Can scripture be allegory and still be true??
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2024
- Today we explore a well-debated question: Can scriptures be allegory and still hold truth? We explore different perspectives on religious texts, examining the balance between literal interpretations and allegorical meanings. We discuss how stories and parables can convey profound truths without being historically factual. While there are lots of thoughts about the Bible, we also talk about whether or not the Book of Mormon relies on literalism. Whether you're a scholar, a believer, or just curious, this conversation promises to challenge and inspire your understanding of spiritual narratives.
Let us know what you think in the comments below!
SUBSCRIBE:
saintsunscripted/subscribe
Follow Us:
Facebook: / saintsunscripted
Instagram: / saintsunscripted
Website: saintsunscripted.com/
Follow the Hosts:
David: / davidesnell
Allex: / allex_lennon
Kaitlyn: / kait_fotheringham
Sabrina: / srhymasfuller
Cam: / camcondie
Lauren: / ladylaurencassidy
Wilson: / wilsongustaveson
Brett: / brett.fotheringham
My opinion: much of the canon is written by Near Eastern peoples, who tend to write about actual events in figurative ways. Was it a snake that talked to Eve? No, but the snake symbolizes something. The benefit of teaching in symbols is that there can be one or more symbols that are direct lessons necessary in the story but also allows the listener to embrace revelation to apply the stories in other manners in their lives.
Why can't a "snake" have talked to eve?
"I really hesitate to form a solid opinion because I feel like it can be the most problematic.... I'm just going to hold one in one hand and one in the other and maybe eventually I'll find a way to match them up"
That's literally the definition of cognitive dissonance and doublethink
I’ve come to the point of my spiritual journey where I can’t accept scriptural literalism anymore. That goes for both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to throw them out like that. I still believe they are important ones personal development to become Christlike. I still believe the Gospel as it’s presented can still be applied, even if someone is secular in thinking. The faith part is probably the biggest struggle but if you come up with your own way of having faith despite the skepticism, it can help feel authentic than just faking it. Others have it figured out, I’m still trying to figure it out, but that’s my personal understanding.
It is very Western to describe the contents of scripture as a binary, as if they could only be 100% factual history or 100% metaphor and symbolism. That isn't really how ancient Eastern literature worked. All stories are symbolic, even when the details are accurate. And often even with factual history, symbolic details are added to make the intended moral more obvious. Hebrew culture uses numbers far more symbolically than modern audiences expect. Even with the Book of Mormon, many names and numbers have obvious symbolic meanings. The symbolism does not mean they are non-historical, but neither does it require absolute factual usage. For instance, the word in Hebrew for "million" can also mean an uncountable amount. It is literal rendered "a thousand thousands" with the word for "thousand" also meaning "many".
Modern readers just expect things to be far more binary than seems probable.
For instance the presenters seem to think that Genesis describes a global flood. Whether or not there was a global flood, the Bible never claims that it is. That is a fairly modern interpretation. Genesis only claims "all the land" was flooded. If a New Orleans newspaper says how during hurricane Katrina all the land was flooded, that does not mean San Deigo was also flooded. Talking about a flood in Louisiana cannot logically be extended to mean anything about California.
With the Old Testament , historically speaking it’s very rough to know fact for fact what actually happened and what is allegorical or metaphorical.., what I like to think, and I agree with lauren on this, maybe they thought this is what happened but it didn’t actually happen like that everywhere in the world…
The book of Mormon is always true ... Amén
I mean, as a theological history student myself (for one semester) I’ve seen New Testament sources proving to us that these events occurred. However, what remains to be discussed is how is the narrative portrayed in the Bible true to the actual historical event.
Same goes with the BofM or the D&C, events are recalled but we don’t know if the text we have today is accurate to what actually happened. However for me, this does not influence my belief, as I know it to be true from a spiritual standpoint as its teachings influence my life today, for my own good
I'm willing to take some books or tales in the Bible as allegory, others as poetic prophecy, and others more as history - or at least as recordkeeping by kings and scribes of varying reliability. (The guy who wrote about Samson was a fanboy who needed some perspective.)
