Reading Scripture as "univocal"

[zerinus]

While I agree with your assessment, in large part, I have to point out that concluding that Paul and James are approaching these questions with different rhetorical goals in mind does not ameliorate the original problem (unless you're willing to recognize that they let their rhetoric carry them a little over the line). One writer says Abraham was justified because of works, the other says that he was not justified because of works. One says X and the other says not X. Both cannot be right. (And clearly sacrificing Isaac is not a work of the Law of Moses.)

I disagree. I think the explanation is sufficient to answer the question. Also, the scriptures are not confined to these couple of verses. All of the scriptures must be taken into account when addressing an apparent contradiction between a couple of isolated verses. When that is done, the meaning becomes clearer still, and confirms the point that the scriptures as a whole teach a consistent theology.

[zerinus]

Unbelievable. Absolutely unimaginable. This is still nothing more than flagrantly begging the question.

That is a bad loser, griping over nothing.

[maklelan]

I disagree. I think the explanation is sufficient to answer the question. Also, the scriptures are not confined to these couple of verses. All of the scriptures must be taken into account when addressing an apparent contradiction between a couple of isolated verses. When that is done, the meaning becomes clearer still, and confirms the point that the scriptures as a whole teach a consistent theology.

When you call upon a unified reading of the Bible to exegete a passage in an argument about whether the Bible is unified you're begging the question. This is now the third time I've had to explain to you that you're flagrantly begging the question. I'm beginning to think you don't know what that means.

[zerinus]

When you call upon a unified reading of the Bible to exegete a passage in an argument about whether the Bible is unified you're begging the question. This is now the third time I've had to explain to you that you're flagrantly begging the question. I'm beginning to think you don't know what that means.

Sorry Mak, what you are saying simply doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps others can understand you better, but I don't.

[maklelan]

Sorry Mak, what you are saying simply doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps others can understand you better, but I don't.

And the fact that rather than try to understand (or ask for clarification) you just assert fallaciously that I'm wrong (despite not knowing exactly what it is I'm saying) manifests exactly how little you are concerned for objectivity or respectable debate. I cannot tolerate another second of this kind of intellectual depravity. You're on ignore.

[zerinus]

And the fact that rather than try to understand (or ask for clarification) you just assert fallaciously that I'm wrong (despite not knowing exactly what it is I'm saying) manifests exactly how little you are concerned for objectivity or respectable debate. I cannot tolerate another second of this kind of intellectual depravity. You're on ignore.

Thanks for the favor. Wish you had done it sooner.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I do think the law of Moses is a good example of additional revelation modified existing practice. I also think there is a big difference between modifying existing law and directly contradicting previous scripture that was presumed to be objectively true. Look if scripture A says X and scripture B says ~X then either scripture A or scripture B must be wrong I see no way to avoid this.

Scriptures don't "say" anything. You can ask a text what it means all you like, and it won't change. Texts are artifacts. The moment you say that Scripture A says X and scripture B says not X, you have interpreted them. I addressed this already. There are different ways to get meaning from the text. Some of them are univocal, some of them are not. What you are talking about is what I described as a theologically motivated reading of the text. This is a univocal approach. It does not recognize that God can say different things to different people. It starts from (as you note) a proposition about theology being consistent. This is one way to read the text, but it isn't necessarily the only way, or the best way to read the text. And it makes certain assumptions which I don't think are supported in LDS theology. Systemic theology fails within the LDS church because of the fact that we have an open canon, and we believe in new revelation which will (in your description of the process) force us to re-evaluate all previous revelation in light of new theological claims. So, I don't really want to engage in the kind of debate that you are leading towards - because, as I noted, this is clearly a univocal approach. The only thing I may disagree with you on relative to your discussion is the significance of such a reading. This is clearly not a historical-text critical reading. It is clearly not a reader response reading. It is clearly not a reading which provides the meaning that the author of the text intended. But if our goal is a reading which harmonizes theology, then it is suitable to that purpose.

If you claim scripture is a good way to obtain truth about how the world objectively works then scripture must necessarily contain a minimum of contradiction.

Actually, no text is a good way to obtain truth about how the world objectively works - because there is no such thing as an objective reading of a text.

Because contradiction indicates one of the options must be false and this weakens the statement that scripture is a good way to find out what is objectively true.

