The (Inter)National Book, Or, "We Are Doomed!"

[The Nehor]

Modern ideas arguably foreign to Biblical ethics:

Human rights.

I believe the social and economic laws of Exodus do acknowledge human rights and a sense of justice. Their sense of justice is harsher then ours but the same framework is there.

Separation of church and state (and the related rejection of theocracy in the western world).

True.

Capitalism.

Very true. Don't tell Droopy.

Full democracy.

I like democracy but I don't consider it divine. It's not a religious duty according to our D&C to turn governments into democracies (Sorry Iraq!).

Women's suffrage.

Anyone's suffrage really.

Rejection of slavery.

True.

Rejection of the notion of a chosen race. (the idea of racism seems to be a modern one)

I don't reject the notion.

Bible passages that seem to be advising objectionable ethics are very very easy to find:

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."

Burning my tarot cards right now. Oops.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. "

Oh arranged marriages, how I pine for you.

" If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."

Hmmmm....six year trial marriage.....might work.

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel"

We've only barely amended this from death to forcing them to accept the verdict.

[Loran Blood]

It ain't so "Ancient History".

In Mormonland until OD2 the idea was that because the black race were condemned to be servants in this life in the Bible. They could never aspire to anything more than servants to the superior white race in the next.

The reason the SBC exists is that they believed blacks had no soul. They were no better than livestock, and often treated worse.

1. You have just asserted that, until 1978, the Church taught that "because the black race were condemned to be servants in this life in the Bible. They could never aspire to anything more than servants to the superior white race in the next." This nonsense is, quite frankly, more extreme and unsupported by any substantive evidence that much of the argument I have dealt with by some of the more virulent critics of the Church over the last decade or more on this same issue.

The very best one can say here is that black men could not hold the Priesthood due to some restriction inherent in their lineage that was of ancient origin, and that, in the resurrection and in process of time, the fulness of the blessings available to any others would be made available to them. This was the traditional core teaching up to 1978, and given that none of the theological explanation given up to that point ever had the clear imprimatur of official doctrine, great swelling waves of indignant moral posturing about it at this point is of little value. The idea that blacks would still be servants in the eternities was one the speculations posited by a few isolated Church leaders over the last century, never had the imprimatur of official doctrine, and in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of slavery.

Young himself was inconsistent in his ideas here. He said in once instance, " Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will be, until that curse is removed."

2 You're still back in the 19th century. OK, perhaps "ancient" is too strong a term, but that's a very long time ago in a culture and social milieu far, far away.

3. I also notice the snarky and derogatory use of the the term "Mormonland" as a dismissive snipe at the LDS culture of the past, all of who's assumptions, norms, and attitudes do not hold up well under the withering, politically correct moral scrutiny of the sanctified ideology underlying the modern social work profession.

Its duly noted that some of them didn't and don't hold up by contemporary standards (not necessarily yours in all points) but context and proportion is all important when analyzing the cultures and norms of the past. Sometimes, STS, its a bit difficult to tell whether you are an apologist or a critic. I've seen you, on occasion, put the church under the bus when some of your personal ideological beliefs come into conflict with the teachings of the Church and no retreat is possible, and I'm not sure if you really want to go there, because once this attitude and posture toward the Church takes hold, it can become chronic, and that can become spiritually crippling.

Stop the personal sniping.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Minos

[volgadon]

Loran, when you are talking about African and Muslim culture transplanted to America then you can forgive me for presuming that you were talking about "ancoent history."

[Loran Blood]

Modern ideas arguably foreign to Biblical ethics:

Human rights.

Nonsense. Israel's laws and customs could be harsh and more uncompromising by modern western standards, but were well ahead of the rest of the ancient world in both reasonableness and fairness of application. The Mosaic law was also harsher in its application and prescriptions because it was structured and capacitated for a harsh and difficult people, as the gospel teaches.

Separation of church and state (and the related rejection of theocracy in the western world).

Only a problem when not adminstered by the Priesthood in righteousness. We are simply not living in a time or under conditions in which such is appointed of the Lord.

Capitalism.

Don't even go there, Tarski, 'cause you'll be in way, way over your head and you'll get either the thread locked, or me thrown out of it (probably your intention, if you can pull it off).

Full democracy.

Meaning precisely what I don't know, and in any case, democracy is the last system of governance I'd ever want to live under, other than socialism.

Women's suffrage.

