Mormon Worldview

[huckelberry]

The claim that God has asserted the authority of the Bible is a human claim. I can easily add a third principle to my absurd coin-flipping doctrine:

Then I can go around saying, “Hey, I’m not the one asserting the authority of coin-flip morality! No, it’s from God. It says so right there in Principle 3.”

That doesn’t make my three principles actually infallible. They’re still ridiculous. And the same kind of argument doesn’t work any better for the Bible, because it’s an invalid argument.

You can’t dodge the question, “How do you know that God really endorses the Bible?” by saying that the Bible says so and the Bible carries God’s own authority. That’s like me claiming to be king, because I use my authority as king to appoint myself king. It’s just circular.

If anyone has been able to make the argument without begging the question, I haven’t seen it.

Res Ipsa, (and pgm 1985)It can be proposed that people are introduced to Jesus through the Bible, find him enough of an inspiration that it leads them to faith and hope in a creator. People find insight in this that can lead to deeper moral reflection, a sense of gratitude and responsibility to people and life that supports them. People can use the Bible to help share mutual expressions of gratitude and responsibility helping to build communities.

That this happens to people is real observable facts. People use those facts as a frame of reference to understanding the Bible. The idea that the Bible is inerrant is an interpretation, assumption, some people hold on to. I know of no facts to support the idea. I see the observation that the Bible claiming inerrancy would not show that it is. It may also be observed that the Bible makes no such claim. The one line in Timothy really makes no claim further than I what stated in the first paragraph, the scriptures are good for learning and teaching.

I find myself thinking that it is puzzling to find people looking for exact rules for actions in the Bible and suggesting our moral thinking is flawed and unable to do moral thought. 2000 years of Christian living has shown that we cannot help but think about moral decision with or without the Bible and people are fully capable of mangling distorting and forgetting with or without Bible rules.

Starting way back with Paul it was seen that the Christian view was to use ones mind to make moral decisions based upon caring for others and responsibility not a collection of rules. Paul was quite familiar with these rules but did not see them as the future but a starting point in the past. Christianity has understood that but in time of conflict and confusion there is a tendency to hope old rules will overcome uncertainty. In the years after the reformation movement started that effort led to war and bloodshed not understanding, (well beyond many people recognizing the limits of our understanding)

[Res Ipsa]

If anyone has been able to make the argument without begging the question, I haven’t seen it.

Res Ipsa, (and pgm 1985)It can be proposed that people are introduced to Jesus through the Bible, find him enough of an inspiration that it leads them to faith and hope in a creator. People find insight in this that can lead to deeper moral reflection, a sense of gratitude and responsibility to people and life that supports them. People can use the Bible to help share mutual expressions of gratitude and responsibility helping to build communities.

That this happens to people is real observable facts. People use those facts as a frame of reference to understanding the Bible. The idea that the Bible is inerrant is an interpretation, assumption, some people hold on to. I know of no facts to support the idea. I see the observation that the Bible claiming inerrancy would not show that it is. It may also be observed that the Bible makes no such claim. The one line in Timothy really makes no claim further than I what stated in the first paragraph, the scriptures are good for learning and teaching.

I find myself thinking that it is puzzling to find people looking for exact rules for actions in the Bible and suggesting our moral thinking is flawed and unable to do moral thought. 2000 years of Christian living has shown that we cannot help but think about moral decision with or without the Bible and people are fully capable of mangling distorting and forgetting with or without Bible rules.

Starting way back with Paul it was seen that the Christian view was to use ones mind to make moral decisions based upon caring for others and responsibility not a collection of rules. Paul was quite familiar with these rules but did not see them as the future but a starting point in the past. Christianity has understood that but in time of conflict and confusion there is a tendency to hope old rules will overcome uncertainty. In the years after the reformation movement started that effort led to war and bloodshed not understanding, (well beyond many people recognizing the limits of our understanding)

That's how I see it. Systems of morality are constructed based on a range of sources. Some do it as an individual project, but I think it's more commonly done as communities today. My stock answer to a Christian who asks "how do you decide which actions or moral and which are not?" is "exactly the same way you do, but I might consult a broader range of sources than you do."

It is not possible to deductively reason from "The Bible" to the answer for how to make the many moral choices we are forced to make from day to day. That's the hard lesson I learned from law school: a general set of rules and principles can never dictate the fair and just result in every single case. I see the Bible as just one of many sets of general rules and principles.