I think if we logically extend this thinking, you run into a problem. Any text can have a virtually unlimited number of interpretations. Does this mean that contradiction among interpretations limits the options - and thus weakens the statement that interpretations of texts are a good way to find the meaning of a text? It seems to me to be a rather pointless argument you make here. Again, you have to interpret the text such that text X means A and text Y means not A. Both such an interpretation and one that harmonizes texts X and Y so that they both mean B is still an interpretation.

If you are arguing that scripture can and does frequently contradict then you are necessarily arguing scripture is not a good way to figure out objective truth.

Ah yes, this would be a point I would be completely happy to agree with.

Unless you have some reliable means to figure out which God breathed passage is objectively truth and which God breathed passage is teaching dirty lies .

Lying involves intention. We can lie while talking about a factual reality. We can tell the truth by describing something which is patently false. It isn't whether we are accurate or not that determines whether we are lying, but whether we believe what we are saying to be factually accurate. As with Johnny, who eats his breakfast while finishing his homework and then forgets it on the kitchen table. When he gets to school, he tells his teacher that his dog ate it. What Johnny doesn't know is that his dog, smelling the bacon grease dripped on his homework, has already devoured it. Because Johnny doesn't believe this to be the case, he is lying (even though he is describing a factual reality), and were he to tell his teacher that his homework is at home on the kitchen table, he would be being completely honest while also describing something which isn't real. Usually we believe factually accurate things, and disbelieve that which isn't accurate - but in any given circumstance, this is merely accidental. I think that we shouldn't impute lying to texts which don't agree with how we see reality.

Now scripture could still do a good job at pointing out personal truth teachings that are important for you right now to live a good life. But lots of contradiction completely destroys the concept scripture teaches clear objective universal truth how could it be otherwise?

And the real conclusion we ought to draw is that scripture simply doesn't teach clear objective universal truth. It is rather interesting that you would suggest this on the one hand, and yet earlier make this claim:

But implicitly in the whole process is the underlying assumption that scripture does teach a unified and consistent theology even if at times this might be difficult to see.

If it is "difficult to see", then it cannot be "clear objective universal truth".

And in so much that the LDS church claims scripture is a good way to obtain universal objective truth they are requiring scripture be consistent and not contradictory i.e.(univocal).

I don't believe this is a claim made by the church. Nor does LDS scripture teach this - rather the opposite. Scripture is there - not to teach us, but to encourage us to dialogue with God who can teach us. This is the lesson of Lehi and Nephi and their vision of the Tree of Life. The proper response is to ask God for personal revelation. Going to the text - even going to the oracle - is a distant second best.

Just to make sure I understand your position you would argue when the scriptures teach for example there are three degrees of glory in the afterlife we must not assume this is an objectively true teaching? It might be the afterlife does not really consist of three degrees of glory?

Yes, I would agree with this statement. In fact, we probably won't get a clear idea of what the afterlife is like until we experience it. Anything we get until then is a statement which comes to us filtered through a prophet - and so affected by his language, by his culture, by his social status, his political views, he economic status, and even the traditions and ideals which he brings from his societal conditioning. The only way that we can approach objective universal truth is not through such a text, by by going to God, who is completely external to the world (unlike the prophets and even ourselves). And even then, because God speaks to us in our own language and in ways that we can understand, it is still filtered by our experience - but it is much closer than reading a text.

Not at all again there is a huge difference between adding more light and knowledge and directly contradicting earlier scripture that was held to be objectively true.

I don't think so. Remember that once we start talking about contradictions, we are talking about interpretations. And we have seen scripture radically reinterpreted on the basis of new revelation. Just compare, for example, the creation accounts in Genesis, in Moses, and in Abraham.

Do you believe further revelation will contradict current revelation that purports to describe objective universal truth?

I am certainly open to the idea that future revelation will contradict current beliefs and interpretations.

Is it possible for God to reveal the whole Christ atonement thing is not objectively true? That family sealing's were never effective do nothing and are not important?

I suppose that I am certainly willing to accept this (while not expecting it to happen certainly). I also want to say that my experience with this particular kind of claim extends over decades. It is always brought up in this way (that you just did) because it has the most shock value. I think that it is rather an inappropriate way to have this discussion. If you want to, I am sure you can go over to Shade's board and see where I have been asked essentially this same question, or ZLMB, or probably even in the archives here.

Ben M.

[Ahab]

Since an increasing number of LDS participants here seem to feel that they are on very solid ground in disputing the validity of reading the Bible as "univocal" (that is, as coherent in its teachings), I have some questions on this issue.

