In the Bloggernacle, it seems that the main players are atheists, liberal Mormons, and Orthodox Mormons. It is pretty rare that an evangelical Mormon enters the debate, and I think is even more rare for a Mormon to become an evangelical. (Granted, my view could be biased by my experience. From my experience, most former Mormons tend to be atheists here, so hearing one turn evangelical seems unusual.) Kullervo happens to be one of these rare people—a Mormon turned evangelical, and I thought it would be interesting to bring his perspective for a topic.
Back in March, Hawkgrrrl had a popular post: Is Belief in Polygamy Required for Church Membership? In the comments, Kullervo and I got into a debate about whether polygamy is a false revelation, and whether Joseph Smith is a false prophet. In my unorthodoxy, I said that I think Joseph Smith was deceived about polygamy, and that it was a false revelation. I think more than one biblical prophet has issued a revelation that was not God’s will. I am on record as saying
Immorality comes from man, no question, and often men blame immorality on God. It happens all the time, and when it happens, man takes God’s name in vain and offends God. Men blame genocide on God, and I have a post about Joshua’s Unholy War. I take exception to the idea that God commanded circumcision in Abraham’s day. Circumcision was a pagan practiced adopted by Abraham as godly. I don’t think God had anything to do with his marriage to Hagar. God didn’t command (but permitted) sex slavery in Exodus 21. Balaam wasn’t a true prophet. I could go on and on.
Man blaming such atrocities on God is an affront to God. This type of God is like Zeus, or Apollo. It is a primitive belief in God. We need to grow up and quit blaming God for atrocities, rather than rely on primitive tales of 3000 years ago. We used to blame floods on God, and now we blame them on the weather because we understand it. (We come close to calling this an “Act of God”, but it is an act of nature that can often be predicted, thanks to our better understanding of the planet and satellites. Nobody blames this on God anymore.)
So I find Joseph in a bit of company with biblical prophets. Furthermore, I stated previously in comment 30
“Implying or outright stating that historical polygamy was not inspired when we have canonized revelation to the contrary accuses [1] Joseph Smith of being a liar (or [2] being deceived by Satan) and other church leaders as accomplices.”
I vote option #2. I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that Satan is capable of counterfeit revelations. (1) He claims to be the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4, also referenced in temple ceremony),
(2) Satan tried to tempt Jesus (Matt. 4:6, Luke 4:9) “Since you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here..”
I’d love to hear your take on some of these biblical issues, rather than piling on Joseph (which it seems you relish doing lately.) But maybe that should be the subject of another post, instead of threadjacking this one. Let me know if you’d like me to create a post on false prophets/immorality of the Bible.
Kullervo responded
Well, there’s no question from Scripture that even the prophets were pretty regularly moral disasters. But I’m not asking whether Joseph Smith had moral failings. I’m asking whether he made a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, because that has massive Biblical implications.
If your answer is “well, so what, because I think all the Old Testament prophets made false prophecies too,” meaning that you are admitting that the Bible itself contains bona fide false prophecy, then obviously the discussion about whether or not Joseph Smith was a false prophet is a non-starter between us, because our view of scripture is so radically different.
It was interesting to me that Kullervo said, “even the prophets were pretty regularly moral disasters,” so I guess that means we don’t really need to delve into a prophet’s actions as prophet. In an email exchange Kullervo focused on another definition of a prophet that I’d like to discuss further. He said,
- A prophet is someone who speaks the will of God. In the more dramatic sense, we think of Old Testament prophets who were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak God’s revealed word, but in a more common sense, if you or I speak God’s will, we are also acting prophetically. The touchstone of prophecy is “Thus Sayeth the Lord.”
The role of a prophet is to call God’s people to faith, repentance, obedience and covenant relationship with God. Moses led God’s people because he was specifically called to do so, not automatically by virtue of his role as prophet.
- So, if a prophet is someone who speaks God’s will, a false prophet is someone who claims to speak God’s will, but in fact does not. Joseph Smith was a false prophet because he falsely claimed to receive direct revelations from God. Contra Mormonism, there is no office of prophet granting special authority to lead God’s people or act in God’s name beyond declaring God’s will.
Even if you think that all of the D&C is true prophecy (and you yourself have said that you do not), Joseph Smith made many specific prophecies about the future that did not come to pass.