The Book of Mormon is different. The entire book (excluding the small plates chapters) was written by Mormon and his son Moroni; the latter spent a significant amount of time with Joseph Smith, teaching him and occasionally reading him the riot act until the translation was complete, and later he showed the plates and vouched for the correctness of the translation to three witnesses (and to others, like Mary Whitmer). A half dozen people or more claim to have met Moroni; to believe he existed as an ancient prophet and more modern messenger / mentor is a foundational testimony of the Restoration. In my many times through the Book of Mormon, I've only grown more convinced that this is a record of multiple, real people - a people far too relatable at times, one reason why the book was written and preserved for our day.
The most important thing about the book is as a tool to draw you towards Christ. But much as I like "inspired fiction" (say, the Chosen - great viewing but takes pains to note it's no substitute for scripture), the Book of Mormon claims to be "another testament" to the reality of the Holy One of Israel, from the remnant of Joseph in the Americas, to bolster the claims of the record of the Jews.
Fiction can inspire, but it can't testify to anything.
If you're not there yet, keep at it. It's worth the journey, and the destination.
I think you need clarification regarding "the entirety of the Book of Mormon was written by Mormon and Moroni". Not exactly true. The BOM was 'abridged' by Mormon. But there were literally dozens of authors. Lehi, Nephi, Jacob Alma, etc.
@joncharlotteschoen you missed where I said "excluding the small plates chapters." Yes, Mormon includes primary sources from Alma, Zeniff, and others. But the Book of Mormon is a distinct record from the large plates of Nephi and (again, small plates excepted) he and Moroni inscribed every word onto new plates. He even abridged his own record from the plates of Nephi.
A really great author to investigate on this topic is John Walton. He goes through how the Biblical creation stories are not the same kind of stories that modern science tells about the formation of the earth. The Bible is all about why not how.
Real or allegory. That question isn’t really specific. Some parts of the scriptures are clearly allegorical. Did. Nephi really exist I think is the question. To which I would reply of course.
I wish we could know for certain, but I'm comfortable with trusting God. ❤
Always wanted tot see this type of conversation here.
If you believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, how can a person then even entertain the idea that God would be okay with Joseph lying about finding them, or translating all of it!?
It’s definitely a struggle that people will have to come to their own. One way I think people have come to accept it (and you don’t have to agree on it, because it does sound contradictory for what we believe God is supposed to be) is that God had other prophets lie as well. Best example I can think of is Abraham.
Yeah, the Spirit has testified to me that Joseph spoke the truth.
☺
If the Book of Mormon didn’t actually happen (but is still true), then who the heck was Moroni, or the other Nephite prophets who visited Joseph Smith?
Characters?
@@cinnamondan4984 they actually visited him…
Not really a debate on if these characters existed in my opinion but moreso about allegory and metaphor in some scriptural contexts
One could debate about whether Job and Jonah were historical personages or were the stories sacred fables perhaps.
I believe Dan Fogel has an argument about that if you want to dive into the works of someone who left the Church. The best way he described Joseph Smith was “a pious fraud with good intentions”, but still goes as far as calling him a prophet (just maybe not in the sense most Latter-day Saints call him a prophet). I don’t exactly know what he means by that, but I get the sense that he means that Joseph Smith still believed he was doing God’s work. Whether he made up the Book of Mormon, had help composing it, or actually found plates that he believed were of an ancient people and it turned out that it wasn’t, it might be probable that the Book of Mormon was created out of good intentions (which is probably a better secular argument than Faun Brodie).
That, in my mind, is how the Book of Mormon can still be seen as allegorical with precious nuggets of truth. Because in the end, the Book of Mormon (from what I’ve been taught) is supposed to help people become more Christlike, not to hold a monopoly on facts.
1:48 Jesus believed Jonah was a true story (Matthew 12:40)
Actually, one cannot conclude that from the text. All that we can know for certain is that Jesus was familiar with the story and assumed that his audience understood the reference. If I talk about the sign of Rip Van Winkle, it would not mean that I thought that he was a real person. People make allusions to fictional events all the time when using metaphors.
Great conversation! Thanks to each of you for your ability to logically and intelligently address concerns that people have about the validity of the Book of Mormon.
Great topic, but it’s painful to watch you guys clumsily pontificate when excellent content on the nature of scripture from LDS scholars already exists, including ON YOUR OWN CHANNEL!!! Please watch the Ben Spackman SU videos before marching this topic out like you’re breaking trail across terra incognita.
05:27 D&C 77:6 This earth will have in total a temporal existance of 7000 years.
oops...it's already had more than 4.5 billion years...
You can prove the Book of Mormon is real. I saw one just the other day. Blue cover and all.