If by claiming the Bible is univocal you intent is to convey the idea that the Bible is coherent in its teachings, then I agree that it is, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you think the Bible teaches.

The question then becomes: How does one correctly interpret or understand what the Bible teaches?

1. The point keeps being made that this is a bad way to read the Bible, but I never hear any Mormon warning about the dangers of reading the Book of Mormon or the other LDS scriptures as univocal.

I believe it is good to read the Bible with the idea that there is one true voice that permeates through all of it, but the fact that someone can make sense out of what the Bible teaches doesn't necessarily mean they have found or heard that one true voice.

Do you think Mormons should read the LDS scriptures (the "Triple Combination") univocally?

If by "univocally" you simply mean "coherently", then yes, course, but the fact that a person has an understanding of the Bible doesn't mean it is the true or correct understanding.

In your own reading of the scriptures, do you assume, at least as a working assumption, that the Book of Mormon will agree with the Book of Abraham? Do you assume that 1 Nephi will agree with Moroni?

Yes, and I ask God for guidance through the Holy Spirit so that I can know how to correctly understand what is written.

2. Assuming that you take the view that none of the scriptures should be read as univocal, would it then follow that from your perspective we should be neither surprised nor troubled if, say, the Book of Abraham contradicted the Book of Moses?

N/A

3. Hypothetically, if the texts of the 66 books that constitute the Protestant canon of the Bible were perfectly preserved, would your objections to reading the Bible univocally be moot? In other words, is your criticism of reading the Bible univocally grounded on the belief that the texts have been imperfectly transmitted?

No.

4. Granted for the sake of discussion that you do not view the whole Bible as univocal, would you tend to view a single author in the Bible, or a single book in the Bible, as internally coherent, or do you dismiss the internal coherence of each book of the Bible as well as the coherence of the Bible as a whole?

N/A

5. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a reader approached the Bible as univocal, carefully read the whole Bible from that perspective, and made every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrated as much as possible the teachings of all of the books of the Bible. Would you think that such a theological system would look more like an LDS doctrinal system or more like an evangelical Protestant doctrinal system?

THE LDS doctrinal system.

6. In the doctrinally oriented curricula published by the LDS Church, such as Gospel Principles, quotations and citations from all of the Standard Works are presented side by side in support of LDS doctrinal positions. One may typically see such publications citing texts from the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Book of Abraham, and using these texts to develop a coherent theological narrative or doctrinal concept. Is this a legitimate practice, or is the LDS Church curricula also guilty of illegitimately reading the scriptures as univocal?

It is a legitimate practice, and please also note that the practice should include appealing to God as the source of that one true voice.

7. Are you aware of any warnings from any LDS Church presidents or prophets, or any of the GAs, about the error of reading the extrabiblical scriptures of the LDS Church as univocal?

No.

Have any leaders of the LDS Church ever taught that the books in the Book of Mormon cannot be assumed to reflect a coherent theological position...

No, not to my knowledge.

...or that it is a mistake to assume that the Book of Abraham will agree with the Book of Moses, or that Joseph's later revelations in D&C correct or supplant some of the earlier revelations in D&C?

It is always a mistake to simply make assumptions, in my perspective, and I believe all prophets of God generally agree that we should rely on God, first and foremost, for our personal knowledge of truth.

8. Do you approach the interpretation of the scriptures according to the teachings of the living prophets, or according to your own academic standards--or do you see no conflict between the two?

According to the teachings of the living prophets who teach us to go to God for our knowledge of truth.

[Uncertain]

Scriptures don't "say" anything. You can ask a text what it means all you like, and it won't change. Texts are artifacts. The moment you say that Scripture A says X and scripture B says not X, you have interpreted them. I addressed this already. There are different ways to get meaning from the text. Some of them are univocal, some of them are not. What you are talking about is what I described as a theologically motivated reading of the text. This is a univocal approach. It does not recognize that God can say different things to different people. It starts from (as you note) a proposition about theology being consistent. This is one way to read the text, but it isn't necessarily the only way, or the best way to read the text. And it makes certain assumptions which I don't think are supported in LDS theology. Systemic theology fails within the LDS church because of the fact that we have an open canon, and we believe in new revelation which will (in your description of the process) force us to re-evaluate all previous revelation in light of new theological claims. So, I don't really want to engage in the kind of debate that you are leading towards - because, as I noted, this is clearly a univocal approach. The only thing I may disagree with you on relative to your discussion is the significance of such a reading. This is clearly not a historical-text critical reading. It is clearly not a reader response reading. It is clearly not a reading which provides the meaning that the author of the text intended. But if our goal is a reading which harmonizes theology, then it is suitable to that purpose.