The threshold for false prophecy is pretty low. In Deuteronomy, God mandated the death sentence for even one false prophecy: “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak . . . that same prophet shall die.”
And this is not just an Old Testament law-of-Moses issue we can conveniently brush under the rug. We get warnings about false prophets and false teachers over and over again in the New Testament, and some of the most serious warnings against false prophets came from Jesus himself. If we take the Bible seriously, and I do, then we have to take false prophets extremely seriously and be watchful for them. And Joseph Smith is objectively a false prophet.
So that’s Kullervo’s biblical definition from Deuteronomy: “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak . . . that same prophet shall die.” I guess on the one hand, it could be argued that Joseph’s martyrdom was a fulfillment of this verse if polygamy is a false revelation.
On the other hand Kullervo, let me have you answer some questions.
- Do you believe that God commanded Joshua to kill every man, women, child, and cow in Jericho? Was that truly God’s word to kill all the innocents?
- Was Balaam a true prophet? Supposedly he saw an angel, and proclaimed God’s word to Balak using the altar of Baal. But ignoring Balaam’s moral failings, why would the same God who in the chapter before blessed Moses’s conquest of the polytheistic Ammonites and Amorites (and told Moses “thou shalt have no other gods before me” under penalty of death), give a revelation to Balaam on the altars of Baal?
- Do you find these scriptures as God’s word? (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Is this an example of God’s word, or can it be explained as Moses’ moral failings in killing women but “saving” the virgins as sex slaves? Do you believe this is God’s word, or should Moses be put to death (according to Deuteronomy) for putting false words in God’s mouth?
Wheat & Tares 
Interesting framing.
Who can say. A cursory reading of II Samuel 2:23,24 would, at least as it’s render in the KJV, make Jehovah one real jerk “God”, for having these super-she-bears, or sows, tear up 42 of these “children” who were mocking Elisha the Prophet because he was bald-headed. However, it may be that the incident didn’t translate well both linguistically and in cultural and historical context, as many Bible commentators would describe these ‘children’ as in fact young men, each of whom were actually threatening the Prophet’s life, the “go up, thou bald head” epithet having a more serious tone than rendered in 1611 into Olde English.
Please don’t confuse Prophecy with foretelling the future. The former is to speak with AUTHORITY on the Lord’s behalf, and obviously the intended recipients of the message would be entitled to confirmation of authenticity by the Holy Ghost. Whether they do so or not is entirely up to them. Some prophets have made predictions for the future, but as they can often have multiple interpretations AND be subject to free agency (e.g., Jonah was sent to preach to Nineveh of its imminent destruction, but surprise, they repented, and were spared, much to his chagrin…), confirmation of truth or not can be slippery, to say the least.
A foreword in the LDS printing of the KJV says it plainly for the Song of Solomon: NOT an inspired writing. However, since the Church is merely using the KJV as is, it got included with the disclaimer.
Very interesting conundrum. I am quite curious how my friend who is LDS and a theologian responds to this. He has a Th.D. and was previously a Baptist Apologist for the LDS church before his conversion. He has helped me through many of my questions.
Neither I nor Kullervo said anything about foretelling the future. Not sure why Kullervo is so silent on this, as he has posted on other topics today, and I do think Doug has a good point about the she-bears. (There are countless examples I could have picked.) Does anyone believe that the stories mentioned above about killing women and children or taking virgins from other tribes are God’s unmistakable word? Is it possible for prophets to make mistakes in revelation?
” for having these super-she-bears, or sows, tear up 42 of these “children” who were mocking Elisha the Prophet because he was bald-headed”
Maybe it was their mothers, tearing them a new one for making fun of the Prophet.
The term “tiger mom” just hadn’t been invented yet.
@MH: I think this where Douglas is getting at least Kullervo talking about foretelling the future:
“Even if you think that all of the D&C is true prophecy (and you yourself have said that you do not), Joseph Smith made many specific prophecies about the future that did not come to pass.”
Anyway, that’s how I read it.
(I am waiting for the chance to post something more substantial in response)
Are you asking for a guest post? Send me an email, and I can post a “rebuttal” this afternoon (or later) if you want.
Thanks for the clarification Other Doug, but I think “foretelling the future” is a minor point in this discussion. I’d rather emphasize scripture (especially Biblical scripture) in this discussion.
