Possibly the least important question you could ask about a scripture story is, “Did it actually happen?”
It doesn’t matter if Ruth or Nephi or Adam or Eve ever walked the earth or performed the acts imputed to them by the scriptures. It would be more constructive for you to think about what kind of plates you’d like to set for dinner tonight than to light one more neuron in an attempt to establish the historicity of any scripture story.
It doesn’t matter if a scripture story happened. It matters if it’s true.
There’s a difference.
Here’s the thing about truth: we can’t conceive of it. On a physical level, our five senses detect only a tiny sliver of what goes on around us, and then our minds filter most of that out.[i] And then our memories retain even less. And then, when we try to articulate what we remember, we’re forced to process it through language and cultural constructs—notorious deformers.[ii] By the time a perceived instance in time and space has made its way to the uttered or written word, it bears little resemblance to what originally incited it.[iii]
And this is just when we’re talking about things that can be perceived by our five senses. What happens when we start talking about spiritual things?
Paul summed it up well: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).
In other words, there is no way to convey spiritual truths through language. If our senses cannot perceive them and our hearts cannot hold them, then our mouths cannot articulate them. All we can do is experience them.
Jesus was constantly struggling with this limitation, devising metaphors and parables that he hoped would help people enter spiritual experience. This language limitation is also why most of the Old Testament is poetry—its metaphors pointing toward the indescribable.
So how do we know when we’re experiencing truth? Alma provides a helpful metaphor, “this is a good seed . . . for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.”
A teacher of mine once said, “I know something is good when it helps me see that the universe is much larger than I thought it was.”
Truth doesn’t prove theories. It doesn’t reveal secret combinations.[iv] It doesn’t support any agenda. It simply grows one’s soul. You enter truth; you experience it; you savor it; you grow; and . . . that’s it.
Yes, we try to communicate what we’ve experienced, but all we can ever do is gesture toward it and hope the people around us can have their own experience.
So, if you’re wondering about the truth of a particular scripture story: whether or not it happened is irrelevant. You only need to ask, “When I experiment upon this word, does it make me grow? Does it reveal a larger universe? Does it taste good?”
The truth of a scripture is not in its words, but in your experience.
[i] And, if we want to be completely honest, what happens in any moment is infinite. Infinite processes on infinite levels occurred during the moment the story claims to narrate, the overwhelming majority of which are not noted.
[ii] Incidentally, this weakness applies to the moving image as well. You may have a video recording of an event, but the context—and therefore the meaning—of that recording is up for grabs. You need look no further than Fox News, MSNBC, or Facebook to see this played out.
[iii] And, yes, this applies to scripture stories as much as it does to news reporting.
[iv] Indeed, the experience of truth never leads to fear. Moroni taught that the Spirit of God leads only to charity (Moroni 7:44).
Stephen Carter
Stephen is the author of What of the Night?, an award-winning collection of personal essays on Mormon themes; The Hand of Glory, a young adult horror novel; and iPlates Volume I, a graphic novel based on the Book of Mormon. The Kickstarter campaign for iPlates Volume II starts November 5, 2013.
All posts by Stephen Carter
I agree with most of this, however, you are likely setting yourself up in opposition to the LDS church, because your thesis would justify the divinity and authority of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or the Catholic Church just as much as it does Mormonism. This is my struggle too, as I feel called to Mormonism by God, but also tend to be Universalist in that whatever is 'Good' for our souls is divine. Making 'truth' synonymous with 'good' seems to eliminate the need for priesthood authority.
In other words, Truth is much like "Tribute" (aka, the Best Song in the World). You can see/hear/feel it, but when you try to describe it later, it doesn't sound anything like what you experienced.
Sorry, forgot the link 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jvgbe9Kx0U
I think you are using true in a special way I don't understand.
As has been pointed out, while I agree with your definition of true, the Church doesn’t, and we have been programmed since primary to understand that all these things happened factually, historically etc. just like the scriptures say. In fact, in many ways the whole thing tumbles down like a house of cards the minute you take a less-than-literal approach to things, and we’re left with the Church being “good” rather than the “only true and living”.
Any I’m sorry, but “good” isn’t “good” enough for me to justify donating a tenth of my income and 50% of my free time. I’d rather be spending it with the kids.
I think Mormons need to hang out with Jews a little more. My Jewish friends have no problem with a non-literal approach to scripture. In fact, they get a little agitated by the literalness of protestant Christianity because Jews wrote the book that was never intended to be taken literally, and Christianity has subsequently decided to to take it literally.
