Murder

[Darth J]

It's a reiteration of the commandment given in Exodus.

So it's redundant.

In other words, the Lord is reaffirming that the Ten Commandments still apply.

Was that an issue at the time? What with all those members in the early church believing that God thought it was okay for them to be praying to statues of Baal and coveting their neighbor's donkey and such?

Your attempts at holding to a strict interpretation of all LDS scripture will do nothing more than reveal just how disingenuous you are being. Frankly, as a member of the Church, I happen to believe in a little more pragmatic God than you seem willing to allow us to have.

Oh, so you are trying to figure out the reasons for why God says things? You are disobeying prophetic counsel:

It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people [have] put reasons to [commandments] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

Dallin H. Oaks, http://en.fairmormon...plural_marriage

Don't tell me, tell Elder Oaks. Except that you can't, because it's just wrong to criticize church leaders (like participating in an organization that routinely says that Joseph Smith and other church leaders didn't understand The Book of Mormon, for example).

Is this supposed to advance your argument or just show how petulant you can be?

The argument that a specific tribunal setting in the law of Moses is somehow relevant to Nephi killing Laban on the street in the middle of the night? That argument?

[LeSellers]

Let's hear it for the vigilantes!

As that was the "law enforcement agency" of the Law of Moses, your observation is directly on target.

There was no judiciary, there was no police force, there were no prisons. The Law of Moses was based on compensation, and in the case of capital crimes (of which Laban was guilty), the offended party or his family was not only authorized to carry out the execution, it would have been an infringement of the Law to have forgone that execution.

That's the reason there were "Cities of Refuge" under the Law, see, e.g., Num 35:6). (And even then, one guilty of what we'd call "first degree murder", was not protected by the sanctuary status of the city.)

Lehi

[Vance]

Murder = shedding innocent blood.

Did Cain murder? Yes.

Did Moses murder? No.

Did King David murder? Yes.

Did Nephi murder? No.

Did King Lamoni murder? Don't think so.

Did Moroni murder? No.

Edited to add;

Did Elijah murder? No.

Did Joshua murder? No.

[Darth J]

This just shows why you think it makes no sense, you clearly don't understand it.

This will now be my standard answer for anything I say that people say makes no sense. Thank you.

It doesn't say you kill someone for perjury, it says you punish the person who bears false witness with the same punishment as the crime they falsely accuse another of.

Cj, what does the word "perjury" mean? Does it mean...................

the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perjury

And do you think that just because no priest or judge would dispense the Law as it should be in Laban's case then the Lord isn't in a position to act in the matter?

Well, that kind of makes your law of Moses argument completely irrelevant, doesn't it?

[Darth J]

As that was the "law enforcement agency" of the Law of Moses, your observation is directly on target.

There was no judiciary, there was no police force, there were no prisons. The Law of Moses was based on compensation, and in the case of capital crimes (of which Laban was guilty), the offended party or his family was not only authorized to carry out the execution, it would have been an infringement of the Law to have forgone that execution.

That's the reason there were "Cities of Refuge" under the Law, see, e.g., Num 35:6). (And even then, one guilty of what we'd call "first degree murder", was not protected by the sanctuary status of the city.)

Lehi

"They needed killin'" is your understanding of the law of Moses? There were no procedures whatsoever?

[ttribe]

So it's redundant.

Umm, no. It's a reaffirmation. Was that not clear the first time I said it?

Was that an issue at the time? What with all those members in the early church believing that God thought it was okay for them to be praying to statues of Baal and coveting their neighbor's donkey and such?

Talk about a narrow field of vision. I don't know if you realize this, but the majority of Christendom takes a literal stance on Jesus' statement that the commandments were summed up in "Love God and Love Your Neighbor" (I had this argument more than once with the EV crowd). The D&C reference makes clear that it was not the case.