Certainly I understand text can be interpreted hundreds of different ways. This does not mean each interpretation is equally valid some of them are more convincing then others (when convincing is defined as how the original author would understand the text). I did want to clear up one point. I am not arguing a univocal reading is clearly superior in fact I believe it isn't neither am I arguing a univocal reading is a historical-text critical reading. What I am arguing is if one takes as an initial premise that scripture is a good way to obtain objective truth about how the world really works this necessarily requires a univocal reading of scripture. In other words a person believes in a univocal reading of scripture exactly as much as they believe scripture teaches objective truth. If they strongly believe objective truth can be obtained from scripture then they necessarily strongly believe the scriptural text should be read in a univocal fashion.This is the only point I am arguing and if I understand you correctly you agree with me. And yes I agree this would be a theologically driven interpretation of the text.

Actually, no text is a good way to obtain truth about how the world objectively works - because there is no such thing as an objective reading of a text.I think if we logically extend this thinking, you run into a problem. Any text can have a virtually unlimited number of interpretations. Does this mean that contradiction among interpretations limits the options - and thus weakens the statement that interpretations of texts are a good way to find the meaning of a text? It seems to me to be a rather pointless argument you make here. Again, you have to interpret the text such that text X means A and text Y means not A. Both such an interpretation and one that harmonizes texts X and Y so that they both mean B is still an interpretation.

All of this is true again my only point is if you believe scripture teaches objective truth then those interpretations that reconcile the text are necessarily preferred even if such readings are strained or not what the author of the text intended. And yes such interpretations very well might be theologically driven and yes they might make little sense but they are required if your foundational premise is that scripture teaches objective truth. If you do not believe scripture teaches objective truth then no worries scripture can contradict itself all day and half the night .

"Just to make sure I understand your position you would argue when the scriptures teach for example there are three degrees of glory in the afterlife we must not assume this is an objectively true teaching? It might be the afterlife does not really consist of three degrees of glory?" (Uncertain's post)

Ah yes, this would be a point I would be completely happy to agree with.

Fair enough, look as I have already mentioned if scripture does not teach objective truth than it can contradict itself all it wants. Certainly if your position is that scripture does not teach objective truth than you are fully consistent in arguing scripture can and does frequently contradict itself. Now I am not at all convinced the LDS church claims scripture is not a good source of objective truth in fact I dare say they claim the opposite. For example if I understand your position you would claim when D&C 130:22 reads God has a body of flesh and bones this in no way should be taken as a statement of objective truth describing Gods body. Who knows if God the father has a body and D&C 130:22 should not be taken as an objectively true statement. I am not at all convinced such a view is consistent with how the LDS church views D&C 130:22 or any other scripture for that matter.

P.S. (I just wanted to point out my grammar is atrocious ).

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncertain writes:

Certainly I understand text can be interpreted hundreds of different ways. This does not mean each interpretation is equally valid some of them are more convincing then others (when convincing is defined as how the original author would understand the text).

What makes authorial intent the ruler by which we measure interpretation? We aren't mind readers (particularly of dead people). And Nephi - with his 'like the scriptures unto yourselves' provides an argument for interpretation and meaning that ignores the author completely (and not just that, when he speaks of Isaiah, he tells us that he intentionally neglected to provide his descendants with the necessary background to understand the author's intention of many of the Old Testament writings which they had).

In other words a person believes in a univocal reading of scripture exactly as much as they believe scripture teaches objective truth. If they strongly believe objective truth can be obtained from scripture then they necessarily strongly believe the scriptural text should be read in a univocal fashion.This is the only point I am arguing and if I understand you correctly you agree with me. And yes I agree this would be a theologically driven interpretation of the text.

Ok.