You do realize, don't you, that you are projecting modern, western conceptions back 2,000 to 3,000 years upon a people and a time in which such concepts were unknown? Then, in finding in doing so that these ancient peoples were imperfect, you then rise in high moral sanctimony about your discovery as if it was either shocking or original and as if we should laud you for you vast moral superiority for so doing. No, Tarski, there wasn't woman's lib in 2,500 B.C. Does it matter? Would woman of that time and culture even have cared had such an ideology presented itself at that time (an impossiblity, as it only could have presented itself in the context and cultural shading of that era)?

Rejection of slavery.

No one rejected slavery until the middle of the 19th century. You - yes you - had you been a member of one of these ancient societies, would very likely have supported the institution, and perhaps, if wealthy, participated in it.

Rejection of the notion of a chosen race. (the idea of racism seems to be a modern one)

Yes, it is, which is why the Jews saw themselves (correctly), as the Lord's chosen people. They wouldn't have understood the idea of "race" as modern ideologues continue to use the term.

Bible passages that seem to be advising objectionable ethics are very very easy to find:

I can find far, far, far more in modern texts, most dating from the middle of the 19th century to the present time. Hollywood, the arts, music, academia, and the pop news media are saturated with objectionable ethics, and those ethically vacant people who create and support them are the same people who cry and wail about the harshness and sternness of some OT laws.

Those laws, however, had a point to make to the people to whom they were addressed, and as they came by revelation through prophets, I hesitate to second guess them. I do note that, at some near future time, Jesus Christ is going to come a second time as a "refiner's fire" and as "fuller's soap" to cleans the earth of wickedness after a season of the most fearful calamities and human catastrophes brought on by the conduct and attitudes of the wicked themselves, who will then be "burned as stubble" and removed "root and branch" from the earth.

There are final and irreversible consequences to sin and rebellion against God, and they are not centered solely in the OT.

Nor are they of the wrist slapping variety, in their ultimate form.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Loran, when you are talking about African and Muslim culture transplanted to America then you can forgive me for presuming that you were talking about "ancoent history."

No, I'm speaking of present conditions and issues.

[LeSellers]

The "good book" doesn't seem all that good to me.

There are quite a few objectionable social norms in the Bible and quite a few modern ethical notions that seem foreign to the Bible. I am afraid that if we had ever really been using the Bible as a model without "picking and chosing" on the basis of contemporary sensibilites, we would be in real trouble. (*cough* stoning anyone?)

Way to go! You have answered a host of questions I did not pose, and attacked positions I did not stake out.

Modern ideas arguably foreign to Biblical ethics:

Human rights.

Not a personal morals issue. However, Jesus was quoting the Old Testament when He said, “and the second is like unto it: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Separation of church and state (and the related rejection of theocracy in the western world).

Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

Capitalism.

Every man had his own land, and his own property. He was able to sell it (the only true mark of ownership), and to buy property from others. There were restrictions, as anyone who’s read the Bible knows, but in general, personal economic freedom, including the rights and obligations of contract were inherent in biblical law.

Full democracy.

Anathema to freedom. Yet, in Judges and 1 Samuel we read that a state of near anarchy is God’s preferred style of government.

Women's suffrage.

Yet men were required to respect the rights of their wives, sisters and daughters. Men, under the monarchy, had no suffrage, either, o, except for the nobility, there were equal rights in the face of the state.

Rejection of slavery.

Slavery in the Bible was allowed, and enforced, but primarily as a means to discharge one’s debt. Furthermore, there were serious restrictions on what a master could do to and require of his slaves.

Rejection of the notion of a chosen race. (the idea of racism seems to be a modern one)

“Chosen,” we much ask, “for what?” Being the chosen people (not the “chosen race”) is not one of privilege, it is one of responsibility. The choice is based on covenant, although one would typically make those covenants because he was born into the culture of the covenant.

Bible passages that seem to be advising objectionable ethics are very very easy to find:

…

So are passages that instill what you would view as good ethics, if you are willing to look for them.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

At that you have shown is that with enough generalities you can make the Bible say anything you want it to.

Satan must be a woman; Zechariah 2:6 "Satan was abroad(a broad) in the land".

[LeSellers]

At that you have shown is that with enough generalities you can make the Bible say anything you want it to.

Yes, and it is interesting that today so many people try to make it conform to their preconceptions of bad ethics, but that from XVII~XX most people found good things to emulate.

Satan must be a woman; Zechariah 2:6 "Satan was abroad(a broad) in the land".

Yeah, very funny. I guess that's where Mel Gibson got his Satan for The Passion of the Christ.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

There are good things in the Bible. After all I do believe the Bible is the word of God. I'm just not convinced that we need to codify that whole collection of books into US, let alone International, law.