I’ve found it interesting as to what over the millennia got canonized versus what fell by the wayside, some works probably just forgotten, others ’86ed…’, perhaps? Even with Joseph Smith, supposedly the majority of what he had on the golden plates wasn’t released for publication.
Even questionable encounters such as Saul and the “Witch” of Endor (or woman with a ‘familiar Spirit’) in I Samuel 28 got included, IMO, not to be spiritually ‘uplifting’, but as a warning. It’s why methinks that a war movie, as long as sensitive young folks and others that would be disturbed are warned away in advance, ought to have ‘realistic’ blood and gore, because that’s what’s war is about. Efforts to sugar-coat the more unpleasant things about this telestial sphere, IMO, do far worse than portraying the ugly reality. Or like the cruel beating and torturing of the Savior up to and including His crucifixion in Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ’…for me, it certainly didn’t ‘entertain’, but it left with the vicarious experience of what He physically suffered (though I couldn’t presume to empathize) and feelings of heartbreak at the sufferings of our Loved One, which is likely what Gibson had in mind.
Even if one were to leave out the role of Divine guidance in canonization of scripture (I don’t), I’d trust the various learned men over the ages, both Jews and Christians as well as the LDS hierarchy of today, have an good idea of what needs to be in the body of scripture, even the stuff that isn’t easy to take. And at times, maybe, as Joseph Smith put it, some “Old Jew” put it there, for reason(s) nobody knows today.
No no; I just haven’t had the chance to compose a decent comment. Too busy down in the law mines today.
I think we step onto thin ice whenever we take the scriptures to be literal. Are we sure those stories actually happened and, if so, are we sure they happened exactly as told in our copy of the scriptures? Who actually wrote the stories? When did they write them? What was their motivation in doing so?
Did Joshua really do those things? That was a really long time ago and the only written account of it happens to be from one side of the conquest who happened to be a small, pretty insignificant tribe of people who had a need to prove their importance to the people around them, written many centuries later. That’s pretty shaky. Same goes for almost any story in the Old Testament.
My goodness, was Balaam even a historical person, or is he an allegory for something else? I don’t know, but that type of literary tool was used in other cases.
Basically, I think we have to be careful not to be too literal when trying to understand the scriptures. There is a bunch of room for error and we have to be cognizant of that.
I leave that prior comment with the caveat that I absolutely love the scriptures and spend a great deal of time studying them. I’m not trying to wiggle my way out of them but try to think critically about them as well.
orangganjil,
If you look at the Middle East, I have no reason to doubt them. For example, child sacrifice was common in the land of Canaan when Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac. There’s no reason to think this didn’t happen. Genocide was common then, and if you look at ISIS, it is common today. There’s no reason to think the story of Joshua is embellished. In fact the Bible is remarkably candid about the misdeeds of its characters. There’s no reason to think David didn’t kill Uriah after sleeping with Uriah’s wife. I see no reason to doubt most of these stories.
Now if you want to talk Adam and Eve, the flood, giants–well these seem more like myths, so I don’t see the need to take them literally. But Abraham, Balaam, Moses don’t seem to fall in the same category, so I think theses stories have a lot more support.
And even if *you* want to make them less literal, certainly the law of Moses was used to regulate slavery and polygamy, so I don’t see how you can pretend that keeping the virgins and killing the women is not literal. It may make it more palatable for you to ignore these literal passages, but I think that you are simply ignoring these unpleasant passages. What spiritual benefit do you get by calling them non-literal, and how can you justify the law of Moses as non-literal or non-binding upon the ancient people who told these stories and justified sex slavery?
Sorry, I didn’t mean that those stories didn’t happen, only that I find it difficult for people to claim that God literally told Israel to commit those acts or was at all approving of them. I think it is highly likely that many of them happened, though they may have been embellished or twisted to enhance Israel’s credibility. I’m just stating that I believe we (LDS people) get on thin ice when we extend claimed divine authority by scriptural authors to actual divine authority.
Israel was not much different from the people around them and had to demonstrate that their god was greater than the gods of those around them. As a result, we have “God” approving of or commanding acts that I believe God finds offensive.
I agree completely. I dont think god commanded atrocities.
For me, it breaks down as follows:
1) If god commanded these atrocities, well, then I’m not interested in trying to please this god or learning more about this god or believing in this god.