As far as your other comments go, there is, I think, going to be a broad spectrum of thought on the issue of objective truth - reflected in many different ways. While most members of the church would not be opposed to the notion of future revelation - even future revelation that radically alters policy and doctrine (ala Blacks and the Priesthood, or the introduction and later the abandonment of polygamy, and so on), most of them would not be willing to go as far as I am willing to go in making that claim. Similarly we talk about how God may yet reveal a great many things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, many LDS will not take that to imply that it is likely to introduce contradictory elements. And I suspect that there are at least a few LDS who would not be willing to accept the likelihood that much of what we treat as theology is as much culturally based as it is scripturally based. But, the LDS church, with an open canon and a belief that they do not have all truth, and that more truth will be forthcoming stands somewhat uniquely positioned against say an Evangelical faith where it has all been given already, and it is merely a matter of interpreting it correctly. I think in this case (as I pointed out earlier I think in this thread), there is a difference between scriptural and canonical religion and the popular understanding of religion (just as we might say that there was a difference in Old Testament times between the text based faith, and the faith as it was actually practiced by living, breathing Israelites).

Edit: I also think how you approach the topic would change the outcomes. If you were to ask members of the church this question: "Suppose that God revealed through the prophet issue X (which contradicts a formerly held belief), and he introduced it in General Conference, asked for a sustaining vote by the body of the church, and that you (as an individual) had prayed to God about this issue and received a personal witness of it - how would this change your understanding of the scriptures?" This would get you a whole different kind of response than merely asking about the issues in the terms we have been using.

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What I am arguing is if one takes as an initial premise that scripture is a good way to obtain objective truth about how the world really works this necessarily requires a univocal reading of scripture.

What if an objective truth from scripture includes the idea that it isn't univocal, that isn't is adaptable, and that above all it should foster a relationship between a reader and God, not just a reader and the text? I think your "necessary" doesn't hold.

[mfbukowski]

Scriptures don't "say" anything. You can ask a text what it means all you like, and it won't change. Texts are artifacts. The moment you say that Scripture A says X and scripture B says not X, you have interpreted them.

That's the essence of it, and there really should be nothing more necessary to say! I love it! There is no possible way we can avoid interpretation, and even the "original author", insofar as that phrase even makes sense, was interpreting his experience as he saw it.

You are far more patient than I am, I can tell you that.

[mfbukowski]

As far as your other comments go, there is, I think, going to be a broad spectrum of thought on the issue of objective truth - reflected in many different ways. While most members of the church would not be opposed to the notion of future revelation - even future revelation that radically alters policy and doctrine (ala Blacks and the Priesthood, or the introduction and later the abandonment of polygamy, and so on), most of them would not be willing to go as far as I am willing to go in making that claim. Similarly we talk about how God may yet reveal a great many things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, many LDS will not take that to imply that it is likely to introduce contradictory elements. And I suspect that there are at least a few LDS who would not be willing to accept the likelihood that much of what we treat as theology is as much culturally based as it is scripturally based. But, the LDS church, with an open canon and a belief that they do not have all truth, and that more truth will be forthcoming stands somewhat uniquely positioned against say an Evangelical faith where it has all been given already, and it is merely a matter of interpreting it correctly. I think in this case (as I pointed out earlier I think in this thread), there is a difference between scriptural and canonical religion and the popular understanding of religion (just as we might say that there was a difference in Old Testament times between the text based faith, and the faith as it was actually practiced by living, breathing Israelites).

Edit: I also think how you approach the topic would change the outcomes. If you were to ask members of the church this question: "Suppose that God revealed through the prophet issue X (which contradicts a formerly held belief), and he introduced it in General Conference, asked for a sustaining vote by the body of the church, and that you (as an individual) had prayed to God about this issue and received a personal witness of it - how would this change your understanding of the scriptures?" This would get you a whole different kind of response than merely asking about the issues in the terms we have been using.

Ben M.

It seems of course that what is at issue is what "objective truth" is, and I would say that the answer to that is "what we experience as verified by what works for us in our lives" is "objective truth".

On that basis, Joseph's experience of a bodily God, for example, verified for me personally with how that coheres with other philosophical principles and moral principles which I have verified as life affirming and spiritual experiences I have had, "verify" the truth of Mormonism.

And since that is my perspective, that is the perspective (and thus experience) which I bring to reading scriptural texts, which inevitably means that I am interpreting them in accord with my experience.

So if objective truth is what we experience, and I experience those interpretations as "true", I suppose that makes them "objectively true" as far as I personally can possibly know.

I may even experience those texts as "univocal" (but with my interpretation), as apparently our friend Mr Bowman does, while other's experience may vary.

