Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Doug the Hutt

Why did Nephi decapitate Laban?

Recommended Posts

Once again confirming my long-standing contention that the irony chip is the first thing to malfunction in disaffected Mormons.

lol.gif

William, I thought I understood, but apparently the joke is still on me. I at first assumed Wiki Wonka was quoting something he agreed with. I read the statement a few times and still did not understand the message. Based on his response from my query for more explanation, I assumed the quote was given sarcastically.

You now seem to be pointing out my stupidity, and indeed I don't understand your post. First what is the irony to which you refer in this exchange? Have I said something ironic which you are addressing here? Am I missing irony which Wiki Wonka has skillfully presented? Or are you just throwing around cleverly disguised ad-hominem insults?

Secondly, I'm assuming that you are calling me a "disaffected Mormon". CFR (I'll make my Bishop's phone number available to you unless of course your personal discernment trumps his). This statement is coming over to me as a personal insult, and I'm asking you to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post

William, I thought I understood, but apparently the joke is still on me. I at first assumed Wiki Wonka was quoting something he agreed with. I read the statement a few times and still did not understand the message. Based on his response from my query for more explanation, I assumed the quote was given sarcastically.

You now seem to be pointing out my stupidity, and indeed I don't understand your post. First what is the irony to which you refer in this exchange? Have I said something ironic which you are addressing here? Am I missing irony which Wiki Wonka has skillfully presented? Or are you just throwing around cleverly disguised ad-hominem insults?

Secondly, I'm assuming that you are calling me a "disaffected Mormon". CFR (I'll make my Bishop's phone number available to you unless of course your personal discernment trumps his). This statement is coming over to me as a personal insult, and I'm asking you to stop it.

Yes, I'm calling you a disaffected Mormon. Oh, sure, you cover it with a white shirt and tie (as it were) on this board, but you're not so careful elsewhere. So give it a rest. Your "injured party" act ain't gonna fly around here.

As for my imputation of your failure to detect Wiki Wonka's ironic invocation of Vogelism, I can see now that you are simply unaware of the style of "historiography" for which our erstwhile brother Dan has made himself "famous" in certain very small circles of pretentious, would-be intellectual exmormons.

Get Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith. I have no doubt you'll find it very compelling and persuasive reading.

Share this post


Link to post

Your inflammatory statement (bolded above) aside, I think I'm fully on-board with Porter Rockwell when it comes to this particular case. As with Nephi, so with Marshall Rockwell: he never killed a man that didn't need killin'.

.

.

.

Edit: Incidentally, you appear to be as knowledgeable about true piety as was your namesake.

Giving myself the name of a figure who found himself on the losing side of an exchange with Socrates is an attempt at humility, nevertheless I'm comfortable with my conclusion here. Indeed, this state is full of folk who are on board with Porter Rockwell, willing to kill according to the promptings of a Spirit, at a time and place that like the Laban story perhaps conveniently coincides with personal gain or loathsome desire.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I'm calling you a disaffected Mormon. Oh, sure, you cover it with a white shirt and tie (as it were) on this board, but you're not so careful elsewhere. So give it a rest. Your "injured party" act ain't gonna fly around here.

As for my imputation of your failure to detect Wiki Wonka's ironic invocation of Vogelism, I can see now that you are simply unaware of the style of "historiography" for which our erstwhile brother Dan has made himself "famous" in certain very small circles of pretentious, would-be intellectual exmormons.

Get Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith. I have no doubt you'll find it very compelling and persuasive reading.

My response to Wiki Wonka obviously showed my self acknowledged lack of being in the know on this issue. I did not need you to point that out for me (in an insulting way). He was gracious enough to make light of it. You on the other hand have to always throw a personal insult. You now respond with even more personal attacks by calling me a deceiver.

How long will the moderators allow you to keep abusing the rules of this board?