[pgm1985]

What happens when one person’s interpretation of God’s will conflicts with another person’s interpretation of God’s will?

We both live the same way with the same problem. Your declaration that there is an absolute moral standard does nothing to demonstrate what it is, because plenty of Christians disagree what that standard is. For example, Mormons.

From my perspective both you and the Mormon believe in different absolute moralities so there is nothing absolute about it. Even another Christian of your own denomination will disagree with you about moral problem, because you’re both using your relative subjective experience to decide what is right.

Subjectivity in interpretation is due to poor hermeneutics, ignorance to the whole Bible, and unbelief. This is why theologians over the years have developed processes for interpreting the Bible that are consistent and extracts the original idea the authors conveyed called exegesis and is defined as “the interpretive activity of identifying or drawing out what God was actually saying through his human authors in specific passages within specific books.” The process for exegesis enables us to know what the God intended meaning and effect is through the original author. However, there are four presuppositions required for biblical interpretation: Scripture be viewed as God’s Word, the truths in Scripture are knowable, we must respond appropriately to the intended effect of Scripture, and application of Scripture demands God-dependence. Proper exegesis shows us the narrow meaning of scripture and forms theology, which develops the broader meaning and context of scripture. Creeds, confessions, and doctrines have been formed over the years to show the clarity of Scripture against incorrect interpretations. Orthodox Christian denominations do not have disagreement over core doctrinal issues.

How can a person or society function without absolute moralities? If someone stole your car, I presume you would interpret that action to be wrong. But what if the thief believed it was the right thing to do? By your stance, how could you apply your moral standard to the thief? For the thief’s actions to be wrong, everyone would have to agree they were wrong, which holds there is absolute morality. For morality to be absolute, it must be based on a being with absolute authority. God is the only absolute being therefore he holds absolute moral authority whether you believe in it or not. God has given us knowledge of His moral authority, that is why you do have a sense of morality. But it is our sinful nature that distorts that knowledge.

That absolute moral authority is the God of the Bible whether a Mormon recognizes it or not. The position of the Mormon church ends in contradiction if they hold the Book of Mormon, by their own admission is inspired by God, can be disregarded as authoritative by a prophet whose authority comes from the Book of Mormon.

[drumdude]

What happens when one person’s interpretation of God’s will conflicts with another person’s interpretation of God’s will?

We both live the same way with the same problem. Your declaration that there is an absolute moral standard does nothing to demonstrate what it is, because plenty of Christians disagree what that standard is. For example, Mormons.

From my perspective both you and the Mormon believe in different absolute moralities so there is nothing absolute about it. Even another Christian of your own denomination will disagree with you about moral problem, because you’re both using your relative subjective experience to decide what is right.

How can a person or society function without absolute moralities? If someone stole your car, I presume you would interpret that action to be wrong. But what if the thief believed it was the right thing to do?

The thief lives in the same society I do, and we live under a social contract.

A social contract is "a theory or model in political and moral philosophy that defines the rights and responsibilities of a government and its people. It's an implicit agreement between the two parties, and the terms can vary widely. In exchange for certain rights, people may consent to the government's authority and pay taxes. The social contract is the foundation of society and allows governments to function. "

This was something enlightenment thinkers were very concerned with, and they were able to solve the problem without religion. Not to say religion wasn't a scaffolding that was used to erect the society, but the society still functions once the religious scaffolding is removed.

Laws essentially replace morality. You're free to disagree on many moral positions, and I think that's a good thing. It shouldn't be illegal to cheat on your spouse, for example. If we lived under absolute Christian moral laws, life would be unbearably oppressive.

[pgm1985]

If anyone has been able to make the argument without begging the question, I haven’t seen it.

Res Ipsa, (and pgm 1985)It can be proposed that people are introduced to Jesus through the Bible, find him enough of an inspiration that it leads them to faith and hope in a creator. People find insight in this that can lead to deeper moral reflection, a sense of gratitude and responsibility to people and life that supports them. People can use the Bible to help share mutual expressions of gratitude and responsibility helping to build communities.

That this happens to people is real observable facts. People use those facts as a frame of reference to understanding the Bible. The idea that the Bible is inerrant is an interpretation, assumption, some people hold on to. I know of no facts to support the idea. I see the observation that the Bible claiming inerrancy would not show that it is. It may also be observed that the Bible makes no such claim. The one line in Timothy really makes no claim further than I what stated in the first paragraph, the scriptures are good for learning and teaching.