Oh, so you are trying to figure out the reasons for why God says things? You are disobeying prophetic counsel:

Don't tell me, tell Elder Oaks. Except that you can't, because it's just wrong to criticize church leaders (like participating in an organization that routinely says that Joseph Smith and other church leaders didn't understand The Book of Mormon, for example).

Don't know how you linked what I said to this, but I'm sure you snickered and thought you were being very clever.

The argument that a specific tribunal setting in the law of Moses is somehow relevant to Nephi killing Laban on the street in the middle of the night? That argument?

I don't care which argument...it was still a petulant rant.

[Darth J]

Umm, no. It's a reaffirmation. Was that not clear the first time I said it?

Which of the 10 Commandments did the members of the early Church feel at liberty to disregard?

Is "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife" among the commandments that the Lord reaffirmed to Joseph Smith?

Talk about a narrow field of vision. I don't know if you realize this, but the majority of Christendom takes a literal stance on Jesus' statement that the commandments were summed up in "Love God and Love Your Neighbor" (I had this argument more than once with the EV crowd). The D&C reference makes clear that it was not the case.

If you truly love God and love your neighbor, exactly which of the 10 Commandments would you feel justified in breaking?

But the majority of Christians don't believe in the 10 Commandments? Really?

If only there were some way to verify that by looking at the numbers of adherents of different branches of Christianity and determine which branches teach compliance with the 10 Commandments (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity).

But I would agree that the LDS Church definitely does not teach that "love God and love your neighbor" is the first priority.

Don't know how you linked what I said to this, but I'm sure you snickered and thought you were being very clever.

You say you believe in a pragmatic God. A prophet, seer and revelator has stated that you should not try to figure out any reason why the Lord does anything. Whom are we to believe?

I don't care which argument...it was still a petulant rant.

I just thought people might like it better if it had a sort of FARMS Review of Books flavor to it.

[cjwright]

This will now be my standard answer for anything I say that people say makes no sense. Thank you.

Cj, what does the word "perjury" mean? Does it mean...................

I know what perjury means, but your statement was:

Or perhaps your Law of Moses explanation makes no sense, since the law you cited provides a specific procedure for when you can kill someone for perjury.

The law I cited provides the procedure for when someone bears false witness(of perjury, is you wish), the punishment may be death, but not in every case.

Well, that kind of makes your law of Moses argument completely irrelevant, doesn't it?

Why does this make my Law of Moses argument completely irrelevant? The law clearly states that the person is brought before the Lord, and don't earthly priests and judges stand in the Lord's place? Can't the Lord judge unless He has earthly priests and judges with Him?

Nephi was commanded of the Lord to kill Laban, Nephi didn't take the act upon himself. And you didn't answer my question, which makes my Law of Moses argument totally relevant:

Do you think that just because no priest or judge would dispense the Law as it should be in Laban's case then the Lord isn't in a position to act in the matter?

[Darth J]

I know what perjury means, but your statement was:

The law I cited provides the procedure for when someone bears false witness(of perjury, is you wish), the punishment may be death, but not in every case.

So even if this procedure had actually happened in The Book of Mormon, Nephi may or may not have been justified in killing Laban under the law of Moses.

Why does this make my Law of Moses argument completely irrelevant? The law clearly states that the person is brought before the Lord, and don't earthly priests and judges stand in the Lord's place? Can't the Lord judge unless He has earthly priests and judges with Him?

If the Lord personally is judging, and that is the justification, why mention the tribunal proceeding in the law of Moses?

Nephi was commanded of the Lord to kill Laban, Nephi didn't take the act upon himself. And you didn't answer my question, which makes my Law of Moses argument totally relevant:

Do you think that just because no priest or judge would dispense the Law as it should be in Laban's case then the Lord isn't in a position to act in the matter?

If the Lord is acting for himself in the matter, and that trumps the law of Moses, then the law of Moses---which was very letter of the law and was not followed in this example---doesn't apply to this example, does it?