Share this post


Link to post

Giving myself the name of a figure who found himself on the losing side of an exchange with Socrates is an attempt at humility, nevertheless I'm comfortable with my conclusion here. Indeed, this state is full of folk who are on board with Porter Rockwell, willing to kill according to the promptings of a Spirit, at a time and place that like the Laban story perhaps conveniently coincides with personal gain or loathsome desire.

Chock full, I assure you.

If you live here, I wouldn't tarry long.

If you're just passing through, I wouldn't tarry long.

In any case, when it comes to your career on this particular message board, I suspect you won't tarry much longer.

And the loss, I assure you, won't be ours.

Share this post


Link to post

My response to Wiki Wonka obviously showed my self acknowledged lack of being in the know on this issue. I did not need you to point that out for me (in an insulting way). He was gracious enough to make light of it. You on the other hand have to always throw a personal insult. You now respond with even more personal attacks by calling me a deceiver.

How long will the moderators allow you to keep abusing the rules of this board?

Calling you a disaffected Mormon is the equivalent of calling you a deceiver?

Or are you just sore that I made passing reference to the perceptible difference between your apparent allegiances when comparing your posts here versus your posts elsewhere? Hey, if the shoe fits ...

Do you deny that you are disaffected? Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting that you're an apostate. Only disaffected. For now, at least. But if you keep hanging in the 'hood with your homies in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park, I'm sure they'll "get your head on straight" sooner rather than later. In fact, you seem to have fit right in there with remarkable ease. Almost a natural, I'd say.

.

.

.

Just out of curiosity, what "rules" do you think I have abused? Is there one about offending tender sensibilities? If so, I confess I've probably transgressed that one more than a few times.

Share this post


Link to post

William, I thought I understood, but apparently the joke is still on me. I at first assumed Wiki Wonka was quoting something he agreed with. I read the statement a few times and still did not understand the message. Based on his response from my query for more explanation, I assumed the quote was given sarcastically.

You now seem to be pointing out my stupidity, and indeed I don't understand your post. First what is the irony to which you refer in this exchange? Have I said something ironic which you are addressing here? Am I missing irony which Wiki Wonka has skillfully presented? Or are you just throwing around cleverly disguised ad-hominem insults?

Secondly, I'm assuming that you are calling me a "disaffected Mormon". CFR (I'll make my Bishop's phone number available to you unless of course your personal discernment trumps his). This statement is coming over to me as a personal insult, and I'm asking you to stop it.

Rockslider, no offense was intended toward you on my part. I assumed that you understood the joke. It was Vogel's statement that I found just as unintelligible as you did. That was my point.

Share this post


Link to post

Rockslider, no offense was intended toward you on my part. I assumed that you understood the joke. It was Vogel's statement that I found just as unintelligible as you did. That was my point.

Nor did I intend any offense in calling you a "disaffected Mormon." Geez, in certain circles (ones you frequent regularly these days, incidentally) that's considered a veritable badge of honor.

Share this post


Link to post

William,

Just out of curiosity, what "rules" do you think I have abused?

I've itemized them in this thread

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208726202

It seemed to me that your violation of these rules was the cause of the above threads being locked.

Your pattern of personal attacks continued and helped to close this one as well

http://www.mormonapo...-by-the-church/

And then again your brutal attacks in this thread lead to another closure.

http://www.mormonapo...eph-smiths-day/

None of the above were against me. I've only noted it here because I tire of you coming in with your ad-hominem attacks and continued violation of board rules.

As for the MDB board.

First, I'll match my posting record there against yours any day. I came to it after 7 years of inactivity, what is your excuse? I came back searching, You presenting a blockade to me. You also present fierce opposition to others expressing desire. I very well may have questioned some things but do not believe I ever presented myself as an enemy to the church.

Second, this searching, despite your efforts has been fruitful. Something happened in the Ring Ceremony thread a few weeks back. I Challenge you to find anything that I have posted after that time on either board that you find in offence. No one on that site is my enemy, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. In many cases, I have full empathy with their experience.

