The Economics of Biblical Literalism - or...

[Traveler]

So, then the bible is not inspired. It is merely a collection of writings by people? Heavenly Father would not leave lies in his inspired work, right? Especially lies that attempt to paint him as anything other than he is.

Your argument looks a lot like the arguments by which the Pharisees and Scribes justified their “traditional” interpretation of the Law (Law being the ancient designation for scriptures used at the time of Jesus). If you intend to convince us that it is, in all cases, impossible to use sacred inspired scripture for anything but a righteous end I believe that history so trumps your notion that there is no possibility at all that such a concept is remotely defendable.

If your intension is to put forth the notion that never has sacred scripture ever lost anything for any period of time and that there has never been a need to restore any truth – I would wonder if you are a Christian because he taught many truths that the Pharisees and Scribes did not teach correctly from scripture.

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

Your argument looks a lot like the arguments by which the Pharisees and Scribes justified their “traditional” interpretation of the Law (Law being the ancient designation for scriptures used at the time of Jesus). If you intend to convince us that it is, in all cases, impossible to use sacred inspired scripture for anything but a righteous end I believe that history so trumps your notion that there is no possibility at all that such a concept is remotely defendable.

If your intension is to put forth the notion that never has sacred scripture ever lost anything for any period of time and that there has never been a need to restore any truth – I would wonder if you are a Christian because he taught many truths that the Pharisees and Scribes did not teach correctly from scripture.

The Traveler

Or, the intention is to take the absurdity of the notion presented to its logical conclusion. I believe that Heavenly Father is capable and would commit acts that we may consider barbaric for his own purposes. Consider this, he put his precious children on this world to suffer, that there by, they might gain. How would a just and loving Father allow his children to suffer in the least bit, if he had the power to prevent it? Because, in his love, he must let us go through it. Our notion of right and wrong may turn out to still be limited. Remember, we did not understand it as Adam and Eve. So, my point was simply to point out the absurdity.

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps the most graphic example of God using the murder and physical anguish of an innocent for his righteous ends is the crucifixion of Jesus.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The problem lies in the points made by Snow and Moksha that even modern prophets are not infallible. How do we know that they are actually telling us the truth, and not spinning fables? ...

This is an extremely slippery slope that some will find themselves upon. To question certain statements or passages in the Bible for accuracy is one thing. To begin a descent into disbelieving anything and everything, is another.

Why is it so necessary to know 100%? Even Nephi said he didn't understand all the mysteries of God. Well, if Nephi can say that than so can I. I don't consider that a slippery slope to say, this one I understand and this one I don't. I think the slippery slope is to say, 'this one I don't believe until it is proven by modern science.' As opposed to, this one I don't understand yet, maybe someday I will but until then I'm ok with it and I am ok with not knowing. Because as soon as you start to disbelieve then you create a slippery slope. That is the process Alma talks about in Alma 12. The hardening of the heart occurs and then you have the lesser portion. The only way to expand your knowledge is to take more of a glass half full approach than a glass half empty. Satan wants all of us to doubt and then focus on that doubt. We all doubt at some point, but we don't have to focus on the doubt. It only becomes a slippery slope when you focus on the unknown so much that you throw out the baby with the bath water.

Those last two sentences Rameumptom I think describes the only two possibilities being total disbelief versus partial knowledge. I think people start heading down the slippery slope when they start to think there should be a third option, total understanding of everything. I don't think that will happen until the next life. I think you have to be ok with partial knowledge, like Nephi, to avoid the slippery slope. Saying to yourself that it is all or nothing is creating the slippery slope.

To answer the first question, in part, I think you have to recognize when your heart is hardening. Then you know whether it is true or not. Faith is taken out of the picture when the only two options are complete or incomplete knowledge, proven or unproven. There is such a thing as true but unproven, how? by faith.

Some stories in the Bible are literal some are symbolic and some we don't know. And some we learn later about once our hearts aren't so hardened by disbelief and then we understand.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Do you think that once we fully understand the atonement and resurrection that they will no longer seem miraculous to us? I think that miracles continue to be miracles, even when we understand how God does them. I may understand how a healing works, but it is a miracle, nonetheless. And for the person who is miraculously healed, they are going to consider it a miracle, even if the science behind it is explained to them.