We just need to trust in a benevolent God who is leading each of us and teaching us in the way each of us needs, to return to him, and the rest becomes semantic games, which is inevitable since language is all we have to fill in the gaps between us anyway!

[mfbukowski]

What if an objective truth from scripture includes the idea that it isn't univocal, that isn't is adaptable, and that above all it should foster a relationship between a reader and God, not just a reader and the text? I think your "necessary" doesn't hold.

I think uncertain's very big "fudge factor" here is that very big "IF"

Uncertain said: (empahsis added)

What I am arguing is if one takes as an initial premise that scripture is a good way to obtain objective truth about how the world really works this necessarily requires a univocal reading of scripture.

IF everyone's personal "objective truth" includes one's own interpretation of scripture, then everybody gets to have their own personal "univocal" scripture which corresponds perfectly with "objective truth" as they understand it.

As I said above, the rest is semantics.

[Uncertain]

Uncertain writes:What makes authorial intent the ruler by which we measure interpretation? We aren't mind readers (particularly of dead people). And Nephi - with his 'like the scriptures unto yourselves' provides an argument for interpretation and meaning that ignores the author completely (and not just that, when he speaks of Isaiah, he tells us that he intentionally neglected to provide his descendants with the necessary background to understand the author's intention of many of the Old Testament writings which they had).

Ok.

If one assumes the original author knew some objective fact about how the world really worked and was trying his best to pass that fact onto later generations then trying to understand what he meant might be important.But I do agree with your larger point scripture can legitimately be interpreted in multiple highly productive different ways. But in the context of our discussion in which scripture is presumed to contain objective truth written down by someone who knew what that objective truth is what the author meant would seem to be in most cases the best measuring stick in determining the "correct" interpretation. If we don't assume scripture contains objective truth than yes other measuring sticks besides author intent start becoming more important. I would say what textual interpretation is the "correct" one changes depending on context.

As far as your other comments go, there is, I think, going to be a broad spectrum of thought on the issue of objective truth - reflected in many different ways. While most members of the church would not be opposed to the notion of future revelation - even future revelation that radically alters policy and doctrine (ala Blacks and the Priesthood, or the introduction and later the abandonment of polygamy, and so on), most of them would not be willing to go as far as I am willing to go in making that claim. Similarly we talk about how God may yet reveal a great many things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, many LDS will not take that to imply that it is likely to introduce contradictory elements. And I suspect that there are at least a few LDS who would not be willing to accept the likelihood that much of what we treat as theology is as much culturally based as it is scripturally based. But, the LDS church, with an open canon and a belief that they do not have all truth, and that more truth will be forthcoming stands somewhat uniquely positioned against say an Evangelical faith where it has all been given already, and it is merely a matter of interpreting it correctly. I think in this case (as I pointed out earlier I think in this thread), there is a difference between scriptural and canonical religion and the popular understanding of religion (just as we might say that there was a difference in Old Testament times between the text based faith, and the faith as it was actually practiced by living, breathing Israelites).

I see nothing I disagree with. Certainly LDS are better able to deal with radical changes in scriptural understanding than many traditional christian faiths.

Edit: I also think how you approach the topic would change the outcomes. If you were to ask members of the church this question: "Suppose that God revealed through the prophet issue X (which contradicts a formerly held belief), and he introduced it in General Conference, asked for a sustaining vote by the body of the church, and that you (as an individual) had prayed to God about this issue and received a personal witness of it - how would this change your understanding of the scriptures?" This would get you a whole different kind of response than merely asking about the issues in the terms we have been using.

Ben M.

Well if this hypothetical happened I dare say most would reinterpret the earlier scripture so it does not contradict the newer teaching in other words a theologically motivated reading .

[Uncertain]

What if an objective truth from scripture includes the idea that it isn't univocal, that isn't is adaptable, and that above all it should foster a relationship between a reader and God, not just a reader and the text?

Well then if scripture teaches this as an objective truth then it shouldn't contradict itself elsewhere. In other words it should be univocal . Suppose it did contradict itself elsewhere and that is in one place it claims scripture is univocal and in another place it contradicts itself and claims scripture is not univocal. How would you determine which claim is "objectively true" after all scripture is claiming two contradictory things are both true and one of them must be wrong (if they are truly contradictory). And if you claim that scripture does not ever truly contradict itself than you agree with Rob that scripture should be interpreted in a univocal fashion.