Am I disaffected? Through 7 years, I've remained in my G's, I've put 2 sons on foreign missions, I've seen all 3 of my children to their own endowments and Temple marriage sealing's. I have continued to pay fast offerings, and supported my wife and children's full TBM activity. It was a wilderness experience. I worked twice a week for 8 years as an ordinance worker. I'm a Mormon through and through.

I truly feel sorry for you. An educated man, lifetime of experience in the church and yet seem to have no clue as to things pertaining to the spirit.

Share this post


Link to post

You now respond with even more personal attacks by calling me a deceiver.

How long will the moderators allow you to keep abusing the rules of this board?

And on this point you are quite right. If someone kept calling Dan Peterson or Will Schryver "a deceiver", they'd be banished forthwith. But of course, "home rules". Put one toe over the line, and you're a "darkened apostate" who should be "hanged in the public square" (courtesy of "Wheat").

Share this post


Link to post

Am I disaffected? Through 7 years, I've remained in my G's, I've put 2 sons on foreign missions, I've seen all 3 of my children to their own endowments and Temple marriage sealing's. I have continued to pay fast offerings, and supported my wife and children's full TBM activity. It was a wilderness experience. I worked twice a week for 8 years as an ordinance worker. I'm a Mormon through and through.

That doesn't count. You have to sing in unison with William. Or you're a vile apostate.

Share this post


Link to post

Rockslider, no offense was intended toward you on my part. I assumed that you understood the joke. It was Vogel's statement that I found just as unintelligible as you did. That was my point.

Mr. Wonka,

I laughed out loud at your response. I was in no way offended by it. I was releaved. I respect you and was looking hard for what you were trying to say. I must have read the paragraph 5 times and it was darkness. That's why I asked. I suppose that is ironic.

Share this post


Link to post

I have this to say.

Excerpts from Board Guidelines.

Open and frank discussions will occur but participants are expected to exercise common courtesy and 'netiquette' when posting.

Posters should act at least as well as they would in a live, public conversation or debate.

A healthy board requires a mix of personalities, temperaments and points of view.

We make no claim that everyone will be treated equally.

Posters are only as valuable as their contributions to the board are valuable.

If you choose to use strong rhetoric, your message can and will get lost in it. There are times when it is appropriate and except for one occasion on this thread might it have been warranted. Not everyone is the enemy and we need to remember that. For those that have continued problems with board personalities I suggest using the ignore function on the board.

Nemesis

Share this post


Link to post

There are a few problems with this story:

1. Thou shalt not murder is a pretty clear commandment. Nephi was certainly aware of it even before ever seeing the brass plates. Maybe it's different when whole countries duke it out, but in this case we've got our strong, moral, faithful, pure and delightsome hero taking the other guy, who is in no condition to present a proper defense, and takin off his head like Perseus did in Clash of the Titans to Medussa (no poison blood or turning to stone here).

2. Having our Hero recognizing that it's wrong to kill and then having the Spirit convince him otherwise in sort of an exception-basis sets a dangerous precedent. For one, it shows that there's really only one commandment -- obedience.

In the Bible God commanded Saul to kill every man, woman and child of his enemy. He then took Saul's throne from him for not doing so. And your point is?

Share this post


Link to post

Your inflammatory statement (bolded above) aside, I think I'm fully on-board with Porter Rockwell when it comes to this particular case. As with Nephi, so with Marshall Rockwell: he never killed a man that didn't need killin'.

.

.

.

Edit: Incidentally, you appear to be as knowledgeable about true piety as was your namesake.

I think our ethically challenged friend never read Acts.

Whose hand slew the tithing frauds?

Share this post


Link to post

I think our ethically challenged friend never read Acts.

Whose hand slew the tithing frauds?