2) If god didn’t command these atrocities, but chose, with HIS omniscience, people capable of such atrocities, as HIS spokespeople for all HIS children, well, then I’m not interested in trying to please this god or learning more about this god or believing in this god.
3) If god didn’t command these atrocities, but chose, with HIS omnipotence, to allow HIS chosen prophets to commit these atrocities, well, then I’m not interested in trying to please this god or learning more about this god or believing in this god.
“1) If god commanded these atrocities, well, then I’m not interested in trying to please this god or learning more about this god or believing in this god.”
You are so utterly and completely convinced that you’re right, that you think you’re in a position to correct God!?!
What am I supposed to think? It’s ok for god to command that his prophet commit genocide?
HELL NO!
Is it ok for parents to abuse their kids? No. Why is it ok for heavenly parents to abuse their kids?
Oh, and Jeff G, I said “IF”.
Are you saying god did command those atrocities and that you have no problem with it? Or do you think that god did not command those atrocities?
Jeff G., why shouldn’t he, or anyone else, question or correct god?
I think orangganjil’s comments are right on.
The scriptures (all of them, though none more than the OT) are a highly suspect source. They are one of the best examples we have of attempting to see “through a glass darkly.”
As for Joseph Smith and the false prophet issue: Being a chosen, valid “prophet” does not guarantee one is always speaking for God (known as infallibility). My theory regarding Section 132 and polygamy is that he was so taken/overwhelmed/awestruck by all the new information God was revealing to him that he convinced himself that he should be like the prophets of the OT–with regard to wives, at least.
Dexter,
“What am I supposed to think?”
A little bit of humility would go a long ways. The idea that you know what is best more than God does is about as arrogant as a person can possibly get.
I don’t know if it’s about what is “best” or whatever…it’s about being at peace with oneself. Maybe I’m “wrong”, but I’d have to live with myself if I committed or condoned something I perceived to be an atrocity. Since I’m the one who has to live with myself (and no one else), then those sentiments take a higher priority.
Andrew,
I get what your saying, but at that point the argument simply repeats itself: What if God (who knows everything) says that being at peace with oneself is NOT what’s important? It seems that statements like Dexter’s cannot be construed as anything less than placing oneself above God. If somebody is not even willing to admit that they might be wrong when an all-knowing being corrects or disagrees with them, in what sense can such a person possibly be debating in good faith?
Jeff,
No, I don’t think you get what I’m saying: being a subjective being (at the core of “I think, therefore I am”) means that considerations regarding subjectivity are the one thing that is non-negotiable. That’s not a matter of rightness or wrongness — it’s just how things are. If an all-knowing and all-powerful being cannot or desires not to do anything about that, then I’m not saying that that is a question of rightness or wrongness — it’s just how it is.
I mean, I am totally willing to go to hell and decry such a deity as a tyrant and be in the “wrong” because I still have to live with myself, however “objectively” wrong I may be.
I’m not sure I follow here.
“That’s not a matter of rightness or wrongness — it’s just how things are.”
This is totally false. Descartes was wrong, and any “is” is just a description that is either right or wrong in a moral sense that is completely negotiable. Consider, for example, the conclusion Hobbes reached from Descartes’ thought experiment: “I think, therefore matter is capable of thought.” The point isn’t that Hobbes was right, but that Descartes assume a whole lot in his argument and that our subjectivity is very much open to various interpretations that serve and are thus regulated by different moral ends.
I get the feeling that you’re arguing that subjective authenticity just is – naturally and unavoidably – something that we have and have to deal with the best we can without any real choice in the matter and that this is why Dexter isn’t wrong in correcting or even condemning God. Once we give up on this “unavoidable naturalness”, however, this whole argument collapses. At the very least, building the confidence in one’s own moral values upon a metaphysical interpretation of the self seems like building one’s house upon the sand if ever there were such a thing.
Unless I’m still misreading you.
Jeff G,
I’m not arguing that subjective authority means that Dexter isn’t wrong. I’m pointing out that whether Dexter is wrong is not the point, if that doesn’t affect him subjectively.
Like, when you say that “our subjectivity is very much open to various interpretations that serve and are thus regulated by different moral ends,” you still have to get to an impact on the subjectivity.
I personally do not see any way to even begin to process moral values without an appeal to how it impacts experiencing, feeling, perceiving beings.
