This is in response to the commentary in my last post.
Religion has survived science through adaptation.
Religion is the end result of thousands of years of evolution. What began as literal has become figurative. What was once truth is now metaphor: the earth wasn't made in 7 days. The earth hasn't existed 6,000 years. Lot's wife didn't turn into a pillar of salt. Lot didn't offer his daughters to be raped by the Sodomites. Abraham didn't plant an idolatrous grove. God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart against Moses. Satan didn't turn into a serpent. The Holy Ghost didn't turn into a dove. Christ did not mean that the thief would go straight to Paradise.
We redefine the Bible because religion is a living thing, while the Bible is stone. Religion holds to a few choice verses, rectifies others, and discards the rest. Religion can't tie itself to the Bible: it was written when people had a different understanding of the world. Even the Book of Mormon -- written less than 200 years ago -- cannot be read literally: King Lamoni with his "horses and chariots"...and the Nephites with their "swords."
So what can we do when faced with scriptural discrepancies? We can either read them metaphorically, distance ourselves from them, or call them mistranslations...or, in the case of the Book of Mormon examples, say that Joseph Smith was describing something for which he had no name (like a llama).
I've been told a thousand times before: you can't have faith if things made sense. "If you could prove it," people say, "you wouldn't need to believe." But as I've said before: there is no 'proof' until we die...Unless God is walking with us, there IS need for faith.
That being said...
If I don't think every troubling Biblical verse was mistranslated. If I think the Hebrews really believed that God created the earth in 7 days (or: 6) and that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (maybe explaining the salt formations on the Plains of Aram)...and that God could harden a man's heart without taking his agency....can I still believe in the Bible? Only if I believe in the fallibility of prophets. Even modern ones.
Gordon B. Hinckley, in a newspaper interview, was asked:
Q: [D]o Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else.
Did Gordon B. Hinckley lie? When asked in a separate interview about polygamy, Pres. Hinckley implied that we don't. Did he lie there? The writer of Genesis said that the earth was created before the sun. Was he wrong?
Do I have faith in the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham? Not really. Do I believe they're scriptures? Yes, in the same way other Mormons believe in the Bible (except that they're two books with different types of inaccuracies). If you follow the good principles, it is a scripture to pattern your life after. Now as for the rites and rituals (such as baptism) -- that's a discussion for another day.
12 comments:
I am going to single out one item to disagree with you on, though I think it could be done with most of your examples. Faith, faith is all that believing and not seeing stuff, right?! I don't disagree with that. In fact to me that (for the most part) exactly describes faith. So I pose some follow up questions: Do you know Lot? Do you know anyone that was familiar with Lot's family? Do you know Lot's kids? Do you know anyone that knows Lot or Lot's kids? Do you know anyone that is a distant relative of Lot or his family, or even Lot's neighbors for that matter? Etc. Etc. Etc. Of course the answer is no to all questions. There is no one on earth (at this time) that has any semblance of “eye witness” knowledge or experience with this family. Not even someone that knew someone that saw Lot at market once. I think you get the picture. For you not to believe that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt is an act of faith toward such a conclusion. I suppose based on the unbelievable nature of such an event. Okay, or maybe just the scientific “impossibility” of such a thing happening. My point being, there is no corroborating evidence for or against in any tangible sense. So in the end what we believe tends to be what we decide to put our “faith” in. Be it for or against. Which is fine, we all have our agency as per God's own design, but in such things I tend to give the “word of God” the benefit of the doubt. Would I apostatize from Christianity if I found out that Lot's wife didn't turn into a pillar of salt: no. I hope I would realize it was a lesson in symbolism. To sum-up, when it comes to faith vs. intellect there are some things that though purporting to be intellect have no “real” evidence to substantiate such a perspective (I am not talking about the BOA “issue(s) at this point, just this one example that was given). It comes down to how and in what way we decide to “exercise our faith” and agency.
sigh to the comments section... both arguments full of mind-manipulating drudgery...heard 'em a thousand times. still, i guess i know where you're comin from... and i have no energy right now.