We can learn a great deal of truth from the stories in scripture. Does anyone ask whether the Good Samaritan story really actually happened? It is the truth in the story that matters, not whether the story is literally true. God uses the narrative of the story to teach us, not the facts.
Don’t then. Pay what you want to pay, spend time as you think appropriate. Take ownership for your relationship with the church, don’t let it rule you out of fear that a specific interpretation is the only way to get back to God.
Fascinating and provocative approach. I feel what you are getting at… I think. It seems you are taking about how to find those deep truths that only come from time and seeking. Those that are find through scriptures, pain, discussions, experiences, and life.
I can dig that.
However, knowing that Jesus Christ existed or even Adam and Eve in the way they are depicted in scripture would matter. Why? Because it would tell you more about who God is. It would tell you that God, that Great Being, would start the human race via two humans in a type of paradise. That means something because it reveals. Reality reveals.
Personally, my experience and study has brought me to see it more as a powerful myth (not the derogatory form) than literal happening. But that current conception absolutely colors the way I see the world.
I do agree that it is nigh impossible to get to that conclusion, but if you did it would certainly matter.
Here is where I get stuck with this approach, so maybe you can help me figure it out. While I agree the values/ morals/ principles taught important to know it’s “true”, historicity has a role in our theology. I mean, if the Nephities weren’t real, then how could they write the BOM? How could one give it to JS? Doesn’t that lean to he made it up? If he did, why should I listen to him more than say, Stan Lee or JK Rowling? After all, no one at Comic Con is telling me to give 10% and giving me a list of things I “must” do or be kicked out. If there is no actual Son of God incarnate, how is what “Jesus” said any more important than say Budda? yes following either can make my life better, but Jesus has the kicker of claiming godhood. If he’s not real, why identify as Christian? I can handle the old testament being stories past down and expanded on as Cannanite society changed, or the new testament being Jewish idea influenced by Roman and Norse thought but for us, as Mormon and Christian, history has to play an important role otherwise the certainty the insist upon is removed, is it not?
Readers may not ask whether the parable of the Good Samaritan actually happened. They may ask whether the Atonement and Resurrection actually happened, and whether both apply to them. Answer: Yes, both did and yes both apply – and this regardless of what they choose to think about them. Here’s a recent (Oct 2014) statement from Elder Bednar:
“Absolute truth exists in a world that increasingly disdains and dismisses absolutes. In a future day, ‘every knee [shall] bow’ and ‘every tongue [shall] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’ (Philippians 2:10-11). Jesus the Christ absolutely is the Only Begotten Son of the Eternal Father.”
This may offend those who don’t think Jesus is Lord. We have no option other than to assert it. It is able to be articulated and conveyed through language. We can grasp what it means. This truth is not equally true with any opinions that contest it. It’s not equally true with atheism or reincarnation, no matter what anyone else experiences or how these two make them feel or how congenial they find these other two to be. Belief in its opposite won’t prevent that “future day” mentioned from arriving.
The original post is muddled and suffers from overthinking in general and a strained argument bewteen “truth” and “what happened” in particular. The “meaning” of the Plan of Salvation, the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, and the reality and centrality of the Savior aren’t “up for grabs.” They have been conveyed through language and can be grasped. We aren’t floating in a haze of sensation at the wonder of it all. Yes, we have personal experiences that are a challenge to articulate to others – and maybe don’t need to be. But there are many other things that also matter and that can be articulated. It’s not the case that all truths can be articulated and their meaning conveyed, it’s the case that many truths can be articulated and their meanings conveyed. Everything isn’t floating unmoored in a sea of brain chemicals.
When I say that Nephi and Moroni have the same historicity as George Washington, I am not lost in a fog of solipsistic speculation. I have a clear concept of what I mean and why it matters. It’s not like trying to think about or trying to articulate concepts of multi-dimensional universes. And while it is the case that the historicity of Nephi and Moroni aren’t provable in the same way that the historicity of Washington can be shown, my acceptance of the historical facticity of Nephi and Moroni results in no conceptual “truth” problems for me. In the same way, I do not find that the reality – the truth – of that future day when the Savior will be universally acknowledged results in either a conceptual problem or in uncertainty.
And truth absolutely has and does support an agenda – the Father’s and Christ’s. While we’re at it, Satan has an agenda as well, which is to derail the Father’s agenda by steering us away from truth. And Satan exists as an entity, not as a concept of an entity. This matters.