Jeff, I appreciate that you think it’s the height of arrogance to not question god. If that’s your belief, then by all means, you shouldn’t question god. But you can’t put that value on someone else. I might believe that questioning god, or anyone else, is perfectly acceptable as an exercise of an open-minded or thoughtful human being. You believe in an omniscient god who should be deferred to. Again, fine, that’s your opinion. I don’t, so I won’t defer to any such being. I’m 100% confident that there are others who believe in a god of a type and nature that you don’t see fit to defer to. Same thing.
*it’s the height of arrogance to question god.
I think, then, that you and I are reading him differently. You seem to be saying that given what he believes right now, he thinks the most justified position is to condemn various things. But even faithful members don’t necessarily disagree with this, which is why they appeal to unknown, extenuating circumstances of some kind.
By contrast, when he says “even if God did command these things” I see him as saying something much, much stronger. I see him as saying that even if he did know enough – for example, he sat down with God in the afterlife – he would still disagree with and condemn God for His actions. In other words, even if God and His action did impact him subjectively, he STILL would place himself above God.
I simply don’t see how your overly-charitable interpretation really matches up with what he said since the whole thrust was that even in a counter-factual situation in which we know all of the relevant facts, he would still condemn God since he that convinced that those thing are wrong regardless of what God thinks or says. That, to me, is a fundamentalist who is so convinced of their own rightness that they cannot be reasoned with.
Brjones,
It’s not about whether one believes in God. Dexter himself sidelined that interpretation by saying “even if God did do it…” The point is that even if a supreme being does exist, and even if Dexter knew this for a fact, he still sees himself qualified to stand in judgement of His actions.
” That, to me, is a fundamentalist who is so convinced of their own rightness that they cannot be reasoned with.”
Jeff, this doesn’t follow at all. All he’s saying is that he has determined for himself what constitutes moral behavior, and if god exists and violates that standard, then he will judge god in the same fashion in which he would judge a person who did the same thing. You may disagree with this, but I don’t see this as someone who can’t be reasoned with. In fact, if anything, your position is the unreasonable, more rigid one, as you admit readily that under no circumstances will you ever question god. Anyone who has arrived at a position through their own intellect and judgment can, in theory, be reasoned with. Ostensibly, if you could convince Dexter that a certain behavior is not as wrong as he believes, then he would change his opinion about it, because he reserves that judgment to himself. You, on the other hand, have made clear that no matter what god does you won’t question him, because you don’t believe it’s your right to make such determinations. So who’s the one that can’t be reasoned with?
And I agree with him. If god commits an immoral act, I will judge god as immoral. Immorality is immorality. Again, you might disagree with this construct, but that doesn’t make it unreasonable.
Jeff G,
I read Dexter’s comment as saying that as current presented, God’s actions do impact him subjectively — they product a profoundly negative response that engenders distrust, revulsion, etc., I am saying that that matters — whether it is correct or incorrect. The question is whether God sitting down with him in the afterlife could or would convince him otherwise — the question of God’s goodness or benevolence is something people have to be convinced and persuaded about. It really isn’t enough to say “God is de facto good so anything he says/does go” — even if that is in fact the case. That is not persuasive on its own.
Presumably, an omniscient God would know just what to say or do to trigger such a response (and the scriptures do talk about “every tongue confessing” etc.,)…but such an omniscient God also knows what would do that *in this life* too.
I think that people tend to have strong views on morality — and strength of view of morality is usually viewed as a good thing? I dunno. It just seems to me that he doesn’t simply buy that morality is whatever God happens to do/say/think. And I’m saying, whether he is flat out wrong or right about this, phenomenologically, it makes sense why someone would feel like this. If morality is only what God happens to do/say/think, regardless of what any of us think/respond, then morality doesn’t seem to be all that relevant or useful.
Jeff,
quick question: do you think it’s possible for there to exist a supreme tyrannical being?
Jeff, I really think you are missing the point of the post here. The question is this: Did God command Joshua to kill all the men, women, and children of Jericho?
Now, if we attributed the verses to Muhammad, I think you would say “No, God didn’t command this.” If these scriptures were given by Warren Jeffs, I think you would question whether this was a godly command. But nobody seems to question anything in the Bible. Joshua says God said it, so you take it no question. But if anybody else said it, I doubt you would call it godly. If a mentally deranged person said God told him to wipe out a city, or if Hitler did, we would question the command. Why doesn’t the Bible deserve the same scrutiny?