Rob/Glasnost -- I think you both mistook the point of my post. I wasn't pointing out the lack of scientific evidence for Lot's wife turning into salt...
I was pointing out that as time has passed, the reading of the Bible moves from a literal to a metaphoric understanding...we adapt.
Furthermore, Christian churches with doctrine that is contradicted by the Bible tend to dismiss certain verses as mistranslations. The Seventh-Day Adventists do this, I know, and so do we (i.e. the JST). If you study the Bible, however, you'll find that some of the "mistranslated" verses are not mistranslated at all. I'm sure the other Jared who makes the occasional comment could back me up on that (he studies religion) and I could give you a few examples.
What's this mean? It means that I hold the Bible -- as we now have it -- to not necessarily be mistranslated. Therefore, I think it has verses that do contradict ours and other Christian churches' doctrines. That doesn't make the Bible false. It also doesn't make our doctrine false. But it does force us to re-think our understanding of prophecy and what it means to prophesy.
The same holds true for the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. I don't think either of you (Glasnost/Rob) can explain the presence of horses and chariots and swords in the Book of Mormon when no such things existed in pre-Spanish America. Does that make the BoM untrue? No. It just makes us re-define the meaning of prophesy.
As to trying to discredit prophets: I quoted/paraphrased things President Hinkley said in public interviews and pointed out the fact that what he said flies in the face of our doctrine. Does that mean he's a false prophet? No. But it means that we have to re-define the meaning of prophesy. The same holds true for BoM prophets, Biblical prophets, and modern prophets.
I just have one comment about the whole chariots and horses things, we are discussing a prophet who describes the past, how about those who have described the future. I am refering to the book of Revelation. How accurate was John's descriptions of future events and circumstances. We are still trying to figure out just exactly what he was trying to tell us. I do however believe that he was trying to tell us that we need to prepare to meet God. Is that not the message of all the scriptures?
I recognize what you are saying, and if you read what I wrote I did not attack that angle of your opinion. What I did say you did not address. Seemed rather more like a political side-step than an answer to my point.
Okay, I'll address Rob's point:
"My point being, there is no corroborating evidence for or against in any tangible sense."
I once read a story about a girl who broke into a house occupied by three bears.
Now I don't know about you, but I don't believe that the events in this story ever actually transpired. As cool as it would be, I just don't believe in talking bears who cook porridge and sleep in people beds.
On the other hand, just because I've never seen talking bears with a prediliction for oatmeal doesn't mean they don't exist, right? There is a talking donkey in the Bible, after all (Numbers 22:28-30).
But: do I know Goldilocks? Do I know anyone that was familiar with the three bears? Do I know Goldilocks's kids? Do I know anyone that knows Goldilocks or Goldilocks's kids? Do I know anyone that is a distant relative of Goldilocks or her family, or even the three bears' neighbors for that matter?
No, so I guess you could say I'm taking the non-existence of Quaker Oats posterbears on "faith".
I'd like to apologize for the comparison of Holy Scripture to a children's tale. It should serve to illustrate that this argument is not a particularly good one, as it can be taken to ludicrous extremes when making counter-points. People can believe anything they put their minds to believing.
"It should serve to illustrate that this argument is not a particularly good one, as it can be taken to ludicrous extremes when making counter-points. People can believe anything they put their minds to believing.” - Dan
The above quotation was my exact point! But the street is not one way. “People can believe anything they put their minds to believing,” using the "agency" they have been given to do so. All I was looking for in my "extreme" (intended to be extreme to make the point) example and use of the term "faith" was for an admission of this point. Which I did not think J addressed in his response.
To Dan's own "extreme" example I have this to say:
If you want to compare our need to exercise faith in scripture to that of fairy tales (including all non-scripture in total) you have the agency to do so, but when the Bible says that there is a talking donkey (Numbers 22:28-30) unless I am told otherwise or shown it to be an analogy or use of imagery I am going to err on the side of scripture and exercise my "faith" in that thing, "extreme" or no. That is my right to do so, given my own personal agency. Do I know if there actually was or wasn't a talking donkey: no, but do I think, “that is impossible and stupid”: no. What I think is: If God says to me in his holy word that there is one, I shrug my shoulders and say, “Okay.” And why do I take this “extreme” stance, specifically because no one has Balaam's journal, or his wife's, or his kid's, or his neighbor's, etc. etc. etc.