I think your "necessary" doesn't hold.

I think it does hold if tool A (tool A could be anything secular or religious) is teaching objective truth about how the universe really is then it shouldn't contradict itself (this seems self evident) if it contradicts itself than clearly it is wrong somewhere along the line about what is objectively true because by definition two truly contradictory statements cannot both be true.Hence if scripture is teaching objective truth it shouldn't contradict itself, by definition it should be univocal. And if scripture claims to teach objective truth and contradicts itself ie.(is not univocal) then we know its claim to teach objective truth is at least partially false.

[Uncertain]

That's the essence of it, and there really should be nothing more necessary to say! I love it! There is no possible way we can avoid interpretation, and even the "original author", insofar as that phrase even makes sense, was interpreting his experience as he saw it.

I absolutely agree scripture does not interpret itself now how is this relevant to the point I am making?

Here is my point:

In other words a person believes in a univocal reading of scripture exactly as much as they believe scripture teaches objective truth. If they strongly believe objective truth can be obtained from scripture then they necessarily strongly believe the scriptural text should be read in a univocal fashion.This is the only point I am arguing and if I understand you correctly you agree with me. And yes I agree this would be a theologically driven interpretation of the text.

Apparently Ben agrees with this I am open to reasoned arguments why I am mistaken but at this point I don't see the necessity of interpreting text as in any way weakening my overall argument.

[Uncertain]

It seems of course that what is at issue is what "objective truth" is, and I would say that the answer to that is "what we experience as verified by what works for us in our lives" is "objective truth".

On that basis, Joseph's experience of a bodily God, for example, verified for me personally with how that coheres with other philosophical principles and moral principles which I have verified as life affirming and spiritual experiences I have had, "verify" the truth of Mormonism.

And since that is my perspective, that is the perspective (and thus experience) which I bring to reading scriptural texts, which inevitably means that I am interpreting them in accord with my experience.

So if objective truth is what we experience, and I experience those interpretations as "true", I suppose that makes them "objectively true" as far as I personally can possibly know.

I may even experience those texts as "univocal" (but with my interpretation), as apparently our friend Mr Bowman does, while other's experience may vary.

We just need to trust in a benevolent God who is leading each of us and teaching us in the way each of us needs, to return to him, and the rest becomes semantic games, which is inevitable since language is all we have to fill in the gaps between us anyway!

Well if you define objective truth as that which works for a person than yes you can claim that scripture teaches objective truth and yet scripture contradicts itself (is not univocal). However I wonder how closely you hold to your definition. Say Catholicism really works for Jon Doe. Does this mean Catholicism is objectively true in the same way Mormonism is? I dare say you would argue Mormonism is "objectively true" in a way Catholicism is not.

Also if objectively true is defined as most people would understand it. That is a fact or statement that accurately represents how the world really is. Than yes objective truth does require self consistency i.e(univocal).

[Uncertain]

I think uncertain's very big "fudge factor" here is that very big "IF"

Uncertain said: (empahsis added)

IF everyone's personal "objective truth" includes one's own interpretation of scripture, then everybody gets to have their own personal "univocal" scripture which corresponds perfectly with "objective truth" as they understand it.

As I said above, the rest is semantics.

Again personal truth is very different than objectively true for everyone. I stand by my statement if one takes as an initial premise that scripture is a good way to obtain objective truth (not just personal truth) about how the world really works this necessarily requires a univocal reading of scripture. Or to put it another way scripture should be self consistent and not contradict itself.

[Vance]

We just need to trust in a benevolent God who is leading each of us and teaching us in the way each of us needs, to return to him, and the rest becomes semantic games, which is inevitable since language is all we have to fill in the gaps between us anyway!

Yeh, BUT!!!

Because Mormons don't believe what "Evangelical" Christians believe, they are not Christians and they are going to hell!!!

[mfbukowski]

I absolutely agree scripture does not interpret itself now how is this relevant to the point I am making?

Here is my point:

In other words a person believes in a univocal reading of scripture exactly as much as they believe scripture teaches objective truth. If they strongly believe objective truth can be obtained from scripture then they necessarily strongly believe the scriptural text should be read in a univocal fashion.This is the only point I am arguing and if I understand you correctly you agree with me. And yes I agree this would be a theologically driven interpretation of the text.

Apparently Ben agrees with this I am open to reasoned arguments why I am mistaken but at this point I don't see the necessity of interpreting text as in any way weakening my overall argument.

