m just trying to ignore you. You’re just as obnoxious as Dexter, and I don’t think it does any good to engage you. Andrew, thanks for trying, but I don’t think it’s wise to feed the trolls of Dexter and Sxark. They have their opinions about scripture, and refuse to be respectful of anyone who disagrees. Therefore, I refuse to respect their opinions. They are perfect examples of intolerance. Their inflammatory comments are disgusting. Perhaps I’ll just close down the comments if we’re through talking about the original topic, and now are resorting to describing tactics. Sxark obviously believes the Bible is inerrant, except for the parts Joseph Smith corrected. Unlike Joseph Smith, Sxark does not seek anything “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” from Pres Veazey or anyone not of the LDS faith. He has all truth summed up in his brain, and needs not be enlightened/corrupted by anyone else.
To say that Christ, Himself, would have to appear and say: [fill in the doctrine, though I was talking about the resurrection], before I could believe that. No scientist or President of the LDS Church would convince me otherwise.”
His arrogance is truly appalling.
Mormom Heretic:
Oh please MH, – Your the one who asked my opinion on the Exodus story in #29 and when I gave it to you in a respectfull manner, your only response [#36] was to suggest that my testimony was built on sand etc.
There is nothing wrong or disrespectfull when I suggest that LDS members read, study, and ponder any writings from non-members [like Pres. Veazey] thru the lens of D&C 91. If there has been any disrespect, it comes from you and your friends.
You are correct in one matter: At this point in time, if anyone suggests that the resurection of Christ did not take place, then for me to be convinced, Jesus Himself, would have to say something like: “It’s true – I never was resurrected from the dead etc”.
You may take my comments in #150 and #154 as insulting or whatever and I can only shake my head in amazement. Your the one who brought up the Exodus story, which has tremendous consequences were it to be altered to fit the needs of science instead of religion. Another example to be changed to a wonderfull fable should the Exodus story be altered is Joshua 4:22-24 and Joshua 5:1.
“Then ye shall let your chidren know, saying, Israel came over this Jordan on dry land.
For the Lord your God dried up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red sea, which He dried up from before us, until we were gone over:
That all the people of the Earth might know the hand of the Lord, that it is mighty: That ye might fear the Lord your God for ever.
And it came to pass when all the Kings….heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel”.
And these things you wish to change? By being an active party of reinforcing doubt in these stories, are you not diminishing your own power to flatten mountains and turn water into mud – that you may be called upon one day to perform?
Doesn’t D&C 8:3 mean anything to you? Was it a missprint or the ramblings of a false prophet?
For weeks, I have been amazed that people continue to engage Sxark.
That’s the key Holden – don’t engage sxark or those like him – and they will go away – and everyone else can continue on their merry way, reinforceing each other with their like minded belief systems.
Thanks for playing everyone. I’ll close the comments now.