We were discussing the parable of the good Samaritan in priesthood meeting recently. As usually happens, we were looking at the various elements of the story and suggesting meanings and applications. In the course of discussing why the priest and Levite passed by the injured man one of the brethren, apparently in an instinctive attempt to deflect judgment upon the priest and Levite, said, "We don't know the whole story." This surprised me because, I thought to myself, we actually do know the whole story. It was a fictional parable meant to answer the question, "And who is my neighbor?" There is no more story. In fairness I should mention that the same person later made the same point about the purpose of the parable, perhaps realizing the strangeness of his earlier statement.
It occured to me that the statement, "We don't know the whole story," is a simple example of just how easily we can slip into the world of fiction and treat it as if it were reality. For at least a moment the priest and the Levite were real people to this brother, and he felt that we were not in a position to judge them with the little information at hand. We do this all the time when discussing books or movies with a good story as we explore character motivation and wonder why certain choices were made or words said. We think of how we would act under similar circumstances. We feel empathy or compassion for some characters and disdain for others. We wonder why a character insists on doing dumb things. We talk about how elements of the story fit with one another.
At this point I could pivot and discuss how scriptural stories can have meaning whether or not they are historical. Of course they can, but that's not quite the direction I'm going. Instead let's change levels and ask whether prophets do the same thing. I have in mind Lehi's blessing of Jacob in 2 Nephi chapter 2. Much of what Lehi says in that chapter, particularly about Adam and Eve, is bracketed by the issues of freedom of choice and the consequences thereof. In other words, Lehi goes on a long digression about choice and roots it in the garden of Eden. The usual way of reading this passage is just to assume that Lehi, as a prophet, was an authority on what happened in the garden of Eden. But what if Lehi was simply doing what humans so often do: exploring the inner logic of a story?
For example, Lehi says that if Adam and Eve had not transgressed "they would have had no children." Other than the fact that in the accounts of Adam and Eve they are not said to have had children until after their expulsion from the garden, to my knowledge Lehi stands alone in the scriptures in saying that Adam's fall was necessary for children. This has spawned a lot of LDS commentary about the nature of their bodies while in the garden, with assertions that not only would they not have had children (as Lehi says), but that they could not have children.
But there is another way to look at this. Adam and Eve were said to have been naked but not ashamed; they were innocent. There is an easy comparison to be made between Adam and Eve and children who have no comprehension of adult sexuality. Perhaps Lehi drew the conclusion that Adam and Eve simply would not have had children, not because they couldn't, but because it wouldn't really occur to them. Or maybe Lehi's thoughts were more in line with the LDS interpretation suggested in the temple, that if Adam did not follow Eve, they would be separated and unable to have children. (Note that the passage of interest focuses on Adam only.)
Lehi's discourse has also served as key support for the teaching that there was no death on earth before the fall.
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
But again, Lehi seems simply to be following the logic of the story in the context of opposites and choice. Without opposites there is no choice (or existence), and without choice there is no progress. Ergo, if Adam didn't make a choice, everything would stay the same.
Viewed this way, Lehi's discourse is not an authoritative exposition of the history of life on earth. Rather, it is a commentary that takes a highly figurative story (although Lehi may well have understood it literally) at face value and uses it as a way of illuminating the need to choose "the great Mediator of all men." This interpretation releases one from the need to reconcile Lehi's discourse with modern science.
Perhaps you have noticed that there is another layer to all of this in that
I have been exploring the logic of the story of Lehi. I can't help it; I'm human.
Continue reading...
Posts