Yes, I think that. Just like man flying is no longer miraculous to me, it is still amazing and wonderful but not miraculous. Our science is limited, our understanding is limited and if the person in the example you give still considers it a miracle than, for me at least, by definition it means the person doesn't fully understand it, even after it being explained. Many things we will not fully understand in this life. It is not for us to understand all the mysteries of God in this life. Not that He is 'withholding' any information, just we can't understand it. Like trying to teach a 4 year old calculus it will not mean anything unless they first understand all the principles up to that point.

[Connie]

Why is it so necessary to know 100%? Even Nephi said he didn't understand all the mysteries of God. Well, if Nephi can say that than so can I. I don't consider that a slippery slope to say, this one I understand and this one I don't. I think the slippery slope is to say, 'this one I don't believe until it is proven by modern science.' As opposed to, this one I don't understand yet, maybe someday I will but until then I'm ok with it and I am ok with not knowing. Because as soon as you start to disbelieve then you create a slippery slope. That is the process Alma talks about in Alma 12. The hardening of the heart occurs and then you have the lesser portion. The only way to expand your knowledge is to take more of a glass half full approach than a glass half empty. Satan wants all of us to doubt and then focus on that doubt. We all doubt at some point, but we don't have to focus on the doubt. It only becomes a slippery slope when you focus on the unknown so much that you throw out the baby with the bath water.

Those last two sentences Rameumptom I think describes the only two possibilities being total disbelief versus partial knowledge. I think people start heading down the slippery slope when they start to think there should be a third option, total understanding of everything. I don't think that will happen until the next life. I think you have to be ok with partial knowledge, like Nephi, to avoid the slippery slope. Saying to yourself that it is all or nothing is creating the slippery slope.

To answer the first question, in part, I think you have to recognize when your heart is hardening. Then you know whether it is true or not. Faith is taken out of the picture when the only two options are complete or incomplete knowledge, proven or unproven. There is such a thing as true but unproven, how? by faith.

Some stories in the Bible are literal some are symbolic and some we don't know. And some we learn later about once our hearts aren't so hardened by disbelief and then we understand.

Wait... What? Did i miss something? Where did Ram say we have to understand everything?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Wait... What? Did i miss something? Where did Ram say we have to understand everything?

His first question in his response: "

The problem lies in the points made by Snow and Moksha that even modern prophets are not infallible. How do we know that they are actually telling us the truth, and not spinning fables?"

He gave two options that require knowledge of telling the truth or spinning fables (implied). My response is that sometimes you don't know, and that is ok.

[Snow]

Snow - Which miracles do you believe actually occurred versus are simple story? How do you tell the difference? Like, did Jesus walk on water? Did Mary have an 'immaculate' conception? Did Moses, or Heavenly Father, part the sea for the Israelites? Did a Donkey talk? Did a burning bush speak to Moses? Which do you believe occurred and which do you believe are hooey?

I guess I have some informal guidelines:

Absurdity: If something smacks of absurdity, then it might be absurd - especially if there is no utility to be gained from interpreting the story literally. A talking donkey that actually talked doesn't have any compelling reason to believe in it. Christ walking on the water may seem absurd on the face of it but there are various ways of thinking about it that convey important legitimate concepts.

Contradicted by Reality: If something is contradicted by the facts, history, archeology, science, etc, that's a problem. Take the flood. On one side you have massive amounts or data and logic and science subjected to peer review and the highest levels of scholarly and academic standard and on the other hand you have an anonymous author writing 3000 years ago.

Attribution of evil to God: If scripture attributes evil to God - I don't buy it. I'll favor God over anonymous authors every time.

Failed prophecy: If something is predicted, and it doesn't happen, the prophecy was wrong.

Internal contractions: If one scripture is contradicted by another, at least one of them cannot be literally true.

Now - my question of you is: How do you decide which scriptures are literally true vs those that are not?

For example:

Mark has James and John asking Christ a question in 10:35-38. Matthew has their mother asking the question in 20:20-22.

In the Synotics the temple cleansing occurs just after the triumphal entry. For Mark it is the explicit reason for the plot to kill Jesus. In John it occurs years earlier with no connection to his death.

In both cases (and many many more) both can be wrong, but only one can be literally true. How do you decide which?