[ttribe]

Which of the 10 Commandments did the members of the early Church feel at liberty to disregard?

What difference does it make?

Is "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife" among the commandments that the Lord reaffirmed to Joseph Smith?

Ah, more petty cheap shots. I guess everyone's got a talent, eh?

If you truly love God and love your neighbor, exactly which of the 10 Commandments would you feel justified in breaking?

Let's see, how many Christian churches still follow a doctrine of observing a "Sabbath" there Darth?

But the majority of Christians don't believe in the 10 Commandments? Really?

If only there were some way to verify that by looking at the numbers of adherents of different branches of Christianity and determine which branches teach compliance with the 10 Commandments (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity).

Give me a break. I didn't say they didn't "believe" in them. I said they considered the 10 summed up, literally.

But I would agree that the LDS Church definitely does not teach that "love God and love your neighbor" is the first priority.

Seriously, I'm curious if you think that using cheap insults is an effective tack for getting your point across?

You say you believe in a pragmatic God. A prophet, seer and revelator has stated that you should not try to figure out any reason why the Lord does anything. Whom are we to believe?

What does God being "pragmatic" have to do with Elder Oaks' statement?

I just thought people might like it better if it had a sort of FARMS Review of Books flavor to it.

More clever quips. Encore! Encore!

[LT123]

Do all, most, some or few of the various english versions of the old testament say thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder? I heard one jewish scholar say that those that read thou shalt not kill are mistranslated. Anyone know?

[MDalby]

6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God,

it is not easy

for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

(Alma 39:6)

I think most scriptures will state that it is unforgivable but we need to keep this in mind.

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name

[Darth J]

What difference does it make?

It makes a difference on why the Lord would reiterate something that people already believed and were already doing. But, per Dallin H. Oaks, ours is not to reason why.

Ah, more petty cheap shots. I guess everyone's got a talent, eh?

Mormon apologetics rule #125: When you can't respond to something, start questioning the motives and integrity of the person who brought it up.

Let's see, how many Christian churches still follow a doctrine of observing a "Sabbath" there Darth?

Okay. Did you in fact do that? As part of that theoretical inquiry you haven't done, does a church need to observe the Sabbath in the way the Correlation Committee prefers for them to be following the commandment?

Give me a break. I didn't say they didn't "believe" in them. I said they considered the 10 summed up, literally.

And since Jesus actually said this, if you believe in the New Testament, in what way are they wrong?

Seriously, I'm curious if you think that using cheap insults is an effective tack for getting your point across?

Mormon apologetics rule #125: When you can't respond to something, start questioning the motives and integrity of the person who brought it up.

I'll CFR for you anyway.

President Ezra Taft Benson has stated that

[ttribe]

It makes a difference on why the Lord would reiterate something that people already believed and were already doing. But, per Dallin H. Oaks, ours is not to reason why.

And how sure of that are you?

Mormon apologetics rule #125: When you can't respond to something, start questioning the motives and integrity of the person who brought it up.

Critic rule #4: When you get called out for acting like a child, act like your statement had any substance whatsoever.

Okay. Did you in fact do that? As part of that theoretical inquiry you haven't done, does a church need to observe the Sabbath in the way the Correlation Committee prefers for them to be following the commandment?

Look, it's anecdotal, not sure why that wasn't obvious - I've already stated that I argued this many, many times with EV's on my mission in TN and KY, and that pattern has persisted in my interactions with other people of Christian faiths since returning. I've had it stated unequivocally that WE (LDS) are in error for observing a sabbath since that (and all of the Ten) was done away with the Law of Moses.

And since Jesus actually said this, if you believe in the New Testament, in what way are they wrong?

They are wrong insofar as they are asserting that Jesus meant for them to ignore the details of the commandments in their entirety. They are wrong insofar as they assert that the Ten Commandments were part of the temporal Law of Moses.

Mormon apologetics rule #125: When you can't respond to something, start questioning the motives and integrity of the person who brought it up.

