Symbolic versus Literal

[_moksha]

What are your thoughts on a symbolic versus literal approach to the Mormon scriptural canon?



.

[_Gazelam]

Can you be more specific?

[_moksha]

Can you be more specific?

Well, for instance viewing the Book of Mormon as scripture best read for its symbolic truths rather than it as events that happened literally.

[_Inconceivable]

Well, for instance viewing the Book of Mormon as scripture best read for its symbolic truths rather than it as events that happened literally.

Up to a few years ago, I knew they were applied truths (not just theories).

The literal living prophets of God testified to me that they were actual accounts of real people.

I was inspired by the fact that the wisdom was tried and proven. It was a road map to life and eternity to a real place that defined a certainty.

Real question is:

Should Mormons view the Mormon God's prophet, apostles, tithing, morality and repentance as simply symbolic as well?

[_truth dancer]

I'm going to prophesy here for you Mok... :-)

By the turn of the century, the Book of Mormon will be considered complete myth by members of the church and its leaders, and the very idea that it was ever considered factual or a literal story will be spoken of in a rather dismissive tone like we hear apologists speak today of past leaders who shared their opinions as if they were revelations.

:-)

I'll bet ya a hot cocoa!

On a more serious note I do observe a move toward the Book of Mormon as myth idea. I know a few believers who embrace it as such.

~td~

[_moksha]

I'll bet ya a hot cocoa!

Wonder if they have good cocoa in the hereafter of 92 years from now?

On a more serious note I do observe a move toward the Book of Mormon as myth idea. I know a few believers who embrace it as such.

~td~

The Community of Christ has already placed this as an option for their members. Many of them now view it with an eye towards its symbolic value.

[_Inconceivable]

Well, for instance viewing the Book of Mormon as scripture best read for its symbolic truths rather than it as events that happened literally.

The largest of my issues for resignation was that I could not reconcile big waffling lies like this one.

If we use the lame if/then statement used by the hierarchy (if the Book of Mormon is true, then " x " is true), we can quickly conclude that much, if not all, of the church is not what it seems.

To recognize that the Book of Mormon as fiction characterizes it as un-true, regardless of whether it contains "truths" or even wisdom. Can there be any gray area? I don't think so.

Do the righteous symbolically return to live with the Mormon God for eternity?

Where does actual reality end and fantasy begin?

I think it is a moving target.

Just as the Pharisees and Sadducees were unable to answer the questions Jesus put to them, the hierarchy of the Mormon church cannot make an accurate accounting of words spoken over the pulpit concerning authenticity of a great many things.

[_JustMe]

What are your thoughts on a symbolic versus literal approach to the Mormon scriptural canon?

They're intermixed, of course. Where one draws the line differs between practitioners of the meanings of scriptures. For instance, concerning critics arguments like say uh, Scratch's...... his arguments are symbolically clownish. Literally they are loony.