Last night we watch the PBS Documentary Ken Burns "Prohabition". To sum it up in a few words. It was Good Intentions with painful unintented consequences that are stiil with us to this day.

[Ariarates]

I don't this argument will get you very far, because exactly the same thing can be said about all things understood as "good" and "righteous," including structures such as representative government and deliberative democratic institutions in lieu of autocratic or mob rule (the human norm).

Autocratic or mob rule is not the human norm. If you insist that it is, please provide some argumentation.

Dr. Thomas Sowell has said it perhaps as succinctly and lucidly as it could be said:

Succinct maybe, in true pundit-style, but hardly a statement worth repeating in a serious discussion, imo.

Knowledge of and sensitivity to the good, the beautiful, the just, and or "right" and "wrong" must be taught, inculcated, reinforced, and deeply ingrained or it can very easily be lost before such perceptive biases are internalized. LDS theology does include the concept of the "Spirit of Christ" that comes into the world with every human being born, and is identified with the "conscience;" a general feeling, perception, or awareness of general right and wrong in the ethical realm. That medium, however, must be continually cultivated and nurtured. It does not simply grow on the vine without tending, weeding, and fertilization.

That is, in effect, what I said: man is born with a conscience but it requires an ideology to direct it.

Secondly, this awareness is not very particular, but only general in application, and can, over time, be easily led away by intellectual sophistry and human passions.

I think our conscience it is accurate enough. After all the BoM describes it as "a perfect knowledge" (Moroni 7). I have already agreed that a conscience can be overcome; you say by intellectual sophistry and human passions, I said by religious or secular ideology. I think we're saying the same thing here.

Question: is this natural behavior moral or immoral?

Commenting on YouTube clips is not what I meant by discussing the scientific evidence for morality as a biological quality.

[LeSellers]

There are good things in the Bible. After all I do believe the Bible is the word of God. I'm just not convinced that we need to codify that whole collection of books into US, let alone International, law.

And, once again, I point out that a National Book is not, nor can it be, "codified". It must be instilled, not coerced. It must be practiced, not merely preached. It must be accepted, not imposed.

Please read message #9, wherein Demille defines the "National Book", and appeals to the originator of the term, Bloom. The concept must be clear in one's mind before he can engage in meaningful conversation on the subject.

Last night we watch the PBS Documentary Ken Burns "Prohabition". To sum it up in a few words. It was Good Intentions with painful unintented consequences that are stiil with us to this day.

I reject prohibition in all its forms (except for sales to and use by minors), including for any kind of drug, from alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, through heroine, cocaine, and methamphetamines.People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions, but, even if they are not, no law will keep them from practicing stupidity.

Because we, as a people and as the western culture, have rejected the National Book of our fathers does not mean we could not adopt a different one (and, to a large extent, we have—Pop Music—or, at least, the rising generation has). The problem is that new National Book is dedicated to (and inspired by) Satan for the purpose of destroying families, agency and individuals. If ours is to survive the next decades, we must adopt, individually, and without any coercion, a new, valid National Book. If we do not, we are doomed—we are so doomed. That is the lesson of history.

Lehi

Edited October 10, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I'm all for belief and repentence.

That is where we get into the various interpretations of what the Bible says. Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all follow the Bible. The Jews follow largely what we know as the Old Testament. But their interpretations are vastly different from each other. IE; Catholics, Jews, and some Protestants have no problem with drinking alcohol. OTOH by some interpretations Jesus wouild have been jailed because he turned water into wine.

If we are doomed because we don't follow the Bible are we not mandated to "save" ourselves and our fellow man? If I, and my family, are doomed because of someone elses actions am I not allowed to protect myself, and my family from that doom and/or the person threatening me?

The Bible describes a very different world from that which we live in. A Monarch or Prophet ruled. Sometimes righteously often not. Europe fought, real bloody wars, for hundreds of years over different interpretations of the same Bible. We get our aversion to theocratic rule from them. Would a Southern Baptist be happy to give up his political rights to a Mormon Prophet? How about a Jew living in modern day Israel? I doubt it. Would any of our Founding Fathers? Probably not. I not sure that many LDS would either, and we're supposed to Follow the Prophet,

Governments have a responsibility to govern. In the US we have decided that for all of its problems we want a say in how our government operates, and not some Monarch or Prophet will tell us what we must do, or be doomed.

Edited October 10, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

If we are doomed because we don't follow the Bible ...

You still don't get it, do you?

I have not said that we are doomed because we do not follow the Bible, but because we do not have a valid "National Book", irrespective of what it may be.

