Do you take all the Old Testament stories as literal?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ldsister said:

Eh. Earthquakes aren't the same thing as saying, "You guys, go out and kill everyone, including the babies." For one thing, there were survivors, based on their righteousness. For another, natural disasters are tragic. Slaughter is horrific. I can believe in a God that allows and even causes tragedy. I don't believe in a God of horror.

It also kind of sounds like you're trying to shame me out of my opinion by equating me with being a bad, disobedient Mormon if I don't take all aspects of the Bible literally. You might consider that even our own  AoF puts a caveat on the complete literalness of the Bible: "As far as it is translated correctly." Additionally, JS has said that parts of the Apocrypha are true and instructive, so there's  a lot more grey area with the OT than w/ the other standard works. Being aware of that grey area doesn't make me a commandment-picker. 

 



 

 

I think we view killing and death differently from how God views it. From our point of view, death appears to be the end of life, and that is considered to be a tragedy and therefore wrong and bad. From God’s point of view, perhaps death is considered simply a transition point, from one phase of existence to another, nothing more than a necessary stepping stone on the path of eternal progression, moving from a inglorious mortal state to a glorious immortal state. If that is what death is, and that is what we preach and believe, then perhaps we have an incorrect, unhelpful view of the awfulness of death. Perhaps from our point of view, death is a bad and awful thing, but perhaps from God’s greater vantage point, it is not. I also have faith that God loves all of His children and always acts on their best behalf, so if He orders the death of a nation, then it ways that I can’t be sure of, but can speculate about, the deaths of those of that nation is in their best interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To OP: another reason I don't take all the OT stories literally at face value is because the LDS understanding of their literalness changes slightly over time. For instance, for many years, I was taught that there was no death (none at all) before the Fall AND that evolution could not have happened: God hand-created the animals, then he hand-created Adam and Eve, and there was no more to it. 

However, in a recent talk, Holland's description of Adam and Eve, while remaining firm on their existence (which I do believe), leaves open room for there to have been death and other events before the creation. He's very specific in saying that he doesn't know what happened on the planet before Adam and Eve, and in restricting the absence of death to HUMAN death. 

" I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death.3 "

To me, this new flexibility of interpretation tells us that there's room for interpretation where the literalness of the events described in the OT are concerned. Far from damaging my testimony, this gives me hope that the things that don't make sense to me will one day be clarified, and that lets my faith stay strong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think we view killing and death differently from how God views it. From our point of view, death appears to be the end of life, and that is considered to be a tragedy and therefore wrong and bad. From God’s point of view, perhaps death is considered simply a transition point, from one phase of existence to another, nothing more than a necessary stepping stone on the path of eternal progression, moving from a inglorious mortal state to a glorious immortal state. If that is what death is, and that is what we preach and believe, then perhaps we have an incorrect, unhelpful view of the awfulness of death. Perhaps from our point of view, death is a bad and awful thing, but perhaps from God’s greater vantage point, it is not. I also have faith that God loves all of His children and always acts on their best behalf, so if He orders the death of a nation, then it ways that I can’t be sure of, but can speculate about, the deaths of those of that nation is in their best interest.

I agree that God probably does not view death as being particularly horrible (neither do I), but I think God views killing as a very grave thing indeed. Throughout scripture, with the exception of the OT, God restricts the authorization for one human to kill another to a) being very rare b) being used only against the extremely wicked and c) being used only as defense against the most extreme and repeated provocation. That's why I can see God letting people die in earthquakes, as described in the Book of Mormon, but I can't see him commanding people to kill with the indiscriminate, reckless abandon that's described in the OT. 

Edited by ldsister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a source that you might feel has a bit more credibility than the Old Testament

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 63:33)
33  I have sworn in my wrath, and decreed wars upon the face of the earth, and the wicked shall slay the wicked, and fear shall come upon every man;
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ldsister said:

Could be, but the Bible specifically says that a lot of those things WERE ordered by God. Those would be the parts that I don't take literally. 

