I Don't Look for "The One, True Interpretation"

I am completely comfortable taking whatever I want from a story and leaving the rest - choosing how I want to interpret it. I do that with commercial fiction, from historical books, from myth and even from scriptures. 

Where I am convinced of a scriptural story's allegorical, figurative or mythical nature (Jonah, Job, some of the more extreme narratives in the Book of Mormon, etc.), I don't try to draw lessons from a literal interpretation - but in cases where I simply can't be certain, I pick whatever interpretation gives me the most powerful message - and, in some cases, I pick multiple interpretations (one literal, one allegorical, one mythical, for example) and take multiple lessons from each one.

Some people who want the one, true interpretation can't stand that approach, but it works for me.

My Favorite View of Abraham Sacrificing Isaac - Definitely NOT the Traditional View

Currently, my favorite interpretation of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac is that God was testing Abraham - and that Abraham FAILED the test.

How could this be, given the traditional interpretation of that story?  

According to this view, Abraham had been raised in a culture that included human / child sacrifice, so God tested him to see if he had abandoned totally that culture. He hadn't. Therefore, God stopped him from continuing that abominable tradition and then taught him that ONLY God would be required to sacrifice a "mortal" - and ONLY in a situation where that child actually was a God and was fully aware, understanding and approving of the sacrifice in advance. (just like Issac had to have been, given the details of the account) In other words, the lesson to Abraham was to eliminate entirely from his teachings to his children the mistaken idea that it was OK to sacrifice people to their God and, instead, to await the time when GOD, the Father, and God, the Son, would take care of it once and for all - for all people throughout all time. 

It also is interesting to note that, according to Mormon theology, the God who commanded and stopped Abraham (the God of this world) was Jehovah, the pre-mortal Jesus - which means that "God" wasn't sacrificing anyone else in the future.  He actually was sacrificing himself - much more like someone running into a burning building to save someone than one person killing another person.  I know we talk about the Father sacrificing the Son, but it's more powerful to me when looked upon in the Book of Mormon terms of God sacrificing himself, not someone else.  

I have no idea if that interpretation is accurate - or even if the entire story is nothing but a grand figurative myth. Given the existence of the story, I choose to interpret it in the way that makes the most sense to me - and the interpretation above currently is my favorite.

[NOTE: As I've said many times here, I absolutely love the symbolism that can be understood through stories like this, but I am open totally to the possibility that the account in the Bible is historically accurate and the traditional interpretation is correct - that it actually occurred as an intentional Christ-type and that Abraham passed the supreme test. I have NO problem whatsoever with people reading this story as foreshadowing and a Christ-type - or with those who teach it that way in Sacrament Meeting or General Conference. There is great power in that interpretation - and I even have no problem teaching it myself in that manner in a setting where I believe it is appropriate. In fact, as I said, it very well might be the "accurate" interpretation. There really isn't any way to know objectively. It's just not the version I personally like the most right now.]

A Central Genius of Joseph Smith that Many Don't Understand

Have you ever considered that perhaps a central genius of Joseph Smith was that he was able to transplant the great figurative mythology of history into the literalness of his own time and location - to see the symbolism of an ancient world and turn it into a moving literalism in his own day?  Have you ever considered that some of the things he preached might have been more a case of geographic transplantation of mythology than of literal, historical truth? 

Seriously, what more grand endeavor is there than the idea of entering the presence of God on a regular basis - of taking Heaven (a symbolic location, I believe - "Home can be a heaven on earth." and "The kingdom of heaven is within you.") and locate it at the end of a symbolic journey here on earth that can be traveled over and over again in our own literal time and space? 

We have temples that do that, at least symbolically.

What more grand vision is there than the idea that Zion is where we build it - and the accompanying effort to take the City of Enoch (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally in our own land(s)?

We have stakes that do that, at least in theory.

What more grand concept is there than the idea that paradise is in our own backyard - and the accompanying relocation of the Garden of Eden (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally where you want your people to live?

We have Independence and the surrounding area that does that, at least in theory.