[Snow]

Unless I'm mistaken Snow in the past has drawn a line between those necessary for salvation and key to doctrine and those that aren't. So Christ's paternity, atonement and resurrection would be examples of miraculous happenings that a belief in affect his salvation and are key points of doctrine. Actually that's a pretty good question, aside from those I'm not sure what other ones he might consider such. I've never tried to sit down and decide which miracles and Bible stories are actually key points of doctrine and/or that a belief in could possibly effect salvation. Well, besides just now but I'm pretty sure Snow has put more thought into it than I have.

Or am I misremembering/misinterpreting your past statements and positions Snow?

Yes - that is correct.

While the resurrection is a fantastical story, it is essential. That is - our doctrinal system crumbles without it. You can't pick and choose something like that. You believe it or discard it but discarding it means you are discarding the core of your Christianity. Most events are not as important as the resurrection but are central to our theology, for example the restoration, or the granting of the priesthood, etc. Going on down the chain you arrive at events that have no import whatsoever on our salvation and seem to contradict science and logic and history and fact. Since God has never said how he requires us to interpret such events or "myths" I say that its okay or desirable to interpret them in a way that best aligns the the tools God has blessed us with - reason and intelligence.

[prisonchaplain]

Here's one attempt at harmonization. Whether you accept all these conclusions or not, my sense is that the Bible is worth the benefit of the doubt, and I'd rather consider possible harmonizations than just assume God bungled badly in his choice of writers--or that they weren't that inspired after all.

The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions in the Synoptics

[lattelady]

What I'm wondering is: are any of us in a position to get to decide, "This biblical story is 'fantastical but ESSENTIAL'", or "This story is 'fantastical but UNESSENTIAL'?" If I heard someone say that they had the discernment to be able to tell me "the story of the Red Sea parting is allegory, but the one about Jesus walking on water, that one really happened. Now, the one about the donkey speaking, that was symbolic, but the one about the five loaves and three fishes, that was literal", I'd be tempted to say, "Who made you the authority?" This is where my relationship with God differs a bit. I believe that the Bible teaches that upon faith in Christ, I was given the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit guides me as a read God's inspired Word, the Bible. The Holy Spirit enlightens me, teaches me, instructs me. As I trust God and ask for wisdom, He gives it. If there's something in His Word that I don't understand, I pray that He'll show me what it means; and I trust Him to use other parts of the Bible and His Holy Spirit together to bring clarity where I was confused. But if we start saying--One part is just a story, one part is allegory, one is realism--we'll all end up with very different versions of the "truth" according to us. If I refuse to take God literally in these miraculous things He's done throughout scripture, I shrink God down, and I'm not doing that. I know that He's that big. He's done miracles in my own life, and those miracles give me hope to wait for greater miracles. The miracles that he did in His Word give me even MORE hope. When my husband was in Uganda, one of the women in his team was part of a healing from demon possession that was just like a story in the gospels. God gave her the power to cast a demon out. Amazing. The woman who was possessed had been for years and the demon caused both of her eyes to point outward in opposite directions. When the woman in my husband's team laid her hands on her and prayed for her, the demon flung the woman on the ground and she convulsed and foamed at the mouth and then the demon left her. Immediately her eyes were straight. It was a miracle. God still does miracles today.

[Snow]

Here's one attempt at harmonization. Whether you accept all these conclusions or not, my sense is that the Bible is worth the benefit of the doubt, and I'd rather consider possible harmonizations than just assume God bungled badly in his choice of writers--or that they weren't that inspired after all.

The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions in the Synoptics

I posted a contradiction between the Synoptics and John and you posted a link that doesn't say anything about the topic?

Supposing that you had posted the correct apology, why is an apology even necessary, Can't the scriptures just mean what they say without being spun? That's the kind of thing that a literal and inearrant view forces you into.

... btw, are you a sola scriptura guy?

[Snow]

What I'm wondering is: are any of us in a position to get to decide, "This biblical story is 'fantastical but ESSENTIAL'", or "This story is 'fantastical but UNESSENTIAL'?"

This should be easy to settle. Does it make a bit of difference to my or your salvation if we accept or reject a talking donkey as literal or not.

If yes, please provide references from the scripture that salvation is contingent upon a literal interpretation of animal linguistics.

If I heard someone say that they had the discernment to be able to tell me "the story of the Red Sea parting is allegory, but the one about Jesus walking on water, that one really happened. Now, the one about the donkey speaking, that was symbolic, but the one about the five loaves and three fishes, that was literal", I'd be tempted to say, "Who made you the authority?"

Correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that events should be interpreted literally.

Who, then, made you the authority.

This is where my relationship with God differs a bit. I believe that the Bible teaches that upon faith in Christ, I was given the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit guides me as a read God's inspired Word, the Bible. The Holy Spirit enlightens me, teaches me, instructs me. As I trust God and ask for wisdom, He gives it. If there's something in His Word that I don't understand, I pray that He'll show me what it means; and I trust Him to use other parts of the Bible and His Holy Spirit together to bring clarity where I was confused. But if we start saying--One part is just a story, one part is allegory, one is realism--we'll all end up with very different versions of the "truth" according to us.

So if I have done those things - and I have - and the Holy Spirit inspires me to understand events allegorically? Or can the Holy Spirit only inspire me to agree with you? Why then even bother with the Holy Spirit - I could just ask you.

If I refuse to take God literally in these miraculous things He's done throughout scripture, I shrink God down, and I'm not doing that. I know that He's that big.

That's bizarre. If you believe that donkeys don't talk then you make God smaller.

How about this. God's size/import has nothing to do with you and there is nothing you can do to change him. Moreover, the God of my understanding is no smaller than the God or your understanding... or alternately, I'd love to see you prove otherwise.

The woman who was possessed had been for years and the demon caused both of her eyes to point outward in opposite directions. When the woman in my husband's team laid her hands on her and prayed for her, the demon flung the woman on the ground and she convulsed and foamed at the mouth and then the demon left her. Immediately her eyes were straight. It was a miracle. God still does miracles today.

Can you guess what my next question would be (the answer to which is obviously no)?

[prisonchaplain]

I posted a contradiction between the Synoptics and John and you posted a link that doesn't say anything about the topic?

Supposing that you had posted the correct apology, why is an apology even necessary, Can't the scriptures just mean what they say without being spun? That's the kind of thing that a literal and inearrant view forces you into.

... btw, are you a sola scriptura guy?

The link addresses the broader issue of alleged discrepancies in the synoptics. It was meant simply to point out that many of the alleged problems can be harmonized, and that the result is not mere "spin." It's a legitimate reading. We're not reading the newspaper here. Nor are we reading secular history. We believe that the Bible is inspired of God. So, if there appears to be a problem, rather than just stopping at that...oh, God's inspired word has problems...we attempt to see if the problem is with our understanding. Most often, context is what clears the fog, not "spin."

My guess is that "sola Scriptura" may have more nuances than I would care to be responsible for. But, Scripture does tame continuing revelation. If I prophesy in church, what I say had better comport with Scripture--or I'm wrong.

[Snow]

The link addresses the broader issue of alleged discrepancies in the synoptics. It was meant simply to point out that many of the alleged problems can be harmonized, and that the result is not mere "spin." It's a legitimate reading. We're not reading the newspaper here. Nor are we reading secular history. We believe that the Bible is inspired of God. So, if there appears to be a problem, rather than just stopping at that...oh, God's inspired word has problems...we attempt to see if the problem is with our understanding. Most often, context is what clears the fog, not "spin."

So is there a problem with our understanding regarding the years difference between Mark and John?

My guess is that "sola Scriptura" may have more nuances than I would care to be responsible for. But, Scripture does tame continuing revelation. If I prophesy in church, what I say had better comport with Scripture--or I'm wrong.

Is that a yes or a no?

[lattelady]

What I meant, LITERALLY, is that I shrink my idea of God and His power down when I refuse to exercise my faith and say, "He can do that! There's nothing He cannot do!" You're right. I can't shrink Him down. And no, my salvation is not based on the ability of a donkey to talk. I choose to take God at His Word and maintain a consistent view of His Word--that it is inspired, written by regular men who were moved by the Holy Spirit of God. They wrote with their personality intact, but they were inspired by God as to the words to say. Each word, each though is divinely inspired and inerrant. (That's what I believe).

And no, I have NO idea what your next question is going to be. What is your point?

[Snow]

What I meant, LITERALLY, is that I shrink my idea of God and His power down when I refuse to exercise my faith and say, "He can do that! There's nothing He cannot do!" You're right. I can't shrink Him down. And no, my salvation is not based on the ability of a donkey to talk. I choose to take God at His Word and maintain a consistent view of His Word--that it is inspired, written by regular men who were moved by the Holy Spirit of God. They wrote with their personality intact, but they were inspired by God as to the words to say. Each word, each though is divinely inspired and inerrant. (That's what I believe).