We part ways here. Those acts of violence (usually judgment) ordered by God happened. If I do not understand why, or if I struggle with the justice of certain events in scripture, those ultimately become "back-burner" questions. Sometimes I stumble upon answers--even years later. Other times I may not get my answer. God's proven himself far too often for me to feel competent to condemn his determinations.  LDS methods of interpretation may allow for more flexibility (saying certain stories are parables, or allegory, for example). I don't have that luxury. So, when I don't get the why, I trust until I do...sometimes for many many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ldsister said:

I agree that God probably does not view death as being particularly horrible (neither do I), but I think God views killing as a very grave thing indeed. Throughout scripture, with the exception of the OT, God restricts the authorization for one human to kill another to a) being very rare b) being used only against the extremely wicked and c) being used only as defense against the most extreme and repeated provocation. That's why I can see God letting people die in earthquakes, as described in the Book of Mormon, but I can't see him commanding people to kill with the indiscriminate, reckless abandon that's described in the OT. 

Many people ignore passages about God ordering thousands of people to be killed. Here's an example from 1 Samuel 15:2-3:

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Here's the problem, when people ignore these verses they ignore God's judgement. Ignoring God's judgement is a very dangerous things. God is both just and loving, but people tend to like the loving part better so they ignore His justice. This thinking leads to dangerous claims like "Everyone will eventually go to heaven because God loves everyone." I don't mean in any way that you are making this claim. It's a nice thought, but God had to wipe out wicked people because he is a just God, just think of the flood. 

Picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you like and don't like is really dangerous. I don't know how to emphasize that enough; clicking bold and underline doesn't cut it.

 

Edited by Larry Cotrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ldsister said:

Eh. Earthquakes aren't the same thing as saying, "You guys, go out and kill everyone, including the babies." For one thing, there were survivors, based on their righteousness. For another, natural disasters are tragic. Slaughter is horrific. I can believe in a God that allows and even causes tragedy. I don't believe in a God of horror.

I doubt the horror was any worse for the child about to be run through by a spear than it was for the one trapped inside a burning building.  Apparently we disagree on that.  I also don't think Christ was describing "natural disasters" in 3 Nephi, nor are there any apparent survivors of the cities Christ said he destroyed.  Survivors elsewhere, yes, but not in those (apparently).  IMO, you're applying 2016 sensibilities to O.T. people, and that is not going to help in understanding what really happened, why, or what we might learn from it.  (If "horrific" is simply because mortal men of that age carried out the commands they were given, as opposed to an immortal commanding the earth to swallow a city whole, well, you and I have different definitions of what gets included in "horrific" and the perspective from which it is defined.)

11 hours ago, ldsister said:

It also kind of sounds like you're trying to shame me out of my opinion by equating me with being a bad, disobedient Mormon if I don't take all aspects of the Bible literally. You might consider that even our own  AoF puts a caveat on the complete literalness of the Bible: "As far as it is translated correctly." Additionally, JS has said that parts of the Apocrypha are true and instructive, so there's  a lot more grey area with the OT than w/ the other standard works. Being aware of that grey area doesn't make me a commandment-picker. 

If you're going to add new information to your text well after the fact (this paragraph was added well after I read your first paragraph, and I wouldn't have noticed it were it not for Eowyn's reply), please just make a new post (or just know that it may be missed entirely by the person for whom it was intended).

In reply: Others later in this thread have added things which I think agree with what I was trying to say.

I did not, and will not, call you a commandment-picker, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.  I have insufficient information to make such a judgement, no right whatsoever to even try, and no interest in doing so anyway.

From my perspective, this part of my response was in intellectual exercise in abstraction - i.e. where you take two different things and find the similarities between them (a car and a bike are specifically very different, but in the abstract, they're just a means of transportation; a positive control, negative control, and sample are all very different, but in the abstract, they are all test articles which get incubated and then observed to see if bacteria grew on them1).

1 This is the kind of thing I do 40 hours / week, so this sort of analysis tends to permeate my thinking all the time.

In the abstract, I personally see no difference between the two types of thinking I described (selective belief).  In function, there's potentially a big difference, but not in the abstract.  You yourself have said you choose to believe some scripture and not other.  If you are comfortable in your choice, whether I believe scripture you choose not to believe should be irrelevant.  Either way, I personally think selective belief of this sort can be dangerous2.  It could also be functionally irrelevant in mortality.  Which of these is the case for you is between you and God; I have no desire to figure it out, even if I had sufficient information, which I don't.

2 This is the primary reason for my reply - so that others, coming along and reading this later, get both perspectives.


@Anddenex made a post that I just read, which I think better describes the way I think about this kind of thing (he has a bad habit of better-wording my thoughts!).  I link to it simply as an alternate way of explaining how I think about this kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Many people ignore passages about God ordering thousands of people to be killed. Here's an example from 1 Samuel 15:2-3:

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Here's the problem, when people ignore these verses they ignore God's judgement. Ignoring God's judgement is a very dangerous things. God is both just and loving, but people tend to like the loving part better so they ignore His justice. This thinking leads to dangerous claims like "Everyone will eventually go to heaven because God loves everyone." I don't mean in any way that you are making this claim. It's a nice thought, but God had to wipe out wicked people because he is a just God, just think of the flood. 

Picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you like and don't like is really dangerous. I don't know how to emphasize that enough; clicking bold and underline doesn't cut it.

 

I understand your perspective, but modern revelation has already eliminated at least one part of the Bible as being entirely uninspired. Here's a link to the church's position on The Song of Solomon, for instance. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/song-of-solomon?lang=eng

Is it really so impossible that other parts of the Bible may not have been recorded entirely accurately, especially when those parts of the Bible seem entirely inconsistent with the God taught about in the other three standard works? I believe in a just and loving God, which is why I find it hard to countenance the claim that he ordered babies and children to be slaughtered. That's not only unloving, that's also entirely unjust. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ldsister said:

I understand your perspective, but modern revelation has already eliminated at least one part of the Bible as being entirely uninspired. Here's a link to the church's position on The Song of Solomon, for instance. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/song-of-solomon?lang=eng

Is it really so impossible that other parts of the Bible may not have been recorded entirely accurately, especially when those parts of the Bible seem entirely inconsistent with the God taught about in the other three standard works? I believe in a just and loving God, which is why I find it hard to countenance the claim that he ordered babies and children to be slaughtered. That's not only unloving, that's also entirely unjust. 
 

As a hypothetical, if you were told by the Prophet that these passages which you object to were in fact literally real, and he knew these by directly. clear revelation, how would you react?

A step further: If and angel or the Lord Himself stood before you and unapologetically told you that He did order/sanction all these actions and expected you to accept it without explanation. how would you react?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ldsister said:

I believe in a just and loving God, which is why I find it hard to countenance the claim that he ordered babies and children to be slaughtered. That's not only unloving, that's also entirely unjust. 
 

Sounds like a free ticket to the celestial kingdom to me - a very loving thing to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Sounds like a free ticket to the celestial kingdom to me - a very loving thing to do. 

For the record, and not as any sort of criticism: I don't believe in free tickets to exaltation. The path has been given, and all who wish to enter into that kingdom must walk the path. I am fully aware of our doctrine on death before the age of accountability, and I accept it. But I do not believe it constitutes a "free ticket", at least not any more than anyone else's exaltation. I think it's safe to affirm that we do not have the background and context and mechanistic understanding of God's judgment and the process of exaltation to understand the conditions that allow (or mandate) the "salvation" of innocents who die. We know that we need not fear for their eternal well-being, and that is pretty much all we know. (At least, it's all I know. Maybe someone else has more insight into the question.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ldsister said:

I understand your perspective, but modern revelation has already eliminated at least one part of the Bible as being entirely uninspired. Here's a link to the church's position on The Song of Solomon, for instance. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/song-of-solomon?lang=eng

Is it really so impossible that other parts of the Bible may not have been recorded entirely accurately, especially when those parts of the Bible seem entirely inconsistent with the God taught about in the other three standard works? I believe in a just and loving God, which is why I find it hard to countenance the claim that he ordered babies and children to be slaughtered. That's not only unloving, that's also entirely unjust. 
 

This is one of those "How Wide the Divide" issues that causes widening. I still consider the Song of Solomon to be inspired scripture--and quite beautiful and meaningful at that. It's probably safe to say @Larry Cotrell does too.  If it's not, then your second paragraph becomes plausible thinking.  Even though my church tradition (Pentecostal) encourages modern revelation (through tongues and interpretation and words of prophesy) we always hold those utterances in submission to already-revealed revelation (i.e. the Bible). This not meant to counter your thoughts, but to explain why non-LDS Evangelicals would find them so difficult to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ldsister said:

I understand your perspective, but modern revelation has already eliminated at least one part of the Bible as being entirely uninspired. Here's a link to the church's position on The Song of Solomon, for instance. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/song-of-solomon?lang=eng

Is it really so impossible that other parts of the Bible may not have been recorded entirely accurately, especially when those parts of the Bible seem entirely inconsistent with the God taught about in the other three standard works? I believe in a just and loving God, which is why I find it hard to countenance the claim that he ordered babies and children to be slaughtered. That's not only unloving, that's also entirely unjust. 

 

54 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I still consider the Song of Solomon to be inspired scripture--and quite beautiful and meaningful at that.

