Literalism

[Vegemighty]

Why do mormons insist on interpreting some stories of the bible as the literal events. All the scientific evidence in the world says that man has evolved into our current form and that a global flood never took place. So long as a person is following the commandments and worshiping Christ why does it matter if a person takes these stories literally or not?

[beefche]

LOL! You have to look up some old posts of Snow, a former poster of this site.

[Dravin]

Why do mormons insist on interpreting some stories of the bible as the literal events. All the scientific evidence in the world says that man has evolved into our current form and that a global flood never took place. So long as a person is following the commandments and worshiping Christ why does it matter if a person takes these stories literally or not?

You have a false premise there. Creation, at least as it concerns time periods, is not taken as a literal 6 (or 7 depending on how you look at it) 24 hour periods. Moving on to a less technical bent, not all Mormons insist such. I myself, and the aforementioned Snow, and several other posters here see no issue with Faith and accepting Evolution existing together.

As far as why so many Mormons insist they aren't compatible, we are a relatively conservative faith.

[prisonchaplain]

The main debate about creation is whether it was accomplished in six days or seven. Generally, those who are pro-union favor the seven day interpretation, suggesting that recuperation and days off must be factored in to honest labor schedules. Those who favor the six day view are most often small company owners who oppose the unions, and believe only actual work should be credited. :-)

[john doe]

Why do SOME mormons insist on interpreting some stories of the bible as the literal events

Fixed it for you. As a bonus, you could troll other Christian discussion sites and ask the same question. This is not a LDS-only question.

[Wingnut]

Mormons aren't the only ones who do it.

[Vegemighty]

I know your not the only ones, but I like you guys most. It just makes the most sense.

is there any good resources on mormons views on these events, whether theyre factual, metaphorical, or otherwise??

[prisonchaplain]

I don't know about Mormon sources, but the others are right, this is one of those uncommon issues that actually cuts about the same with LDS and evangelicals. Here are a couple of non-LDS sources.

Argues for "young earth creationism": The Institute for Creation Research

Argues for Intelligent Design (less literal, more interested in seeing God in the process, then fixating on dating): Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design

Argues for Theistic Evolution (God simply used Evolution as scientists have described it): Theistic Evolution - Faith and Science are Compatible

Edited November 24, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[rameumptom]

I know your not the only ones, but I like you guys most. It just makes the most sense.

is there any good resources on mormons views on these events, whether theyre factual, metaphorical, or otherwise??

Actually, Brigham Young warned about believing "baby stories" in regards to some events in the Creation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated that issues such as Eve being formed from the rib of Adam should not be taken literally.

As it is, the Bible contains 2-3 Creation stories that vary (Gen 1 and 2 in particular). In LDS scriptures, we see additional Creation stories in Abraham and Moses which also add differences or changes. What does it all mean? That the scriptures are a spiritual guide, and not a science manual.

There are many LDS that also do not believe the Flood was global, but was based on a large local phenomena.

The key is, these things are not necessary for salvation. They do help us understand the workings of God and the fall of mankind.

[Vegemighty]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate this. Its hard to choose between what science says didnt happen and what faith said does. I dont think you need to prove anything, only not discredit yourselves by promoting false science. Faith can be the proof

[Wingnut]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate this. Its hard to choose between what science says didnt happen and what faith said does. I dont think you need to prove anything, only not discredit yourselves by promoting false science. Faith can be the proof

You should look up Richard G. Scott. He currently sits on the Council of the Twelve Apostles, the second highest governing body in the LDS Church. Prior to that, he was a nuclear engineer by trade. He has stated that he sees no conflict between science and religion.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Wingnut

[beefche]

You should look up Richard G. Scott. He currently sits on the Council of the Twelve Apostles, the second highest governing boy in the LDS Church.

LOL! What a typo....

[Wingnut]

Lol. Nice catch, beefy. I fixed it. I'm out of town and working on a laptop. I only have a desktop at home, and I hate the keyboards on laptops, so I'm bound to have more typos than usual.

[Guest Elder_Bevan]

well what I have been taught is yes, the events of the bible we do take literally. The flood was a literal event, the parting of the red sea was literal. the creation of man, was literal. God does not lie, and he is not a god of confusion, when he says something we should take it literally. if we can't trust in god, who can we trust. he says in isaiah "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither my ways your ways. for my thoughts are higher than your thought and my ways than your ways" man cannot comprehend what the lord comprehends.

now that said, we mormons do believe in evolution, we are always evolving everyday. we start at one point in our life, and hope to change and become something better, if we don't our life has failed. so yes we do believe in evolution, but not in the fact that we came from monkeys or anything else. we are literal children of our father in heaven. He created us literally, we are like him!!!