What more grand hope is there than the idea that Christ will return to where his saints gather - to take Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the New Jerusalem (symbolic stories, I believe) and locate them literally at the "beginning" and "desired end" of your own community?

We have a valley and a designated location that do that, at least in theory.

Joseph was a "restorer" in his own mind - and, if you look at that role as comprehensively as possible, the "Restoration" becomes much more than just a theology or a group of ideas. It becomes the re-establishment of an entire symbolic world, moving backward AND forward in time until we literally are walking and talking with God.

"One eternal round" is a powerful concept - if it can be seen figuratively and not literally. Seen literally, it has power enough for most people; taken figuratively, it has immense power for me. I don't begrudge those who take it literally, if it works for them. It is when the literal loses significance that it has to transition to figurative or lose its power completely.

After all, the endowment ceremony itself said for a long time that the creation of Adam and Eve, as depicted, was figurative. I think that line was removed in order to benefit those who had a hard time accepting and understanding it - but that removal doesn't make it any less of a fact that Mormon leaders have spoken symbolically and figuratively a lot throughout our history, including to this very day. They just speak literally more often than figuratively, since a FAR higher percentage of people are literalists than figurativists, so to speak. Literalism is general and works fine for a community of settlers; figurativism is individualized and must be pursued and constructed outside of communal constraints by those who are explorers. Leaders can speak figuratively, but they can't lead figuratively - and that's an incredibly important distinction, imo.

The issue for subsequent leaders (those who followed and follow Joseph) is taking the "transfigured symbolic become literal" and not forgetting that it really is symbolic at its root - and that is not an easy recognition, at all, especially for those who naturally see things literally. There's no failure in continuing the literal iteration, but the real power is in recognizing the symbolic and figurative foundation for what it is - sheer visionary brilliance, imo.

I don't know if that makes any sense at all to you who will read this, since some of you surely will be literalists more naturally than I, but it's absolutely mind-blowing to me.

Why Is Individuality Respected in Some Wards and Branches and Not in Others?

I've been in wards where individuality wasn't appreciated much, and I've been in wards where individuality was appreciated greatly. What tended to be the difference?

Room for individuality depends almost entirely on the local leadership in the units, but the biggest factor that affects local leadership tends to be the diversity of the membership. A more diverse membership tends to necessitate more tolerance of individuality. Nobody has to be confrontational in any way, but hearing different voices and perspectives makes a difference - to widely varying degrees. On the other hand, it can be vary hard to appreciate diversity in thought and perspective in a ward or branch where nobody ever expresses a differing opinion, much less where everybody sees everything essentially the same way. 

That, perhaps, is the worst result of those who are different leaving the Church or becoming inactive. It solidifies the "norm" and lessens the likelihood that individuality will be appreciated and encouraged - that everyone will learn from hearing multiple views. I'm not "blaming" people for leaving if they feel different (and I LOVE Elder Wirthlin's point in "Concern for the One" that it is the membership's responsibility to act in a way that encourages those who are different, those who are tired and those who have strayed to return), but I am saying that leaving only exacerbates the problem about which those who leave complain.

Intolerant people who prompt people to leave contribute to our inability to build Zion, but so do those who leave. I know for a fact that my own insistence on staying actively involved has been a blessing to others who might have left or faded away into inactivity without my voice, and I am glad I stayed for that reason even if there had been no other benefits for me. There have been such benefits - great and glorious benefits, but, still, that would have been enough.

I'm not saying I have been responsible for the fact that my last two wards, especially, have been and are wonderful wards - but I am saying I have been and am a PART of the reason. I speak up and contribute in a unique way, and that helps others feel comfortable doing so, as well - especially those who see things similarly, but even those who don't. I talk openly about the need to value diversity, and the diverse appreciate that and respond. I am seen as totally faithful and not a threat or a challenge in any way (since I am faithful and am not a threat), so "The Church" where I live is not seen the same way it is seen in some other units.