I definitely agree with @prisonchaplain on this. However, the important part is that the God of the Old Testament is consistent with the God of the New Testament. This is also crucial because someone could come along and say, "I like the genocide verses better, so I'm going to gather an army and wipe people out." If you want to fully understand the God of the Bible, you have look at the Bible as a whole, not as little pieces to pick and choose. It is in this whole that God has revealed himself to the world.

Sometimes God does things we don't understand because we have a limited view of what is happening. He stands watching, outside the restraints of time, and knows everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen. It is like you driving a car and swerving because you are about to hit something. Your toddler in the back seat  yells, "Hey, what was that for" as the whole car shifts. He doesn't understand what is happening because he has a limited view and can't see past the seat in front of him. We as humans have this same limited view. We don't always know why God did what He did but do always know that He has a reason for doing what He does

You can say, "Let's only look at the parts of the Bible that seem consistent to me and assume that the rest didn't happen," but again, this is dangerous. We should read the Bible as a whole and understand that that the God of the Bible has done things that we don't fully understand the reasons for. He knows best.

   

Edited by Larry Cotrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

As a hypothetical, if you were told by the Prophet that these passages which you object to were in fact literally real, and he knew these by directly. clear revelation, how would you react?

A step further: If and angel or the Lord Himself stood before you and unapologetically told you that He did order/sanction all these actions and expected you to accept it without explanation. how would you react?

If the prophet were speaking directly to me about the events of the OT, I would adore the opportunity to discuss the whys of that and get some context for those events. 

If an angel came and told me anything, the first thing I would do is ask to shake his hand. ;)

As for the Lord, I believe that one day there will be understanding for all these difficult issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

 

I definitely agree with @prisonchaplain on this. However, the important part is that the God of the Old Testament is consistent with the God of the New Testament. This is also crucial because someone could come along and say, "I like the genocide verses better, so I'm going to gather an army and wipe people out." If you want to fully understand the God of the Bible, you have look at the Bible as a whole, not as little pieces to pick and choose. It is in this whole that God has revealed himself to the world.

Sometimes God does things we don't understand because we have a limited view of what is happening. He stands watching, outside the restraints of time, and knows everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen. It is like you driving a car and swerving because you are about to hit something. Your toddler in the back seat  yells, "Hey, what was that for" as the whole car shifts. He doesn't understand what is happening because he has a limited view and can't see past the seat in front of him. We as humans have this same limited view. We don't always know why God did what He did but do always know that He has a reason for doing what He does

You can say, "Let's only look at the parts of the Bible that seem consistent to me and assume that the rest didn't happen," but again, this is dangerous. We should read the Bible as a whole and understand that that the God of the Bible has done things that we don't fully understand the reasons for. He knows best.

   

I understand your perspective that we can't seek to counsel God. If God himself said that he really ordered all those things, I'd bow my head and shut my mouth. But I also feel like I have an obligation to understand things in the context of reason and morality, and since God himself hasn't told me that he ordered all those slaughters, I regard them with the mind that there may be more to the story, or a much different story, than what's presented in the OT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is one of those "How Wide the Divide" issues that causes widening. I still consider the Song of Solomon to be inspired scripture--and quite beautiful and meaningful at that. It's probably safe to say @Larry Cotrell does too.  If it's not, then your second paragraph becomes plausible thinking.  Even though my church tradition (Pentecostal) encourages modern revelation (through tongues and interpretation and words of prophesy) we always hold those utterances in submission to already-revealed revelation (i.e. the Bible). This not meant to counter your thoughts, but to explain why non-LDS Evangelicals would find them so difficult to accept.

Thank you. I appreciate your kind words and your understanding of my perspective. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ldsister said:

If the prophet were speaking directly to me about the events of the OT, I would adore the opportunity to discuss the whys of that and get some context for those events. 

If an angel came and told me anything, the first thing I would do is ask to shake his hand. ;)

As for the Lord, I believe that one day there will be understanding for all these difficult issues. 

I'm not trying to be snarky about this.  But when you don't actually answer the question, the common response then is to assume the worst of you.  Avoidance, no matter how pleasant the response is still a non-response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not trying to be snarky about this.  But when you don't actually answer the question, the common response then is to assume the worst of you.  Avoidance, no matter how pleasant the response is still a non-response.

I thought I was answering the question. I'm sorry my answers didn't meet your specifications. 