Whether God COULD has nothing to do with whether God DID. Omnipotence isn't even at issue.

And no, I have NO idea what your next question is going to be. What is your point?

I should have thunk it was obvious but never mind.

[rameumptom]

I guess I have some informal guidelines:

Absurdity: If something smacks of absurdity, then it might be absurd - especially if there is no utility to be gained from interpreting the story literally. A talking donkey that actually talked doesn't have any compelling reason to believe in it. Christ walking on the water may seem absurd on the face of it but there are various ways of thinking about it that convey important legitimate concepts.

Contradicted by Reality: If something is contradicted by the facts, history, archeology, science, etc, that's a problem. Take the flood. On one side you have massive amounts or data and logic and science subjected to peer review and the highest levels of scholarly and academic standard and on the other hand you have an anonymous author writing 3000 years ago.

Attribution of evil to God: If scripture attributes evil to God - I don't buy it. I'll favor God over anonymous authors every time.

Snow, your second concern (Contradicted by Reality) ruins your first requirement (Absurdity). You accept Christ walking on water, due to your first; however your second one on science becomes a problem. How many people do you know can walk on water without pontoon shoes, etc? Scientific scholars have definitely concluded that while mankind may float on water, they do not walk on water. And this will be true with all of Christ's miracles. How many people can be scientifically proven to have resurrected? How many bodies molder in the dirt, rather than resurrecting? (Hint: all of them, according to science). In essence, you demand these requirements for talking donkeys and parting seas, yet then allow for non-scientific "absurd" beliefs like resurrection to somehow and mysteriously get an exception, because it is "required". Required by what? Faith. But it is not required by science, and so it remains an absurd issue that should be rejected for the exact same reasons you reject other absurd myths. You cannot demand to have it both ways: if you demand that science trumps, then science must command in all things.

Attribution of evil to God becomes a sticky wicket in philosophy. Even the LDS view that it is "necessary" leaves much to be desired, as God can allow little children to die at birth, not have to suffer the pains of mortality, and become celestial, yet others have to suffer through much to receive a glory. Or how do we explain even in the D&C, where God allows the wicked to drive the saints out of Missouri in the middle of winter, allow Haun's Mill to occur, etc? For some, this still reeks of God allowing or causing evil to occur. So, I suppose it depends on one's definition of the term "evil."

Also, how does one know whether men, those we call prophets, were not speaking God's beliefs when they said God destroyed the earth, wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, commanded Moses to slaughter cities, etc? You impose your 21st century view upon ancient things, as I suppose it is to be more correct and politically correct? What makes Jeremiah's or Nephi's writings any different than Thomas Monson's? If they justified God destroying Israel, including children and innocents, then who are we to determine whether they were speaking from inspiration or from their prejudices? In this, you are leaving Occam's Razor behind, and imposing a view that what you pick and choose in the scriptures is obviously more correct than what anyone else would pick and choose to believe from them. I reject that concept. It reeks of wrongness and flippant pride.

Presidents Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith both accepted the global flood. Personally, I keep an open mind to both sides of the discussion. Yet, here we have modern prophets speaking on the topic. Are they just more of the idiot prophets of the past that didn't know what they were speaking about? Or is this a point of view that should be considered without casting aspersions?

Edited October 20, 2009 by rameumptom

[rameumptom]

Whether God COULD has nothing to do with whether God DID. Omnipotence isn't even at issue.

I should have thunk it was obvious but never mind.

On the first part: while I am not into sola scriptura, I also am one that does not willy-nilly dismiss talking donkeys, simply because they do not normally occur in nature. You miss the point of faith and miracles in the discussion. Moroni and Mormon warn us about those who deny miracles, as they lack faith in God.

As for your second note to Lattelady, I suggest you be kinder to people. That was very rude and uncalled for. While you have an intelligent mind, it obviously hasn't trained you in the ways of tact.

[Gatorman]

... tact.

Tact - The ability to tell someone to go to hades and have them be happy to be on their way. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes - that is correct.

