Talking Donkey

[FunkyTown]

It's not a history book nor a science textbook. It's a collection of spiritual truths, tall-tales, and folklore. When I say 'talk' I mean in a language commonly practiced by humans. Donkeys and most animals can communicate but they cannot and have never been able to speak in a literal language like English, Spanish, etc.

Except Crows, parrots and a few other birds.

I would say it's their understanding and not their physical limitations that limit communication.

[FunkyTown]

Do you believe in the gift of tongues, Snow and Moksha? A "Yes" or "No" will suffice, along with a brief description of what you believe does(n't) happen when the gift of tongues is manifested.

(I'm dropping my earlier line of questioning... It will lead nowhere if I pursue it.)

I'm supporting you in this, Maxel.

God is an amazing and wondrous heavenly father and I think this story lets us know not just his love for all creatures but also his sense of humor.

Imagine, if you will, a drunken Balaam riding his donkey hard. He's whipping it and cursing it even though the donkey is dutifully taking him home. Midway through, as Balaam is cruelly beating this honest and hard-working creature, the creature turns to him and says "Hey! Hey! What's with the beating? I'm doing what you want."

Every time I read that story, it makes me smile. I think God would absolutely do something like that. And you know who else backs me up?

Scripture.

[Hemidakota]

We also need to remember, we 'will' have the opportunity to communicate to all of GOD's creation in the Celestial Kingdom. There is no barrier as to language or its understanding.

[bytor2112]

It's not a history book nor a science textbook. It's a collection of spiritual truths, tall-tales, and folklore. When I say 'talk' I mean in a language commonly practiced by humans. Donkeys and most animals can communicate but they cannot and have never been able to speak in a literal language like English, Spanish, etc.

Once...there was ONLY one language......the pure Adamic language. I believe that before the Fall, animals could communicate.....the Serpent did speak to Eve. Much has changed since the Fall.

Folk lore and Tall tales? Where does the tall tale end and the Truth begin? Doesn't that open the door to......the doctrines of men mingled with scripture when we begin to consider Scriptural Canon as a "collection of spiritual truths, tall tales and folklore?

[ryanh]

Why is the idea of a talking donkey such a crazy idea? I've seen the story of a talking donkey in the Old Testament ridiculed recently.

Just read the following in the Miracle of Forgiveness this morning:

A prevalent form of rebellion is the "higher criticism" which is the delight of those Church members who become proud of their intellectual powers. Reveling in their supposed superiority they argue back and forth, analyze with their unaided intellect what can only be discerned by the eye of faith, and challenge and debunk such Church doctrines and policies as do not pass their critical examination. In all this they undermine the faith of those less qualified in knowledge and logic, sometimes apparently gaining pleasure from this result. But the Lord's word to such people is still what it was two thousand years ago:

. . . Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matt. 18:3,7.)

[Ezequiel]

What language do you think the earth can speak in?

vietnamese.

[Snow]

Every time I read that story, it makes me smile. I think God would absolutely do something like that. And you know who else backs me up?

1. What is it about God that makes you think that He is the kind of god that makes barnyard animals talk?

... remember is the the same god of the same era that ordered his followers to preemptively kill their enemies, steal their possessions, make slaves of the children and steal the virgins as "booty."

2. Don't you think this may be one of those Bible tales that Brigham Young referred to as "baby stories" ala the stories of man and woman's creation that he compared to stories of "toad stools?"

[Maxel]

1. What is it about God that makes you think that He is the kind of god that makes barnyard animals talk?

What is it about God that makes you think that He does not make barnyard animals talk to prove a point to His prophets?

I've still seen no defense- consistent with the scope and intent of LDS doctrine- that supports the notion that God won't give animals the ability to communicate with humans when it fits His purposes.

Snow, if you think it's POSSIBLE for the Lord to make animals talk- in which situation do you think He would do so? Are there any?

[Maxel]

Also, the idea that the Old Testament contains some "baby stories" isn't canonical- no more canonical than the Adam-God doctrine that Brigham Young also taught. So, we're not bound to believe that, as much as it might make sense to some people.

[Snow]

What is it about God that makes you think that He does not make barnyard animals talk to prove a point to His prophets?

Did you not read - and choose to exclude - that part of my post above that gives such a reason?

I've still seen no defense- consistent with the scope and intent of LDS doctrine- that supports the notion that God won't give animals the ability to communicate with humans when it fits His purposes.

You're nothing if not good for a chuckle or two tonight - I've not seen anything consistent with LDS doctrine to support the notion that God doesn't fly Bigfoots to Enland by night in magic helicopters to make fancy dancy crop circles.

The evidence that the Bigfoot idea is true is exactly equal to the evidence that the donkey tale is true.

Both stories are told by anonymous authors who had no first hand knowledge of the events in question. Both stories contradict the way we know the world to work.

Snow, if you think it's POSSIBLE for the Lord to make animals talk- in which situation do you think He would do so? Are there any?

Possible - yes. Is it likely to ever have happened? I wouldn't wager the life of my son on it. Would you?