I just don’t think God commanded this. If you do think God commanded an atrocity, then I (like Dexter) don’t want to worship your god, because your god is an immoral god. And yes, I would tell that to God’s face if he really did command that. Maybe this god could convince me I and Dexter are wrong, or maybe he would send us both to hell. But I really think this conception of god is completely primitive and 100% wrong. The god I know is a loving god, and wouldn’t do such a thing.
What’s more likely, IMO, is that Joshua misinterpreted God. And That’s what I would tell God to his face. So Dexter’s hypothetical is just that–a hypothetical, and I think it is off base.
MH, I’m assuming you believe in the truthfulness of the book of mormon. Is what god supposedly commanded nephi to do to laban any different or more justifiable?
Andrew,
So long as we can sideline the question of what Dexter did or did not mean, I’d be happy to discuss that question with you.
“do you think it’s possible for there to exist a supreme tyrannical being?”
There are a lot of assumptions built into this question. Most importantly, the historical context in which it is asked is strongly inclined to see any and all kinds of “tyranny” as evil. This is very much a (over?)reaction to WW2. Just 500 years ago this would not have been at all obvious, let alone 2,500 years ago. Indeed, even 100 years ago the concept of a benevolent despot was not a contradiction in terms. (In other words, the vast majority of history would have agreed that such a being is VERY possible.)
With this in mind, the question we must then face is how we could ever know if God had acted immorally? From what standard are we to measure God’s actions? 1) The idea of a cosmic moral ideal is not less mystical, mysterious and non-empirical than the existence of any other God, tyrannical or not – meaning that we could never be sure what the standard actually was in order to measure God against it. 2) The idea that God is the source of morality makes it conceptually impossible to hold God to some outside or higher standard. 3) The idea that society constructs morality prevents us from passing judgment on God since He lies outside of our society. All of these make it pretty tough to pass judgement on God.
Closely related, we must ask by what means we could know that God had departed from our morality rather than our morality departing from God. The scriptures provide numerous example of entire cultures departing from God, calling righteousness evil and evil righteousness. This is where arrogance raises its head in a way since it says that it is more likely that either I or my society is in a position to out-vote, over-rule or in some other way stand in judgement of the supreme being, than it is the other way around.
Now, to the question that I think you mean to ask: Is it possible for there to be an evil supreme being? I would very, very hesitatingly answer yes, but with the caveat that I don’t think we are ever in a position to pass this judgement.
brjones, by all means i think it is probable that nephi misinterpreted gods will with regards to laban. I did a transcript of bill russell condemning this action. Im on my phone or i would post a link.
re 38,
Jeff,
I think that this sort of thing was the implicit assertion that I was getting clued in on — an assertion that the people in this thread who would challenge God do not share. It is this assertion (and not (1) or (3) as much) that probably means that of course, people are going to be talking past each other — with this, there is no way for there to be an evil God because God is the source of morality.
So I actually don’t see how you can answer that you think it is possible that there could be an evil supreme being at the end of your comment.
Anyway, getting at something else you wrote:
this is why I have commented several times that rightness/wrongness is not the appropriate question. A preoccupation of whether God is departing from our morality or whether our morality is departing from God is focused on the wrong thing — as I have been saying, we will perceive and interact with morality *from our vantage point*. Whether society departs from God’s morality or whether God departs from society’s morality is a matter of stepping into one side or the other’s shoes.
So, you say, “But really, God’s shoes, as a supreme being, are more legitimate, and it’s arrogance to think otherwise.” But that’s still an open question — God’s supremacy is perceived not from God’s perspective, but from ours. I think the basic difference is that you think that if we take as a premise that God is a supreme being, then it follows that whatever it says/does/commands is good. Whereas others don’t take that premise, and therefore they could definitely imagine a being that counts as supreme, but which is not good.
Again, what is right or wrong is not as important as the fact that we’re talking about phenomenology — how people actually experience morality.
If I had known my previous comments were being discussed so much I would have checked back sooner, I apologize. I hope I didn’t miss the whole conversation.