Again, I'm not alone in that, but I AM a part of it. Granted, I don't face this to the degree that some others do in their units (where the majority of members don't want to hear differing views, for example), but I have been in situations where I appeared to be the only voice saying what I was saying - only to have someone come up to me afterward and thank me for saying it.

I believe that is worth considering - truly contemplating and internalizing.

Original Meaning vs. "Liken All Things Unto Ourselves"

This probably is going to sound a bit strange coming from someone who is a hardcore parser in so many instances, but I have heard some people argue against the practice of likening all things unto ourselves, based on the idea that changing what people meant originally does violence to their understanding and twists meaning to fit whatever we want it to be.  I understand and appreciate that concern (especially given how strongly I feel about parsing), and I've written here about my issue with how parables often are distorted beyond recognition, but . . .

"They become agents unto themselves, to act rather than to be acted upon."

This pretty much sums up my philosophy when it comes to life and these things. I care deeply about what quotes meant originally to those who said them. However, IF there's a better way for me personally to take them with regard to my own life and circumstances, I can recognize and accept what I perceive to be the appropriate meaning for me now without having to agree with the original meaning of the speaker - even in cases where the original speaker was a prophet and apostle.

In that sense, I intentionally choose to act rather than be acted upon. It's a fine line, but it's an important one to me.

What's the Point of the Temple?

I really love the concepts and principles taught in the temple - what I see as the grand morality play that is performed in it and the "moral(s) of the story".  That is due to a large degree on the fact that I don't care all that much about the specific details of the ordinances and ceremonies.  Those have changed over time and might change in the future; it's the principles and concepts that resonate most with me.  Just to focus on one aspect today:

I think there is great value in the concept of making and keeping promises - and that there is even greater value in doing so with regard to things a person views as sacred.  Again, I don't care as much about the specific detail of sacred ceremonies - as long as those who participate gain something important to them as a result of their participation. 

In the case of Mormonism, that means I don't care as much about whether or not the person sitting next to me in the temple is getting the same things out of the experience as I am as I do about whether or not each person is getting something from the experiences that is important to her.  I don't care if something hits my wife but doesn't hit me - or if someone sees something as literal that I see as figurative - or almost any other discrepancy between the experiences of those who attend the temple.  I just want each person to sense or touch the divine somehow - or "learn" something new (not necessarily from the words of the play but perhaps from what registers in their hearts and/or minds) - to walk away with something that is of value personally - to leave committed to "make and keep sacred covenants", regardless of how that concept is interpreted individually. 

Whether in a Mormon temple or anywhere else, I see a dichotomy between those who understand promise / covenant making and those who don't - and between those who sense or recognize "the sacred" and those who don't. I think the details are FAR less important than the concept - and I believe strongly that too many people obsess over the details and don't learn the concept on an individual basis.

Those Who Feel Betrayed By the LDS Church: An Analysis

I think one of the reasons some members feel betrayed by the Church is that they are either analytical by nature or emotional by nature - and they come to see the Church as the opposite.

Think about that a bit:

Someone who has developed a black and white view of Mormon history and finds that shattered by exposure to opposing and compelling accounts often reacts emotionally to that result - since black and white views tend to be more emotional than analytical. Such a person sees the Church as having been conniving and disingenuous - both of which, in that person's mind, are "analytical" attributes. So, an emotional person criticizes the Church for being analytical, if you will, and "hiding the truth" consciously and for purely selfish reasons.  The "truth" (whatever it is) doesn't matter in such a situation, since the reaction is predominantly emotional. 

Turn to someone who has a more nuanced, gray view. That is generally a result of being more analytical than emotional, and such a person often sees the Church as more subjective and emotional. This manifests itself in charges of hiding truth and covering up negative things (and even lying about stuff) consciously in order to feed the emotional attachment of the membership. The end result is a charge of anti-intellectualism - relying more on emotion than the intellect.  Again, the "truth" (whatever that is) doesn't matter in such a situation, since the the reaction is based on a perceptual difference. 