None, but those hands did slay the "all things common" frauds. :P

For the life of me, I can't understand why our detractors complain about tithing, when it's only 10 percent. They obviously weren't living in New Testament times. How they would deal with a 100 percent commandment is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Wonka,

I laughed out loud at your response. I was in no way offended by it. I was releaved. I respect you and was looking hard for what you were trying to say. I must have read the paragraph 5 times and it was darkness. That's why I asked. I suppose that is ironic.

I'm glad to hear it. That's how I hoped you had reacted to it. Your statement is dead on target: "I must have read the paragraph 5 times and it was darkness." That was my feeling as well. My sense of humor is usually engaged, and I'm afraid that it doesn't always come across adequately on the internet.

Sometimes I simply find it easier to believe the angel... :P

Share this post


Link to post

rockslider:

(Preface note: lest we burden this thread further with our personal conversation, I would invite you to direct to me via PM any response to my comments below. ;) )

It seemed to me that your violation of these rules was the cause of the above threads being locked.

I think you

Share this post


Link to post
I do not believe, nor have I ever characterized you as an

Share this post


Link to post

I think our ethically challenged friend never read Acts.

Whose hand slew the tithing frauds?

Perhaps you'll explain how refusing a temptation to commit murder is ethically challenged, even if for argument's sake I concede that temptation did come from God. Assuming that God gives marching orders like these is not a position I would take, but what do I know, being... well, ethically challenged? I often hear explanations about how God works in mysterious ways (Q:"Who can know the mind of God?", A:Perhaps someone who asks.), this being the usual tack a fundamentalist takes when God does something inexplicable. Such statements tend to make God less anthropomorphic, and so I wonder what those same people mean when they talk about having a personal relationship with a Cthonian monster.

I would prefer to suppose that the Bible doesn't tell the whole story, what with it having been translated across several languages, and its text subtley altered by centuries of men with agendas. It makes it easier for me to reconcile the bloodthirsty war god of the Old Testament with the peace-loving, beatitude preaching Jesus of Nazareth. What excuse can we make for the Book of Mormon? I'm afraid I'm at a loss, so there we are.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Schryver,

Would you be so kind as to describe your "full" journey of faith from disaffected to apostate and back again?

Thank you and regards, mikwut

I would be more than happy to oblige you. However, I never took that voyage. But thanks for asking. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you'll explain how refusing a temptation to commit murder is ethically challenged, even if for argument's sake I concede that temptation did come from God. Assuming that God gives marching orders like these is not a position I would take, but what do I know, being... well, ethically challenged? I often hear explanations about how God works in mysterious ways (Q:"Who can know the mind of God?", A:Perhaps someone who asks.), this being the usual tack a fundamentalist takes when God does something inexplicable. Such statements tend to make God less anthropomorphic, and so I wonder what those same people mean when they talk about having a personal relationship with a Cthonian monster.

I would prefer to suppose that the Bible doesn't tell the whole story, what with it having been translated across several languages, and its text subtley altered by centuries of men with agendas. It makes it easier for me to reconcile the bloodthirsty war god of the Old Testament with the peace-loving, beatitude preaching Jesus of Nazareth. What excuse can we make for the Book of Mormon? I'm afraid I'm at a loss, so there we are.

It wasn't a temptation, not even close. It was a commandment.

The only temptation was that Nephi didn't want to do it.

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

Share this post


Link to post

I would be more than happy to oblige you. However, I never took that voyage. But thanks for asking. :P

Your welcome.

Given your answer, have you received assurances via your faith, the spirit - as to your apologetic approach? How can you speak so presumptuously when you admit to lacking the very experience of which you write about?

my regards, mikwut

Share this post


Link to post

It wasn't a temptation, not even close. It was a commandment.

The only temptation was that Nephi didn't want to do it.

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

I would also like to note that the Lord then provided Nephi with the divine rationale for what he (Nephi) was being commanded to do:

Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

Share this post


Link to post

I would also like to note that the Lord then provided Nephi with the divine rationale for what he (Nephi) was being commanded to do:

Thanks, indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...