MORALITY
If god taught that morality is defined as “whatever god does is good,” then if you believe god’s definition of morality to be true, god cannot ever do anything wrong. And in some instances, the scriptures support this god can do no wrong teaching. But the scriptures also teach other moral codes, which god appears to violate, and some of these alleged violations are the atrocities MH brought up in the post. So, if god violates his own rules, how is it arrogant for me to question him? I think we can all agree that hypocrisy is hard to swallow. A person who steals is bothersome. A preacher who constantly teaches how wrong it is to steal, and then steals, is much more disturbing. In the bible, I don’t like how god violates his own rules. So even according to the morals of the scriptures, god perhaps violated some very serious rules.
But for those who don’t agree with the moral teachings of the bible, like myself, I can also judge god based on my moral standards. The god of the bible also fails to live up to these. Why wouldn’t I judge him? If I see someone on the street beating a child, it is arrogant of me to think that is wrong? I don’t think so. If I hear a story of a person from 200 years ago enslaving people, I will think that was wrong. Why should it be any different if a god is telling his subordinates to commit genocide?
Now, Jeff seems to be saying that anything god does, is, by definition, not wrong. Ok, that’s one way to look at it. But Jeff seems to think everyone has to agree. I don’t.
MH appears to be saying that because god seems to be committing atrocities, perhaps the bible didn’t get it right, or the prophets of the bible didn’t hear god correctly, or the prophets of the bible chose, on their own, to commit atrocities without god’s stamp of approval. This position keeps god out of the atrocity committing business. My response to this view would be what I said earlier, the boss is still responsible. If god commanded atrocities, shame on god. If god failed to communicate clearly, shame on god. If god chose men who would commit awful atrocities, shame on god. If god failed to stop his chosen men from committing atrocities, shame on god. For me, the atrocities of the bible fall at god’s feet, no matter what. And yes I would say this to his face if I were ever given the opportunity. In my opinion, the only way for god not to be held responsible for the atrocities of the bible is if they never happened or if god simply has a completely hands off approach. In other words, god could exist and be good if the bible isn’t true. But if the bible is true, then these atrocities happened, and god was clearly intervening enough that I would hold him accountable.
ARROGANCE
And how my views are arrogant is beyond my comprehension, but maybe I’m too dumb to see it. There’s some more humility for you, Jeff 🙂
I don’t know if god exists or not. Assuming god exists, I don’t know if he/she/it is good or bad or neither. Assuming god exists, I don’t know if he knows about me or cares about me or intervenes in any way with me or any other humans. I don’t know. How are all these things I readily admit to not knowing any sign of arrogance?
It seems to me that those who claim to know god exists, and claim to know what he thinks and what he does and how he is are somewhat arrogant. People who claim god told them this is true and that is not true. Further, many who believe god told them x is true are willing to disregard all those who claim god told them y is true, because if x is true, y cannot be true. This is arrogance, in my opinion. Having a feeling, which could be from any number of potential causes, and claiming it is a specific and understandable message from god to you is arrogant. I have had many feelings that I thought were spiritual experiences. I am willing to admit I don’t know what they meant or where they came from. And when a member of another religion tells me they received a message from god I don’t claim to know it didn’t happen. I don’t know. How is this arrogant?
Thanks to Andrew S and brjones for answering Jeff’s questions and explaining (better than I could) what I meant with my previous comment. And thanks to MH for chiming in and for the original post.
MH,
If prophets of the bible and Nephi misinterpreted god’s commands, where does that leave us? I mean, do you think the prophets weren’t in tune enough? Was it something the prophets weren’t doing well enough? Or did god choose to be cryptic or hard to comprehend for some reason that serves his purposes? Perhaps god was training them to be better prophets? I’m curious what you think.
Dexter, I guess I follow the admonition to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” As well as “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”
Conversely, I have no need to praise unpraiseworthy things, and I let go of things that are not good. We are all a mix of good and bad. I try to disavow the bad things I do, and still try to be good, and do the same thing with prophets.
As for prophets, Why can’t God Speak English? I don’t know, but even a Friendly Atheist finds Value in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes struggling to find God’s word is good for future generations.
Here’s the link to Bill Russell’s talk I mentioned earlier. Nephi is Dangerous.
Bill Russell’s talk was interesting. I agree that Nephi and the Book of Mormon are dangerous. But Russell thinks they have a lot of good too, but he jokes perhaps they should be published with warning labels. To me, the bad outweighs the good, so they shouldn’t be endorsed.