[mnn727]

Why do mormons insist on interpreting some stories of the bible as the literal events. ?

Which stories? Sweeping generalisms such as this are seldom correct for all or even most Mormons

and

Are you aware of how many things science gets wrong and later corrects?

Edited November 26, 2010 by mnn727

[Vegemighty]

Which stories? Sweeping generalisms such as this are seldom correct for all or even most Mormons

and

Are you aware of how many things science gets wrong and later corrects?

Mostly the old testament stories. There are alot of exaggerations in there. King Solomon obviously never had 1000 wives because the population of jerusalem at the time was only about 1000. And then Noah, Jonah and of course Adam and Eve. Those things would all be impossible to happen as they are written. There are of course all those contradictions too.

[Just_A_Guy]

Mostly the old testament stories. There are alot of exaggerations in there. King Solomon obviously never had 1000 wives because the population of jerusalem at the time was only about 1000.

Some estimates seem to go up to 5,000 or more, but I see your point. The study manual that the LDS Church puts out for the Old Testament does warn that the numbers given in the OT can be extremely problematic.

And then Noah, Jonah and of course Adam and Eve. Those things would all be impossible to happen as they are written. There are of course all those contradictions too.

There are Mormons who would take each of these with a greater or lesser grain of salt. Our temple liturgy--in conjunction with statements from men we hold to be modern-day prophets--claims that Adam and Eve were historical figures, that they were the first human beings as we know them today, and that they did make some kind of conscious decision which subjected them to sin. Beyond that, though, it's very hard to parse the historical from the symbolic.

Many of us (though certainly not all) inclined to take the story of Noah's flood at face value, because there's a view within Mormonism that the earth symbolically goes through a spiritual life that is akin to a human's spiritual life--baptism, cleansing by fire, and ultimately refinement into (for all practical purposes) heaven itself--and that it may even have some degree of consciousness. The idea of a universal flood fits this paradigm of the earth's "baptism". John A. Widtsoe, an LDS apostle of the early 20th century and a somewhat noted scientist in his day, hypothesized (for ecclesiastical purposes; he never proposed this in a scientific setting) that the Bible was a bit off as to stating the depth of the water, but that it was entirely possible that everywhere had at least a couple inches of water (even if it was just rushing down a mountainside or something) for a moment or two.

With regard to Jonah: Again, you'll find Mormons who don't take it at face value; but I think most of us prefer to stick by the text of that (and most other) Biblical stories until science actually disproves them. The story of Jonah obviously isn't scientifically verifiable, but you can't disprove it simply because it amounts to proving a negative, which is logically impossible. As has been noted already: How often has science told us that something was impossible, and then some wild-eyed inventor went and did it anyways on the basis of some previously unrecognized scientific law?

We believe people came back from the dead, for pity's sake--and that everyone who hasn't yet done so, someday will. So buying the idea of someone spending three days in the belly of some ocean-going beast is small potatoes.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Blackmarch]

Why do mormons insist on interpreting some stories of the bible as the literal events. All the scientific evidence in the world says that man has evolved into our current form and that a global flood never took place. So long as a person is following the commandments and worshiping Christ why does it matter if a person takes these stories literally or not?

most of the stsories in the Bible don't involve evolution. Altho as to why many LDS choose such intrepretation probably has roots from Mainstream christianity from which many of the converts of the church have come from throughout the church's life.

[mnn727]

Mostly the old testament stories. There are alot of exaggerations in there. King Solomon obviously never had 1000 wives because the population of jerusalem at the time was only about 1000. And then Noah, Jonah and of course Adam and Eve. Those things would all be impossible to happen as they are written. There are of course all those contradictions too.

The Institute manual warns about the problems with numbers in the O.T.

There is a modern case of a man being swallowed by a whale and living, happened in Europe in the 19th century.

Swallowed by a Whale

Almost every culture has a flood legend, so there has to be some basis for it - was it worldwide? was it local -- don't know, but to dismiss it completly would not be very smart.

I would suggest that science is always evolving itself and there are honest disputes between scientists as to historical events. What science accepts today may or may not be what it accepts tomorrow.

Edited November 29, 2010 by mnn727

[Blackmarch]

I'd alos like ot add to my last post is that there is generally more than one way to "literally" intrepret something.