DiscussMormonism.com

If I were to announce that I had the goods on Mother Goose and the Grimm Brothers, someone would tell me to relax and just roll with the stories. Stories can be helpful and enjoyable on many levels. We can all appreciate the ingenious ways Superman tricked Mr. Mxyzptlk into saying his name backward and thus being compelled to return to his own dimension or draw inspiration from how Frodo Baggins plugged away under the weight of his burden across the plains of Mordor. If I were to try and pin down Mxyzptlk's dimensional paradox mechanism or the compulsion of the ring, I would either be a candidate for a Ph.D at the prestigious Brigham Young University physics department, or someone urinating against the wind.

Let our allegory be allegory, please. No fanciful defenses or tireless attacks are needed

Science can neither condone or tolerate your pleading.

Have you taken a physics class at BYU? Or a biology class? If not, I'd happily tell you about it: YOU'RE WRONG.

...

Nelson Chung wrote:Have you taken a physics class at BYU? Or a biology class? If not, I'd happily tell you about it: YOU'RE WRONG.

The Mxyzptlkian dimensional paradox mechanism or taking a class at BYU?

moksha wrote:Let our allegory be allegory, please. No fanciful defenses or tireless attacks are needed

Please explain which aspects of Mormonism are merely allegory, and which ones are supposed to be taken literally.

For the aspects that are merely allegorical, please list any or all General Authorities who have labeled them as such.

Thanks in advance.

Dr. Shades wrote:

moksha wrote:Let our allegory be allegory, please. No fanciful defenses or tireless attacks are needed

Please explain which aspects of Mormonism are merely allegory, and which ones are supposed to be taken literally.

For the aspects that are merely allegorical, please list any or all General Authorities who have labeled them as such.

Thanks in advance.

As I recall, ALL aspects of Mormonism can be considered allegorical or literal depending on the need of the believer or General Authority at any particular point in time.

Bazooka wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:Please explain which aspects of Mormonism are merely allegory, and which ones are supposed to be taken literally.

For the aspects that are merely allegorical, please list any or all General Authorities who have labeled them as such.

Thanks in advance.

As I recall, ALL aspects of Mormonism can be considered allegorical or literal depending on the need of the believer or General Authority at any particular point in time.

Dr Shades asked for an explanation not an opinion.

Dr. Shades wrote:

moksha wrote:Let our allegory be allegory, please. No fanciful defenses or tireless attacks are needed

Please explain which aspects of Mormonism are merely allegory, and which ones are supposed to be taken literally.

For the aspects that are merely allegorical, please list any or all General Authorities who have labeled them as such.

Thanks in advance.

You're welcome.

Here is Stephen L. Richards:

Many of the scientific world
having discovered that the earth is round and not flat as the people of the
Old Testament evidently believed it to be have ungenerously, and it seems
to me, ruthlessly, thrown the good book into the discard with unconcealed
contempt....What if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of
the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own
limited geography and tribal relations did interpret Him in terms of a
tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under
His control to the dominion with which they were familiar?

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolu ... nlttr.html

Henry Eyring:

“Probably one of the most difficult problems in reading the scriptures is to decide what is to be taken literally and what is fiction.”