Critic rule #4: When you get called out for acting like a child, act like your statement had any substance whatsoever.

I'll CFR for you anyway.

Last time I checked, being obedient to the commandment to "Love your neighbor" is, in fact, part of that command.

Pragmatic means "of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pragmatic). Practical means "adapted or designed for actual use; useful......mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure."

Elder Oaks' statement is the exact opposite of pragmatic. We are to obey, and the reasons don't matter.

And I'm suggesting that your proof-texted marriage of these two statements fails to capture the essence of who God is and just how much He understands the world we live in.

I submit, Exhibit 1: Ecclesiastes 3.

Mormon apologetics rule #125: When you can't respond to something, start questioning the motives and integrity of the person who brought it up.

Critic rule #4: When you get called out for acting like a child, act like your statement had any substance whatsoever.

[Darth J]

And how sure of that are you?

How sure am I that Dallin H. Oaks said that? I'm relying on the FAIR wiki.

Critic rule #4: When you get called out for acting like a child, act like your statement had any substance whatsoever.

So Joseph Smith did not marry women who were already married to another man, while the 10 Commandments tells us not to covet our neighbor's wife, thus depriving my statement of any substance whatsoever? And he did not do this while telling everyone else to follow the 10 Commandments?

Look, it's anecdotal, not sure why that wasn't obvious - I've already stated that I argued this many, many times with EV's on my mission in TN and KY, and that pattern has persisted in my interactions with other people of Christian faiths since returning. I've had it stated unequivocally that WE (LDS) are in error for observing a sabbath since that (and all of the Ten) was done away with the Law of Moses.

Which undermines your explanation that the Lord needed to reiterate the 10 Commandments in the D&C because most of Christendom did not believe in the 10 Commandments.

They are wrong insofar as they are asserting that Jesus meant for them to ignore the details of the commandments in their entirety. They are wrong insofar as they assert that the Ten Commandments were part of the temporal Law of Moses.

How about the ones who teach that love God and love your neighbor is basically it, with the 10 Commandments as examples of how to do this? Are they wrong, since apparently most of Christendom is a few EV's who post on internet fora?

Critic rule #4: When you get called out for acting like a child, act like your statement had any substance whatsoever.

So actually stating what the Church teaches, that obedience is the primary concern, not love God/neighbor, this is acting like a child. Check.

I have noticed that actually stating what the Church teaches is also a good way of being an anti-Mormon. While totally ignoring the teachings of the Church and dismissing statements by Church leaders as a matter of course is a way of being a good, loyal Mormon (see, e.g., FAIR, FARMS).

Last time I checked, being obedient to the commandment to "Love your neighbor" is, in fact, part of that command.

Jesus taught that loving God and loving your neighbor is the starting point, and everything goes from there. The Correlation Committee and the prophets, seers and revelators who serve under it teach that obedience is the starting point, and everything goes from there.

And I'm suggesting that your proof-texted marriage of these two statements fails to capture the essence of who God is and just how much He understands the world we live in.

I submit, Exhibit 1: Ecclesiastes 3.

So you feel free to disregard the prophetic counsel of Dallin H. Oaks? I understand. Hanging around FAIR for a while will do that.

Critic rule #4: When you get called out for acting like a child, act like your statement had any substance whatsoever.

Have you ever read FARMS Review of Books?

[ttribe]

How sure am I that Dallin H. Oaks said that? I'm relying on the FAIR wiki.

No. How sure are you that the members of the Church were fully living the Ten Commandments when D&C 42 was given?

So Joseph Smith did not marry women who were already married to another man, while the 10 Commandments tells us not to covet our neighbor's wife, thus depriving my statement of any substance whatsoever? And he did not do this while telling everyone else to follow the 10 Commandments?

Let me say this s-l-o-w-l-y - I reject your cynical interpretation of the character of Joseph Smith. Was that more clear?