That happens all the time on various group blogs that are more critical than others, and it can be frustrating to see how blind most people are to that bias. My interactions over the years with certain people are a great example of this:

I drive them nuts, largely because I am both analytical and emotional - so it's hard for many people to categorize me and see "consistency" in my words. Especially with those who are emotional, they often see my analysis of their posts and comments initially as rejection or criticism - rather than simply as analysis.  On the other hand, those who are more analytical often try to read between the lines to find nuance and deeper meaning - and I try to avoid such nuance and hidden meaning when I am writing in a public forum.  Hence, those who are prone to nuance and analysis often misunderstand fairly simple statements by over-thinking things. 

The fascinating thing is that anlaytical and emotional people can reach the same overall conclusion, but each person attributes the motivation behind it to a different genesis - whatever is the opposite of their own personality.

It's a natural way to justify rejecting others, by classifying others as different than one's self.

Scriptural Interpretation Is Our Right As Children of God

A while ago I read someone's assertion that, "Apostles and prophets have far more authority to 'interpret' scripture than mere laymen do." In my opinion, that is 100% incorrect. Apostles and prophets have authority to speak for the Church, but nobody has more or less authority to "interpret". That is a right and a responsibility that is inherent in our status of children of God, not our individual callings or positions in the organizational church.

There is nothing within "official" Mormonism that discourages lay members from trying to understand our scriptures. In the end, there is FAR more autonomy to read and interpret and strive to reach individual understanding within Mormonism than within most other denominations - believe it or not.

Actually, that's a central part of the "living church" designation - that the Church empowers individuals to learn and grow and progress by allowing and actually encouraging individual testimonies gained by individual study and prayer.

Interpreting Controversial Scriptures

When reading scriptures, there are so many ways to interpret nearly everything that is written that it is difficult to say with certainty that one interpretation is right and all others are wrong. This is true especially for verses that are controversial in our own time - and even ignored completely by most Christians. An example:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak.” (I Corinthians 14:34)

One way to interpret is to take the words literally as the inerrant will of God. In the case of the verse above, I know of at least one denominational sub-group that takes the words literally and does not allow women to speak in church meetings.

Another way to interpret is to read the words in verses like this as inspired statements addressed to the specific people hearing or reading them and no one else - including others of that same time. I have heard the verse above parsed thus:

Your traditions and culture in Corinth do not permit women to speak in church. "It is not permitted unto them" here in Corinth. Therefore, just as we should not eat meat in the presence of vegetarians, "your women (should) keep silence in the churches" - even though the women in Thessalonica can speak in the churches there.

This view is bolstered by the same admonition about speaking in tongues without an interpreter in 1 Cor. 14:28.

A different way to interpret is to attribute the idea to the speaker - as a personal statement, not as a command from God. In the case of women remaining silent in church, this is bolstered by 1 Tim. 2:11-12 - where Paul repeats the general instruction then adds,

"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

The implication can be read in such a wording that this is Paul's bias - that "(HE) suffer(s) not a woman to teach, usurp or speak," but that this did not come from above (neither from Peter nor from God).

Again, we can understand statements in just about any way we choose, so I believe it is up to us to do so in whatever way makes the most sense to us - and quit thinking our way is the only way, and anyone who disagrees is a blind, stupid sheep or an evil liar. The following is good advice for all, in my opinion:

Do the best you can to gain a personal understanding and allow others the same privilege without getting riled up or snotty and condescending toward their views.

Limits on Likening to Ourselves

I parse things I read and hear first, then I interpret. I believe it is important to grant the writer or speaker the benefit of the doubt and believe the words they actually use before looking for a way to interpret what they say. If for some reason I don’t feel confident that I have found the author’s original intent, I don’t mind getting more than one possible meaning or lesson or interpretation out of a text - even if only one of them was meant by the writer.

I believe in likening things unto myself - when the original intent doesn’t seem obvious. There are some times, however, when doing so can create some doozies. For example, I personally am not going to try to call down fire from heaven on anyone in the near future, even though that might be a simple way of likening Old Testament scripture to myself.