I find myself thinking that it is puzzling to find people looking for exact rules for actions in the Bible and suggesting our moral thinking is flawed and unable to do moral thought. 2000 years of Christian living has shown that we cannot help but think about moral decision with or without the Bible and people are fully capable of mangling distorting and forgetting with or without Bible rules.

Starting way back with Paul it was seen that the Christian view was to use ones mind to make moral decisions based upon caring for others and responsibility not a collection of rules. Paul was quite familiar with these rules but did not see them as the future but a starting point in the past. Christianity has understood that but in time of conflict and confusion there is a tendency to hope old rules will overcome uncertainty. In the years after the reformation movement started that effort led to war and bloodshed not understanding, (well beyond many people recognizing the limits of our understanding)

The inerrancy of the Bible is a conclusion, not an interpretation. You missed the first part in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is breathed out by God". God is truth therefore what comes from God must be truth, and thus inerrant. 2 Peter 1:21 provides the same conclusion: "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The Bible provides a standard for morality that we can apply to any situation through the narrow meaning and the broad meaning of a verse. The 6th commandment to not murder has a narrow meaning that physically murdering someone is sin while it also has a broader meaning that hate in a persons heart is sin. This then can be applied to other modern moral issues such as abortion and birth control. Again proper hermeneutics and exegesis of the Bible is required.

[pgm1985]

Res Ipsa, (and pgm 1985)It can be proposed that people are introduced to Jesus through the Bible, find him enough of an inspiration that it leads them to faith and hope in a creator. People find insight in this that can lead to deeper moral reflection, a sense of gratitude and responsibility to people and life that supports them. People can use the Bible to help share mutual expressions of gratitude and responsibility helping to build communities.

That this happens to people is real observable facts. People use those facts as a frame of reference to understanding the Bible. The idea that the Bible is inerrant is an interpretation, assumption, some people hold on to. I know of no facts to support the idea. I see the observation that the Bible claiming inerrancy would not show that it is. It may also be observed that the Bible makes no such claim. The one line in Timothy really makes no claim further than I what stated in the first paragraph, the scriptures are good for learning and teaching.

I find myself thinking that it is puzzling to find people looking for exact rules for actions in the Bible and suggesting our moral thinking is flawed and unable to do moral thought. 2000 years of Christian living has shown that we cannot help but think about moral decision with or without the Bible and people are fully capable of mangling distorting and forgetting with or without Bible rules.

Starting way back with Paul it was seen that the Christian view was to use ones mind to make moral decisions based upon caring for others and responsibility not a collection of rules. Paul was quite familiar with these rules but did not see them as the future but a starting point in the past. Christianity has understood that but in time of conflict and confusion there is a tendency to hope old rules will overcome uncertainty. In the years after the reformation movement started that effort led to war and bloodshed not understanding, (well beyond many people recognizing the limits of our understanding)

That's how I see it. Systems of morality are constructed based on a range of sources. Some do it as an individual project, but I think it's more commonly done as communities today. My stock answer to a Christian who asks "how do you decide which actions or moral and which are not?" is "exactly the same way you do, but I might consult a broader range of sources than you do."

It is not possible to deductively reason from "The Bible" to the answer for how to make the many moral choices we are forced to make from day to day. That's the hard lesson I learned from law school: a general set of rules and principles can never dictate the fair and just result in every single case. I see the Bible as just one of many sets of general rules and principles.

That is the beauty of God's Word is you can apply it to any moral situation. What would you consider to be a moral situation not answerable by the Bible?

[Marcus]

How can a person or society function without absolute moralities? If someone stole your car, I presume you would interpret that action to be wrong. But what if the thief believed it was the right thing to do? By your stance, how could you apply your moral standard to the thief? For the thief’s actions to be wrong, everyone would have to agree they were wrong, which holds there is absolute morality. For morality to be absolute, it must be based on a being with absolute authority. God is the only absolute being therefore he holds absolute moral authority whether you believe in it or not. God has given us knowledge of His moral authority, that is why you do have a sense of morality. But it is our sinful nature that distorts that knowledge.

You've undercut your own argument, in the part I bolded.

By your own admission, there may be people who do not believe in your definition of absolute authority by god. Using your example of the stolen car, how can you apply your definition to someone who does not have the same belief as you? For someone with different beliefs to be judged wrong by all, everyone would have to agree with your beliefs.