It might be useful were you to abstain from further messages in this topic until you understand the term "National Book".

Lehi

[Tarski]

Nonsense. Israel's laws and customs could be harsh and more uncompromising by modern western standards, but were well ahead of the rest of the ancient world in both reasonableness and fairness of application. The Mosaic law was also harsher in its application and prescriptions because it was structured and capacitated for a harsh and difficult people, as the gospel teaches.

Even if so, so what? The point is whether or not the Bible should for the basis of modern social norms.

Only a problem when not adminstered by the Priesthood in righteousness. We are simply not living in a time or under conditions in which such is appointed of the Lord.

Percentage-wise, almost no one buys into the LDS notion of Priesthood authority. It is our society, where "our" includes all those many people who do not buy into the LDS notion of Priesthood authority (and its backward projection onto ancient Israel).

Don't even go there, Tarski, 'cause you'll be in way, way over your head and you'll get either the thread locked, or me thrown out of it (probably your intention, if you can pull it off).

LOL

Meaning precisely what I don't know, and in any case, democracy is the last system of governance I'd ever want to live under, other than socialism.

Don't like the concept of voting then huh?

You do realize, don't you, that you are projecting modern, western conceptions back 2,000 to 3,000 years upon a people and a time in which such concepts were unknown?

Actually, the biggest projection here is your projection of Mormonism onto ancient Israel.

Then, in finding in doing so that these ancient peoples were imperfect, you then rise in high moral sanctimony about your discovery as if it was either shocking or original and as if we should laud you for you vast moral superiority for so doing. No, Tarski, there wasn't woman's lib in 2,500 B.C. Does it matter? Would woman of that time and culture even have cared had such an ideology presented itself at that time (an impossiblity, as it only could have presented itself in the context and cultural shading of that era)?

I don't expect the ancients to have discovered and adhered to modern social norms. I do expect that we should not regress to those norms by somehow making the Bible "the book" for our modern society.

No one rejected slavery until the middle of the 19th century. You - yes you - had you been a member of one of these ancient societies, would very likely have supported the institution, and perhaps, if wealthy, participated in it.

So what? You miss the point. Why make the Bible a standard for modern society?

Yes, it is, which is why the Jews saw themselves (correctly), as the Lord's chosen people. They wouldn't have understood the idea of "race" as modern ideologues continue to use the term.

There are no special or chosen races in any sense.

I can find far, far, far more in modern texts, most dating from the middle of the 19th century to the present time. Hollywood, the arts, music, academia, and the pop news media are saturated with objectionable ethics, and those ethically vacant people who create and support them are the same people who cry and wail about the harshness and sternness of some OT laws.

Where by objectionable ethics, you are thinking sexual mores?

You really missed the point Loran. It isn't about presentism. The point is not to judge the moral inferiority of ancient social norms but to ask why we should be beholden to them today.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The authors and you are proposing that the Bible be that "National(International) Book" or we are doomed. The problems with that approach are manifest throughout world and US history including our own. If you don't accept my arguements that's fine with me. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've always considered Mormonism a very practical religion. We do tend to go with what works, and minimize or reject what experience teaches us that which does not work for us. I see no practical way or justification for the Bible(or any other religious text) becoming a "National"(International) Book" of morals and/or mores. Even if I do agree that there are some good ideas in them.

One of my favorite books is "Lord of the Rings" it too has some good ideas in it. But I have no desire to live in a "Middle Earth" be my government headed by Sauron, Galadriel, or Aragorn.

[Tarski]

Not a personal morals issue. However, Jesus was quoting the Old Testament when He said, “and the second is like unto it: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Like I said, the notion of human rights is a modern one. The golden rule (not original to Jesus) does not equal human rights.

Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

Yes and this sits along side of ancient theocracy. The inconsistency of the Bible is yet one more problem making it unsuitable as a "national book".

Yet men were required to respect the rights of their wives, sisters and daughters. Men, under the monarchy, had no suffrage, either, o, except for the nobility, there were equal rights in the face of the state.

Women were property akin to cattle.

Slavery in the Bible was allowed, and enforced, but primarily as a means to discharge one’s debt. Furthermore, there were serious restrictions on what a master could do to and require of his slaves.

So what? Why should such weak mitigating factors be allowed to obscure the fact that the Bible endorses slavery? The Bible cannot be a foundation for modern ethics and social norms except in the sense of representing part of "how we got here".

“Chosen,” we much ask, “for what?” Being the chosen people (not the “chosen race”) is not one of privilege, it is one of responsibility. The choice is based on covenant, although one would typically make those covenants because he was born into the culture of the covenant.