While the resurrection is a fantastical story, it is essential. That is - our doctrinal system crumbles without it. You can't pick and choose something like that. You believe it or discard it but discarding it means you are discarding the core of your Christianity. Most events are not as important as the resurrection but are central to our theology, for example the restoration, or the granting of the priesthood, etc. Going on down the chain you arrive at events that have no import whatsoever on our salvation and seem to contradict science and logic and history and fact. Since God has never said how he requires us to interpret such events or "myths" I say that its okay or desirable to interpret them in a way that best aligns the the tools God has blessed us with - reason and intelligence.

Why are you so hard-lined with your view that everything 'has to be' interpreted? You say "its okay or desirable to interpret them in a way that best aligns the tools God has blessed us with - reason and intelligence." And I say, it is okay to not interpret everything in the bible until you come to that level of understanding. It can be left uninterpreted. This whole discussion goes back and forth because you keep leaving out one option, that of leaving the scripture in question uninterpreted. Sometimes you have to tell yourself, I just don't understand the significance of that scripture right now but I will pray about it, ponder it and then maybe it will come to me, but maybe it won't and I am okay with that. Every item in the Bible does not have to be designated black or white .... (boy, I sound like I'm talking to my husband) And by the way, God has told you how to interpret 'such events or myths' but it may not be time for you to receive such instruction.

[Moksha]

Perhaps the most graphic example of God using the murder and physical anguish of an innocent for his righteous ends is the crucifixion of Jesus.

Are you saying that those involved in the Crucifixion were following God's orders?

[prisonchaplain]

Moksha, not at all. I'm saying that if we're going to question morality of God sending bears upon youth who mock his prophet, then would not the slaughter or an innocent man (especially one who is the only begotten of God), be even more reprehensible? And, in fact, Muslims and Jews condemn the morality and ethics of Christianity, based on this very matter. They say that the crucifixion of an innocent buy the acquittal of the guilty. Such is inherently immoral and unjust, in their view.

Example: http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_crucifixion_hoax_3.htm

Edited October 20, 2009 by prisonchaplain
re: add link

[Seminarysnoozer]

I guess I have some informal guidelines:

Absurdity: If something smacks of absurdity, then it might be absurd - especially if there is no utility to be gained from interpreting the story literally. A talking donkey that actually talked doesn't have any compelling reason to believe in it. Christ walking on the water may seem absurd on the face of it but there are various ways of thinking about it that convey important legitimate concepts.

Contradicted by Reality: If something is contradicted by the facts, history, archeology, science, etc, that's a problem. Take the flood. On one side you have massive amounts or data and logic and science subjected to peer review and the highest levels of scholarly and academic standard and on the other hand you have an anonymous author writing 3000 years ago.

Attribution of evil to God: If scripture attributes evil to God - I don't buy it. I'll favor God over anonymous authors every time.

Failed prophecy: If something is predicted, and it doesn't happen, the prophecy was wrong.

Internal contractions: If one scripture is contradicted by another, at least one of them cannot be literally true.

Now - my question of you is: How do you decide which scriptures are literally true vs those that are not?

For example:

Mark has James and John asking Christ a question in 10:35-38. Matthew has their mother asking the question in 20:20-22.

In the Synotics the temple cleansing occurs just after the triumphal entry. For Mark it is the explicit reason for the plot to kill Jesus. In John it occurs years earlier with no connection to his death.

In both cases (and many many more) both can be wrong, but only one can be literally true. How do you decide which?

In all of your 'informal guidelines of absurdity' you leave out the most important rule which is humility.

How do you know what is absurd, unless you tell yourself that you have experienced life enough to know what is absurd and what isn't, thus taking humility completely out of the picture. In contradicted by reality you assume that you know what reality is and that you have a good understanding of science, again no room for humility. You really think we know all there is to know about science? I know we don't, so you can't really use that rule. Attribution of evil, are you humble enough to realize that you do not know all of Gods laws or do you say that you can discern good from evil in every case? Internal contradictions is only possible when you think you can interpret the given scripture exactly as it was intended, also taking humility out of the equation.

How you decide which? is your final question .... you humble yourself first, then you humble yourself even more and let your head shrink down some and realize you don't know enough to make these determinations in some cases. Then you pray about it, have faith and maybe you will have an answer. If you leave no room for humility then you will only think you know when you really don't and when the answer is given you won't hear it.

Alma 32: 16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks: "Humility is the catalyst for all learning, especially spiritual things. Through the prophet Moroni, the Lord gave us this great insight into the role of humility: “I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them” (Ether 12:27).