Which undermines your explanation that the Lord needed to reiterate the 10 Commandments in the D&C because most of Christendom did not believe in the 10 Commandments.

What? I just got through explaining that I was told repeatedly that the Ten Commandments were "dead." D&C 42 refutes that notion.

How about the ones who teach that love God and love your neighbor is basically it, with the 10 Commandments as examples of how to do this? Are they wrong, since apparently most of Christendom is a few EV's who post on internet fora?

Nice try at reducing my sample size down (and ignoring two years of serving in Tennessee and Kentucky while you're at it). To answer your first question - it is my observation that many people use the summary to ignore the details of the Ten Commandments. If you'd like to provide some contrary evidence, I'm all ears.

So actually stating what the Church teaches, that obedience is the primary concern, not love God/neighbor, this is acting like a child. Check.

No, engaging in intentional literalism for every word ever uttered by a prophet for the purpose of trying to tear down the fundamental message taught by said prophet is the real issue.

I have noticed that actually stating what the Church teaches is also a good way of being an anti-Mormon. While totally ignoring the teachings of the Church and dismissing statements by Church leaders as a matter of course is a way of being a good, loyal Mormon (see, e.g., FAIR, FARMS).

I have noticed that many critics apply no reasonable amount of common sense whatsoever to the interpretation of scripture in an effort to make the believer look absurd.

Jesus taught that loving God and loving your neighbor is the starting point, and everything goes from there. The Correlation Committee and the prophets, seers and revelators who serve under it teach that obedience is the starting point, and everything goes from there.

Oh boy...I continue to reject the notion that there is conflict here.

So you feel free to disregard the prophetic counsel of Dallin H. Oaks? I understand. Hanging around FAIR for a while will do that.

Your argument is absurd. Elder Oaks provided general counsel to the Saints to keep them from wringing their hands about the reasoning behind every little jot and tittle of the commandments. I provide scripture that shows God, Himself, recognizes the concept of exceptions to the general rule, and somehow I am flouting Elder Oaks' counsel? That's a good one.

Have you ever read FARMS Review of Books?

Only portions. What, really, is the point of this inquiry since I am not FARMS and have nothing to do with their publications?

[Darth J]

No. How sure are you that the members of the Church were fully living the Ten Commandments when D&C 42 was given?

I'm not sure they're living them now. But the one who decided that the Lord needed to reiterate the 10 Commandments was you. Which presupposes that D&C 42 actually reiterates the 10 Commandments in the first place, and it doesn't.

Let me say this s-l-o-w-l-y - I reject your cynical interpretation of the character of Joseph Smith. Was that more clear?

Would you be willing to let your wife marry Thomas S. Monson while she is also married to you, if he told you he was commanded to do this? Why or why not?

What if you were called on a mission right now, without your wife coming along, and came home to find that Thomas S. Monson had married your wife in your absence? Would you find this to be acceptable? Why or why not?

Why did the Lord say this to Joseph Smith if it was not true:

Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

D&C 42:22

What? I just got through explaining that I was told repeatedly that the Ten Commandments were "dead." D&C 42 refutes that notion.

You were in Ohio in 1831 and people told you that the 10 Commandments were dead?

Nice try at reducing my sample size down (and ignoring two years of serving in Tennessee and Kentucky while you're at it). To answer your first question - it is my observation that many people use the summary to ignore the details of the Ten Commandments. If you'd like to provide some contrary evidence, I'm all ears.

Oh, did you ever have a sample size?

So is most of Christendom defined as:

--Christians living in 1831, or;

--People you've talked to on the internet; or

--People in Tennessee and Kentucky during your mission; or

--Christians in general in the world in general?

No, engaging in intentional literalism for every word ever uttered by a prophet for the purpose of trying to tear down the fundamental message taught by said prophet is the real issue.

Yes, the FAIR method of completely ignoring words uttered by prophets for the purpose of trying to tear down the fundamental message to make your theory conform to the evidence is much better.