Our missionaries are out there articulating something true that can be grasped and has meaning in a universe that was made for us by God. They aren’t distinguishing between the “truth” of the First Vision and whether it happened. And so, yes, we can handle the truth that has been placed within our sphere to grasp. We don’t need to overthink this or second guess our every cogitation.
flyingmooseman,
The way I think about this, borrowed from my Jewish friends, is not to worry about whether or not the story really happened. There is one level where you consider the story as inspired metaphor. It is a story that God uses to teach us truth. God put these stories in holy books. They might be actual historical events and they might not be — and that really does not matter. What does matter is that they lead us to truth about grace, salvation, love, etc.
On another level, these stories may represent actual historical events. However, the importance of that pales in comparison to the first level because the historical facts don’t matter much if we are exercising faith to believe that God is teaching us through the stories. That is an amazing miracle that takes great faith, all by itself.
I do choose to believe that the resurrection story is literal, because of my experience and what I interpret to be personal revelation. I’m not sure even that is essential (and I know good, active latter day saints who believe it is not) but my faith journey says that it is.
Mike, I totally understand where your coming from, but you have to admit it doesn’t feel “Mormon” and while I wish there was room for such a view, it really seems such an attitude is not wanted by “the faithful” (just look at tim’s comment for an example) and more and more it seems like they push us out. I live in Utah! My ward is so small, there seems to be no one who wants to take a nuanced approach, and my bishop was just released for a tbm! the new bishop (old elders quormn pres) has clearly had his feathers ruffled in the past over simple ideas I’ve mentioned (like maybe church leaders aren’t always right) if he learns my doubts? I’m honestly scared for the future as my temple recommend is up and I have a sister preparing her papers….I use to be able to hang my hat on “doesn’t matter what leaders do, it’s true” but now that I question the historisity of the restoration, the nephities, even the life of christ….I’m lost, scared and feel very much alone now.
Can definitely relate to the way you are feeling, I felt the same things when I started to doubt and question the truth of it all(objective truth, not this meaning of truth that seems to replace the word “valuable”)
Not sure if it is a Utah thing, or a mormon culture thing in general though. My experience, as yours, is from living in Utah. The stories, the historical accuracy of the BoM, etc. are all very much taught and relied upon as being absolute truth in the objective sense, not just as valuable lessons from primary up to seminary and institute classes. Suggesting otherwise at church meetings no matter your intent or faith will get you sideways glances and comments of “You’re just being mislead, or misguided.” (Which I wouldn’t be surprised if you had heard those words from ward members or your new bishop.)
To me I don’t really understand this definition or approach to the word true as it just doesn’t seem needed. It seems to replace the word valuable. “True” in this sense can be argued, value I don’t think can be. The value of the teachings doesn’t rely on if they happened, it relies on what it does for people now.
*and by true I mean it literally happened, not litaturely happened. (Sorry, tbm moment). It still seems there is an important difference between truth/fact like “the Holocaust happened” and truth/concept like “genocide is bad”.
flyingmooseman,
Flyingmooseman… I feel your concerns… For me, it was a 20+ year process to manage through what you are managing through.
I find that the majority of rank-and-file Mormons, in and out of Utah, are perfectly happy with a highly literalist approach, largely because they have never been challenged otherwise and because it feels very safe to them. (It is also the way mainstream American Christianity tends to treat scripture, and has since the protestant reformation, so it feels very familiar) I did not have that luxury, for a variety of reasons, and had to sort out and reconcile the truth I heard at church with the truth I drew from the rest of my experience.
For me, an important part of that process was learning to discuss truth as I understood it in language that literalist believers would understand and not feel threatened, while not sacrificing my integrity or feeling dishonest. This definitely takes some practice and nuance.
I feel perfectly honest telling others, including Bishops and Stake Presidents, that I believe. (I choose never to use the word “know” because that does not represent my experience) While I believe some things literally and more metaphorically\figuratively, I recognize all faith and belief are a choice. I don’t choose to literally believe in talking donkeys or that God literally commanded old testament genocide, but I do choose to believe that God miraculously provided us 2500-year old talking donkey and genocide stories to lead us to learn about his grace and love of our fellow man.
I have weighed my spiritual experiences, my study, my secular knowledge, my hope, and have chosen to have faith and believe. I recognize that I could be wrong but I choose to believe.