[Snow]

Snow, your second concern (Contradicted by Reality) ruins your first requirement (Absurdity). You accept Christ walking on water, due to your first; however your second one on science becomes a problem. How many people do you know can walk on water without pontoon shoes, etc? Scientific scholars have definitely concluded that while mankind may float on water, they do not walk on water. And this will be true with all of Christ's miracles. How many people can be scientifically proven to have resurrected? How many bodies molder in the dirt, rather than resurrecting? (Hint: all of them, according to science). In essence, you demand these requirements for talking donkeys and parting seas, yet then allow for non-scientific "absurd" beliefs like resurrection to somehow and mysteriously get an exception, because it is "required". Required by what? Faith. But it is not required by science, and so it remains an absurd issue that should be rejected for the exact same reasons you reject other absurd myths. You cannot demand to have it both ways: if you demand that science trumps, then science must command in all things.

Granted, my powers of description leave much to be desired but I think you are missing my point. An evewnt may be absurd but not contradicted by fact. A talking donkey is absurd but I accept the remote (very remote) possibility that it might have happened. That is a separate issue from something like pre-Adamic humans - which is a fact. Now something could be both absurd and contra-fact/science but that just makes the event doubly suspicious.

Attribution of evil to God becomes a sticky wicket in philosophy. Even the LDS view that it is "necessary" leaves much to be desired, as God can allow little children to die at birth, not have to suffer the pains of mortality, and become celestial, yet others have to suffer through much to receive a glory. Or how do we explain even in the D&C, where God allows the wicked to drive the saints out of Missouri in the middle of winter, allow Haun's Mill to occur, etc? For some, this still reeks of God allowing or causing evil to occur. So, I suppose it depends on one's definition of the term "evil."

I am not talking about God allowing evil to happen - although that remains an unsolved problem of philosophy. I am talking about cases where ancient and anonymous authors claim that God is actively complicit in evil - conspiring with Satan to kill Job's family on a bet, killing innocent children in Egypt, ordering his followers to murder, rape and steal, kidnap and enslave.

Also, how does one know whether men, those we call prophets, were not speaking God's beliefs when they said God destroyed the earth, wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, commanded Moses to slaughter cities, etc?

Well - we don't know but if those authors claim God was complicit in immorality, then I tend to not accept it on the face of it.

You impose your 21st century view upon ancient things, as I suppose it is to be more correct and politically correct?

I tend to think that morality is not relativistic. Rape today is bad. Rape in the OT is also bad. In my mission I used to say that obedience was relative - the further away from the mission home you were, the less important the mission rules were - but that was a joke. Sin is sin.

What makes Jeremiah's or Nephi's writings any different than Thomas Monson's? If they justified God destroying Israel, including children and innocents, then who are we to determine whether they were speaking from inspiration or from their prejudices?

Is that a serious question? Who we are - are the one that read it and have to (or can) make decisions about whether or not it's true or literally vs allegorically true or not true. Don't you believe in personal inspiration? Do you think God will be mad at you if you decide yourself instead of just accepting what somebody else said?

In this, you are leaving Occam's Razor behind, and imposing a view that what you pick and choose in the scriptures is obviously more correct than what anyone else would pick and choose to believe from them. I reject that concept. It reeks of wrongness and flippant pride.

Neh, you may have noticed that I don't much care if people use polemical language to try and denigrate my belief system. I'm secure enough in my beliefs that your opinion of them, even if you use charged words, doesn't make any difference.

Presidents Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith both accepted the global flood. Personally, I keep an open mind to both sides of the discussion. Yet, here we have modern prophets speaking on the topic. Are they just more of the idiot prophets of the past that didn't know what they were speaking about? Or is this a point of view that should be considered without casting aspersions?

Interesting example. Perhaps you recall that Joseph Fielding Smith predicted that we will never get a man into space - that man was meant to remain on earth (and Brigham Young though the sun and moon might be inhabited). Prophets aren't scientists and their views on scientific matters often follow the thought of the times in which they live. You would be correct to think that I pay the upmost attention to what a prophet says of salvation but on scientific matter - eh, not so much. Now I certainly believe that there was a flood and that in some way the earth was baptized so to speak, but as described in the OT? Not hardly... and to the point of this thread, I have no compelling reason to change my mind and a number of compelling reasons to keep believing as I do.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Snow