Was what you were trying to ask with all those scenarios was what I'd say and do if I found out unequivocally that God actually DID order all those killings with no justification or explanation? I'd be sad and terrified but I'd keep my mouth shut because who's going to argue with that kind of God?

Edited by ldsister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ldsister said:

I thought I was answering the question. I'm sorry my answers didn't meet your specifications. 

Was what you were trying to ask was what I'd say and do if I found out unequivocally that God actually DID order all those killings with no justification or explanation? I'd be sad and terrified but I'd keep my mouth shut because who's going to argue with that kind of God?

I asked what your reaction would be.  You said,

1) You'd enjoy a conversation with the prophet.
2) You would test the "angel".
3) You bore testimony that "we" would understand someday.

When I say I believe the worst of a non-answer, I interpret from your responses.

1) You would not be satisfied with the prophet telling you this.  And you would demand some form of explanation in order for you to accept it.
2) You would FIRST doubt the angel (when the nature of my question was that it was indeed an angel).  But you never said what you would do if you verified it was indeed a true messenger.  To believe he worst from that would mean that you simply wouldn't accept it. Your statement ended with doubt.  Thus it is reasonable to conclude that your position ends with doubt.
3) Since you didn't say you would accept it from God Himself, what you veiled statement really means is that you still believe you are right, everyone else will eventually come to understand with clarity that you are indeed right.

I simply asked, What would your reaction be?  You gave your carefully worded political science type responses that told me nothing other than what you have already said, while making it appear that you're being the reasonable one while you're being staunchly opposed to actually answering a simple question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I asked what your reaction would be.  You said,

1) You'd enjoy a conversation with the prophet.
2) You would test the "angel".
3) You bore testimony that "we" would understand someday.

When I say I believe the worst of a non-answer, I interpret from your responses.

1) You would not be satisfied with the prophet telling you this.  And you would demand some form of explanation in order for you to accept it.
2) You would FIRST doubt the angel (when the nature of my question was that it was indeed an angel).  But you never said what you would do if you verified it was indeed a true messenger.  To believe he worst from that would mean that you simply wouldn't accept it. Your statement ended with doubt.  Thus it is reasonable to conclude that your position ends with doubt.
3) Since you didn't say you would accept it from God Himself, what you veiled statement really means is that you still believe you are right, everyone else will eventually come to understand with clarity that you are indeed right.

I simply asked, What would your reaction be?  You gave your carefully worded political science type responses that told me nothing other than what you have already said, while making it appear that you're being the reasonable one while you're being staunchly opposed to actually answering a simple question.

I can tell I've really irritated you in some way. That wasn't my intention. I'll see myself out of this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ldsister said:

I can tell I've really irritated you in some way. That wasn't my intention. I'll see myself out of this thread. 

I'm not irritated.  I just have difficulty understanding how you have such a firm position on something and then refuse to answer a simple question about it.

I guess I hit a bit too close to home.  Apparently, you believe

1) You know better than the prophet.
2) You  know better than an angel.
3) You doubt God really knows what He's doing.

You're sure you're LDS?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not irritated.  I just have difficulty understanding how you have such a firm position on something and then refuse to answer a simple question about it.

I guess I hit a bit too close to home.  Apparently, you believe

1) You know better than the prophet.
2) You  know better than an angel.
3) You doubt God really knows what He's doing.

You're sure you're LDS?

Why are you attacking me? You're twisting my words in pretty significant ways and continuing to be aggressive even after I've said I'm not seeking conflict. I don't understand why you're doing this. 

Edited by ldsister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ldsister said:

Why are you attacking me? You're twisting my words in pretty significant ways and continuing to be aggressive even after I've said I'm not seeking conflict. I don't understand why you're doing this. 

This isn't an attack.  It's a very normal sequence of events.  I said before that when one offers a non response, it is logical to conclude that the correct response would make you look pretty bad.  Then you again refused to answer.  I explained again what that would mean and exactly what type of conclusions I'd be likely to draw. Then, instead of clarifying, you tried to "act" as if you're taking the high road. But in reality, you didn't.

Accusing me of attacking you isn't explaining your position any better.  My question was pretty simple.  But instead of answering it, you're playing the  victim.  What am I to conclude now?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2016 at 11:20 AM, prisonchaplain said:

In my humble, non-LDS, opinion the Bible is best understood as mostly literal, mostly historical. There are a few occasions where allegory, poetry, and hyperbole are clearly employed. 

I think the some of the stories in the Old Testament are allegory. Others are just all gory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share