No argument here.

[Vance]

I absolutely agree scripture does not interpret itself . . .

I am wondering if Rob will respond to this.

[zerinus]

If by claiming the Bible is univocal you intent is to convey the idea that the Bible is coherent in its teachings, then I agree that it is, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you think the Bible teaches.

The question then becomes: How does one correctly interpret or understand what the Bible teaches?

I believe it is good to read the Bible with the idea that there is one true voice that permeates through all of it, but the fact that someone can make sense out of what the Bible teaches doesn't necessarily mean they have found or heard that one true voice.

If by "univocally" you simply mean "coherently", then yes, course, but the fact that a person has an understanding of the Bible doesn't mean it is the true or correct understanding.

Yes, and I ask God for guidance through the Holy Spirit so that I can know how to correctly understand what is written.

N/A

No.

N/A

THE LDS doctrinal system.

It is a legitimate practice, and please also note that the practice should include appealing to God as the source of that one true voice.

No.

No, not to my knowledge.

It is always a mistake to simply make assumptions, in my perspective, and I believe all prophets of God generally agree that we should rely on God, first and foremost, for our personal knowledge of truth.

According to the teachings of the living prophets who teach us to go to God for our knowledge of truth.

Thank you Ahab for your comments. I agree with what you have said.

[mfbukowski]

Well if you define objective truth as that which works for a person than yes you can claim that scripture teaches objective truth and yet scripture contradicts itself (is not univocal). However I wonder how closely you hold to your definition. Say Catholicism really works for Jon Doe. Does this mean Catholicism is objectively true in the same way Mormonism is? I dare say you would argue Mormonism is "objectively true" in a way Catholicism is not.

Also if objectively true is defined as most people would understand it. That is a fact or statement that accurately represents how the world really is. Than yes objective truth does require self consistency i.e(univocal).

I don't see how we can believe in personal revelation then turn around and say "but only MY personal revelations are valid". Either personal revelations are valid and may differ or we should throw out the whole idea as do other groups. But the whole restoration is based ultimately on James 1:5 which we interpret, I suppose differently than they do. Anyway, that is the way I see James 1:5, and I think it is the way Joseph saw it too. He actually believed it could happen.

So there we have it straight in the Bible itself. God leads and directs us individually, and we all follow the path that works for us to bring us closer to Christ.

If I am a drunk on skid row and I start attending the Salvation Army meetings and I "accept Christ" through a personal revelation and change my life, I am going to absolutely know that that revelation was "valid", and I (now as mfbukowski) would never ever say that it was not.

But in the Mormon belief set, an individual like the one described may still "on the other side" receive further light and knowledge which may allow him to accept the Mormon gospel. Of course we can never know that here. So I have no problem with others receiving perfectly "valid" revelations to join other churches which will move them closer to Christ, and I know of no Mormon who would disagree with that.

Perhaps there are some, but I don't see how they could not believe this. The entire notion of the redemption of the dead is based on this possibility. I don't know why we don't see that clearly when this comes up.

[mfbukowski]

Again personal truth is very different than objectively true for everyone. I stand by my statement if one takes as an initial premise that scripture is a good way to obtain objective truth (not just personal truth) about how the world really works this necessarily requires a univocal reading of scripture. Or to put it another way scripture should be self consistent and not contradict itself.

On one hand I could agree with you, but I don't think you are using the words the way I am. If I am in a room with 30 people and I have a book in my hand, everyone presumably would agree that "There is a book in bukowski's hand".

But we are not talking about that are we? We are talking about the interpretation of texts written very long ago and very far away in time and space and culture in different languages. It is a little difficult to see how this situation is at all analogous with witnesses verifying that indeed that is bukowski and yes, at this day and time, the book was in his hand.

Let's say you see a pink elephant. Is it "objectively true" or not? I don't know, but you might.

Let's now say you ask your friend if he sees it too. If he says "yes", is that "objectively true"?

Suppose there are 30 people in the room, and some see it and some don't and some say they saw something but they weren't sure what, some say it was not pink but magenta, others say it was a cloud and not an elephant, others say it was a pink hippopotamus.

Now let's say someone thousands of miles away and several thousands of years ago in another language says he "saw God" or didn't see God because God is a "spirit" etc.

It is hard to even imagine what "objective" could mean in such a context. You would have to be playing with words to make it mean much of anything.