[Snow]

Also, the idea that the Old Testament contains some "baby stories" isn't canonical- no more canonical than the Adam-God doctrine that Brigham Young also taught. So, we're not bound to believe that, as much as it might make sense to some people.

Oh brother.

The idea that literal donkeys literal speak Hebrew isn't canonical either.

The point I was making is that Brigham Young was rational in this regard and the idea of talking barnyard animals is not rational.

[Maxel]

Did you not read - and choose to exclude - that part of my post above that gives such a reason?

I'm not sure how stating other attributes and actions of God counts as an argument against His giving a donkey the ability to talk- except that you don't believe God did any of it. Not a very good argument.

You're nothing if not good for a chuckle or two tonight

Thank you. Your rudeness is duly noted- unless you meant this as "teasing"? I don't appreciate it if you did.

I've not seen anything consistent with LDS doctrine to support the notion that God doesn't fly Bigfoots to Enland by night in magic helicopters to make fancy dancy crop circles.

Yes, but the story about Bigfoot can't be found in the scriptures.

The evidence that the Bigfoot idea is true is exactly equal to the evidence that the donkey tale is true.

Not true- canonical LDS scripture includes the story about the donkey.

Both stories are told by anonymous authors who had no first hand knowledge of the events in question. Both stories contradict the way we know the world to work.

Did Joseph Smith have firsthand knowledge of the events contained in the Book of Mormon? (Answer: no) Are we justified in dismissing the events contained therein? (Answer: also no)

Firsthand knowledge isn't required to write or preserve a true story.

Possible - yes. Is it likely to ever have happened? I wouldn't wager the life of my son on it. Would you?

No. Then again, the life of my son isn't hanging in the balance. If a man only accepts something when the hard evidence for its veracity is enough for him to stake his child's life on it, then these scriptures apply to him.

I don't want to be accusatory or attacking, but I don't know how else to say it.

[Maxel]

Oh brother.

Could you post without these little rude asides? I'd appreciate it.

The idea that literal donkeys literal speak Hebrew isn't canonical either.

Well, the account doesn't say the donkey spoke Hebrew (though it can be assumed). The donkey may have spoken some sort of language that Balaam's ears were opened so that he could understand. However, we'll assume the donkey spoke in Hebrew.

Since the story appears in the LDS canon, I think it's safe to say the story of a literal donkey that speaks literal Hebrew is canonical- unless you want to change the definition of "canon".

The point I was making is that Brigham Young was rational in this regard and the idea of talking barnyard animals is not rational.

Snow, your idea of "rational" and mine are different. You've yet to provide any cogent argument that would sway me. I understand that you and I have different opinions about what's "rational" and what's not. I'm trying to see if you have any argument other than the "irrationality" argument or the "God did other things I disagree with in the Old Testament, therefore He never actually did them- therefore, this story is suspect". So far, you've forwarded none.

[Snow]

I'm not sure how stating other attributes and actions of God counts as an argument against His giving a donkey the ability to talk- except that you don't believe God did any of it. Not a very good argument.

Did you miss the post - that my post was in response to - claiming that God had the kind of sense of humor that would make donkeys talk? Seems out of character for a god that also orders rape and murder - preemptively.

Thank you. Your rudeness is duly noted- unless you meant this as "teasing"? I don't appreciate it if you did.

Lighten up Maxel, not everyone is out to get you.

Yes, but the story about Bigfoot can't be found in the scriptures.

Not true- canonical LDS scripture includes the story about the donkey.

There you are putzing about again. Can't you intuit this easy stuff out without the bother of actually discussing it?

The story of the donkey is canonized. That the only possible interpretation of the story is a literal, historical, factually account is not canonized.

That God literally and historically conspired with Satan to kill Job's family on a bet is not canonical either. The story is. The interpretation isn't.

Did Joseph Smith have firsthand knowledge of the events contained in the Book of Mormon? (Answer: no) Are we justified in dismissing the events contained therein? (Answer: also no)

Who was the author of the donkey story? Was he a prophet claiming inspiration about the story? Did he claim it was literal and factually historical?

No. Then again, the life of my son isn't hanging in the balance. If a man only accepts something when the hard evidence for its veracity is enough for him to stake his child's life on it, then these scriptures apply to him.

I don't want to be accusatory or attacking, but I don't know how else to say it.

Blah, blah, blah. Vacuous point. We aren't talking about obedience and sloth and lack of wisdom and being dammed (which you imply I have, and I am). We are talking about rationality and interpretation of scripture. Read your scriptures before you post them.

[Snow]

Snow, your idea of "rational" and mine are different.

Yes - you think that talking donkeys are rational. I do not.

[pam]

Isn't this about done now? This will just continue and nothing will ever be settled or accomplished.

[Maxel]

Probably, pam. Snow and I seem to be the only ones particularly concerned with discussing the topic, and we come from two irreconcilable positions. Go ahead and close it.

[pam]

Thread closed per OP request.