Again, all I was looking for was an admission that the intellectual crowd is still placing "faith" in something they have no "corroborating evidence for or against in any tangible sense." There is nothing anyone has access to that proves or dis-proves the veracity of what the Bible says in a literal interpretation sense. Further if the Bible says this or that I am inclined to believe this or that, because the thought goes through my mind, “Who am I to limit the power of God and say this or that can or can't be done.”
I feel you're presenting a false equivalence here, Rob. Belief or unbelief of someone being turned to salt are not equally reasonable views.
The former assumes the existence of God, which is untestable and unprovable, and requires acceptance of something happening that is contrary to observable fact. The latter is based on mankind's observation of how the natural world has worked for centuries.
It is possible that there is a remote, undiscovered tribe whose members occasionally turn into salt. Maybe it is even God who turns them into salt. Maybe He did it just this morning, so the tribe would have salt for their French fries, which they have for some reason despite being remote and undiscovered. It is possible, but it is not likely: it is not reasonable. I don't have to overturn every stone or rummage through every rainforest to discount the notion of people turning--or getting turned--into salt. It is not an "exercise of faith".
Lot's wife getting turned into salt is inherently unreasonable, and I can't blame people for doubting whether it literally occurred. They are not exercising faith by not believing in it, but sound reason.
Does this mean that it is impossible for a woman to be turned into a pillar of salt? If you believe God is omnipotent, of course it's not. But it does require faith.
As a sidenote, I should also note that the meaning and the lesson of the story are not lost if Lot's wife didn't literally turn into salt.
sometimes the world makes me so sad that I want to leave it. Not because I don't value my life, but because I value it so much I wonder why I waste it here when a better world is ahead. i don't want conversations like those above to be what the rest of my life is made of. you're all very smart and very reasonable and very emphatic... but all of your words make me feel such sadness...
no offense is intended, i hope none is taken. its been said that much of what we read through this medium of type is misunderstood. perhaps i have misunderstood you. it sounds like a fight thats trying to pretend to be a debate that's trying to pretend to be a forum.
don't attack my belief; offer me something better if you have it. And if you don't...then just let me be. let me be happy.
I need to apologize. It was a hard day, and reading the comments really did make me feel sad. I guess recent life has made me feel a little sad, spiritually speaking.
So many people are looking for the truth, and struggling to find it...even more aren't even looking...and there are others who have it in front of them but fail to understand it or appreciate it or live up to it. I'm not pointing any fingers -- I think I fit all three of these categories.
Sometimes I just long for the time when discussions like these are no longer needed -- when faith itself is no longer needed -- when all questions are answered, and peace and light and understanding can fill the mind of everyone who longs for it.
Anyway, I apologize. I wrote that comment simply to get the sadness out of my heart and down onto a page where I could delete it afterwards. I didn't realize that it would stay and I wouldn't be able to take it back. I never intended for it to be seen by anyone but me. Unfortunately, I arbitrarily chose an anonymous identity before I wrote it, I guess simply because I was sad -- the same reason I didn't bother to capitalize my "i's" -- not knowing that if you are anonymous, you have no power to retract what you say.
Anyway, please continue your discussion as before, and ignore what I've said.
To conclude my thought...so as not to drag out my end of this “fight/debate,” per the talking ass (of which I talk out of mine often) it is very binary. In other words, on or off: the donkey talked or it didn't. None of us know this donkey, so to interpret this scenario you “exercise faith” on or off. To summarize, I lean toward on if the text does, and off when it does not. In the case of the donkey there is no scientific data to repudiate the legitimacy (other than the palate of a mule not being suitable for speech, plus vocal cord problems, etc etc etc superfluous), but the text says “on” and so I give my faith to that interpretation.
Thank you, I do.
Post a Comment