Again by your own admission, you don't have that, so your conclusion must be that you cannot force the assumption and consequences of your belief in a god with absolute moral authority on someone who does not hold that belief.

More simply put, your logic is faulty. You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions.

[Morley]

The 6th commandment to not murder has a narrow meaning that physically murdering someone is sin while it also has a broader meaning that hate in a persons heart is sin. This then can be applied to other modern moral issues such as abortion and birth control. Again proper hermeneutics and exegesis of the Bible is required.

My bold.


I hope I'm not derailing here, but this brought me up short. How can the 6th Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) be "applied to other modern moral issues" such as birth control?

Birth control?

[pgm1985]

Thanks pgm1985. I do want to ask if seeing things through a Christian lens is the proper way to see things. Growing up I went to Sunday School, early morning Seminary for a few years, and took classes at the church's Institute of Religion which was right across the street from the community college and University I attended. As I looked back, it seems to me they cherry-picked verses to support their so-called version of the truth. Now that I'm older I can see that you really need to understand the culture and time and what the preceding and post chapters were about to understand the scripture(s) being quoted.

I like to read different Bible sections from Bibles translated at different times by different people, or compare the scriptures being said and if they saying something different. Today I'm reading a new version of the Bible. The Complete Jewish Bible translated by David H. Stern. At the beginning he writes:


“An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and the B ’rit Hadashah (New Testament)”

He further writes:

“Why is this Bible different from all other Bibles? Because it is the only English version of the Bible fully Jewish in style and presentation that includes both the Tanakh (‘Old Testement’) and B’rit Hadasha (new Covenant, ‘New Testament’) Even its title, the Complete Jewish Bible, challenges both Jews and Christians to see that the whole Bible is Jewish, the B’rit Hadashah as well as the Tanakh. Jews are challenged by the implication that without it the Tanakh is an incomplete Bible. Christians are challenged with the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) – so that because Christianity can be right understood only from a Jewish perspective, anti-semitism is condemned absolutely and forever. In short, the Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish unity of the Bible. Also, for the first time the information needed for the synagogue reading for the Torah and the Prophets in completely integrated with similar use of the B’rit Hadasha.”

You are correct that some churches do cherry pick verses to prove a point. This is known as eisegesis, the interpretation of biblical text by reading one's ideas into it, and it is wrong. In order to understand the truth in Scripture, you must properly exegete Scripture in order to read out of' the text what the original author or authors meant to convey.

I'm a bit confused by your statement about the Jewish Messiah. The Jewish people have rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Orthodox Christians fully understand Jesus came from Jewish descent and the Old Testament is written by the Jewish people, though still inspired by God. Christians have not contested they are joined to the Jewish people. A large number of early Christians were Jews who recognized Jesus as the Messiah. That is why they began to be referred as Christians, to separate them from the unbelieving Jews who expected an earthly messiah. The New Testament is full of references to Old Testament including references made by Jesus. It is not under debate that the complete canon is the New and the Old Testament together. What is Jewish style and presentation that would make this translation different from other translations?

[pgm1985]

How can a person or society function without absolute moralities? If someone stole your car, I presume you would interpret that action to be wrong. But what if the thief believed it was the right thing to do? By your stance, how could you apply your moral standard to the thief? For the thief’s actions to be wrong, everyone would have to agree they were wrong, which holds there is absolute morality. For morality to be absolute, it must be based on a being with absolute authority. God is the only absolute being therefore he holds absolute moral authority whether you believe in it or not. God has given us knowledge of His moral authority, that is why you do have a sense of morality. But it is our sinful nature that distorts that knowledge.

You've undercut your own argument, in the part I bolded.

By your own admission, there may be people who do not believe in your definition of absolute authority by god. Using your example of the stolen car, how can you apply your definition to someone who does not have the same belief as you? For someone with different beliefs to be judged wrong by all, everyone would have to agree with your beliefs.

Again by your own admission, you don't have that, so your conclusion must be that you cannot force the assumption and consequences of your belief in a god with absolute moral authority on someone who does not hold that belief.

More simply put, your logic is faulty. You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions.

That is exactly my point, it is faulty logic to conclude a person or society can operate on moral relativity My argument is everyone does agree that stealing a car is wrong, which presupposes an absolute moral authority. Are you arguing there is not a moral standard?