What has this bronze age covenant mythology got to do with our modern secular system of government? You will be singing a different toon if dominionists ever get the control they hope for since they will place Mormonism outside the circle of "chosenness" as it were.

Accepting the Bible as a national book is the first step toward a country where non-mainstream movements such as Mormonism are barely tolerated.

I advise Mormons to support the currently dominant secular national self-image so as to not shoot yourselves in your collective feet.

So are passages that instill what you would view as good ethics, if you are willing to look for them.

Exactly my point. One has to be selective and the basis for that selection is a modern and largely implicit network of norms external to the Bible. By picking and choosing, we judge the Bible and refuse to let it judge us whether we admit it or not.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Tarski

[LeSellers]

The authors and [Lehi] are proposing that the Bible be that "National(International) Book" or we are doomed.

I have not advocated that the Bible be chosen as the National Book. If I have, please show me where, and I'll disavow that statement.

I do not believe the authors, Demille and Bloom, did, either.

It's not about the Bible, per se; it's about finding and identifying a National Book that will fill the role the Bible filled until the mid 1960s. It must be "valid", as I define the term, such that the mores and norms derived form it would make ours a culture that respects personal responsibilities and rights. There is nothing on the horizon that meets that goal. If not, then perhaps we, as a people and as individuals should reconsider the Bible, because without a valid National Book, we are doomed.

Do you see anything from your crow's nest that I have missed?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

One has to be selective and the basis for that selection is a modern and largely implicit network of norms external to the Bible. By picking and choosing, we judge the Bible and refuse to let it judge us whether we admit it or not.

The Bible is a book—it is inanimate. It cannot "judge us" by its very nature.

We must judge the Bible. It cannot be the other way 'round. It is we, after all, who have received intelligence as a gift of God.

I raise an earlier point: why did people from the middle ages forward to the mid XX, using the Bible as their National Book, have a moral and reasonably upright culture, while millions of XXI USmericans (among myriads of other westerners) find so many examples of moral turpitude that people like you reject it as such a source of private (and thence public) morality?

The book did not change.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The Roaring Twenties produced more sociological changes in terms of morals and mores than the Turbulant Sixties ever even thought about. So I don't understand your condemnation of the Sixties to the exclusion of an era two to three generations earlier. If you were poor and/or black it wasn't that great being in the South in the 17th and 18th Centuries either. The Saints were chased from one state to the next to the next and finally out of the US because of justifications(rationalizations) found in the Bible.

It could be any religious book or Lord of the Rings for all that it matters, which BTW is more moral than the Bible. Let's take LDS Scripture. Would I want to live during the times of Capt. Moroni? Heck no. How about wicked king Noah? Not on a bet. Back to present day. Do I want to live under any manmade theocracy? That is like asking me if I want to live in Iran. Most Saints today wouldn't want to live under the authoritarian Brigham Young either.

It might sound like a good idea at first blush, but to use an old Protestantism. The Devil Is in The Details.

[LeSellers]

It could be any religious book or Lord of the Rings for all that it matters, which BTW is more moral than the Bible.

So, your vote for the National Book is The Lord of the Rings?

We have two votes, now, the other (from DaddyG, as I recall) is the Harry Potter Series.

Anyone else wanna take a shot at it?

Lehi

Edited October 10, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Nope. I don't want ANY book to be a National Book of morals, and mores. Take what is good from the best BOOKS, add in what the Spirit directs you to do. You will do well.

[LeSellers]

I don't want ANY book to be a National Book of morals, and mores. Take what is good from the best BOOKS, add in what the Spirit directs you to do. You will do well.

Then there will be no common source for morals, and there will be no morals. Every man will do what he feels best, but he will have no standard by which to make his judgements.

History, not fairy dust, helps us determine what works.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Why should there be any comon book of morals and mores? Are the good Presbyterians any less moral than the good Catholics? Is the good Buddhist less moral than the good Christian? How about the good Atheist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Sik, Zoroastrian? The list is practically endless of good moral people who don't subscribe to the Christian Bible in its many variants, let alone its many many different interpretations. Is the C&E only Christian more moral than the Ramadan only Muslim?

What ever happened to "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy we seek after these things"?

Edited October 10, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Senator]

Then there will be no common source for morals, and there will be no morals. Every man will do what he feels best, but he will have no standard by which to make his judgements.

Given the vast cultural diversity that America possesses, and was destined to contain, I cannot see how a "common source" could ever be envisioned indefinately.

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

To me anyone that would limit their goodness to just what is in a single source. Will forever be condemned to live and relive its atrocities.