I have noticed that many critics apply no reasonable amount of common sense whatsoever to the interpretation of scripture in an effort to make the believer look absurd.

TBM's don't need the help.

Oh boy...I continue to reject the notion that there is conflict here.

That is because you do not distinguish between the organization and Jesus.

Your argument is absurd. Elder Oaks provided general counsel to the Saints to keep them from wringing their hands about the reasoning behind every little jot and tittle of the commandments. I provide scripture that shows God, Himself, recognizes the concept of exceptions to the general rule, and somehow I am flouting Elder Oaks' counsel? That's a good one.

A living prophet trumps a dead one, as we learned from Ezra Taft Benson.

But why do you get to explain away the plain meaning of Elder Oaks' words? You don't like the implications of what he said, so you get to rationalize it away? One foot through the door to apostasy, Brother Tribe. If not both feet.

Only portions. What, really, is the point of this inquiry since I am not FARMS and have nothing to do with their publications?

You seem to take issue with my remark about FARMS, so I was wondering what your basis is for implying that I was not accurate.

[changed]

39 David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:39)

39 Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by acasting it to the ground.

(Old Testament | Psalms 89:39)

[handys003]

As I understand it, LDS believe that part of the repentance process is to make restitution to whomever you have wronged. If you steal something, you need to pay for that item. If you gossip, you should apologize and set the record straight. Etc.

Since there is no way to make restitution to a murder victim, it is impossible to fully repent.

Some Japanese apologize by killing themselves. Even for bankruptcy.

[Kenngo1969]

But the Doctrine and Covenants does not say any of this. It just says not to kill. That's it.

Which is why we have an open canon, continuing revelation, and prophets and all that.

And that is certainly one of his better pick-up lines, although Nancy Rigdon didn't seem to go for it.

It's oh, so easy to defame dead men. They're not around to defend themselves.

Laban committed crimes that he could have been penalized for if he had actually been put through the legal process in place at the time and convicted on evidence that was could be used in that process.

So he needed killin.' ...

Lehi, and presumably his family, were personae non grata around those parts. If you think they should have picked up the phone, dialed 9-1-1, and summoned the Jerusalem City Police, that's your prerogative. So you don't care for what Joseph Smith might have said to justify things you consider to be wrong. How about the Lord himself? You think it's better for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief than for one man to perish?

[Darth J]

Which is why we have an open canon, continuing revelation, and prophets and all that.

Yep. What were some of your favorite revelations that Gordon B. Hinckley received, or that Thomas S. Monson has received?

It's oh, so easy to defame dead men. They're not around to defend themselves.

1. Truth is a defense to defamation.

2. It's oh, so easy to lionize dead men. They're not around to appear mortal.

Lehi, and presumably his family, were personae non grata around those parts. If you think they should have picked up the phone, dialed 9-1-1, and summoned the Jerusalem City Police, that's your prerogative. So you don't care for what Joseph Smith might have said to justify things you consider to be wrong. How about the Lord himself? You think it's better for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief than for one man to perish?

Okay, so "they needed killin'" is the law and the prophets after all. Because the original thing I was responding to was "well, what about all of Laban's crimes?"

EDIT: the current apologetic stance, in some circles, is that the actual papyrus was irrelevant to Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham, and no writings were necessary for the JST of the Bible or the Book of Moses. And the people who were around Joseph Smith said he never used the actual Golden Plates in translating. Making the actual written records unnecessary. So why couldn't the Lord have just revealed what was on the brass plates to Lehi?

[LeSellers]

"They needed killin'" is your understanding of the law of Moses?

As I do not know where those words have been, please refrain from putting them in my mouth.

There were no procedures whatsoever?

Did you read Numbers, as I suggested?

You tell me: were there any procedures?

Lehi

[Darth J]

As I do not know where those words have been, please refrain from putting them in my mouth.

I'm sorry. Killing someone because you don't like what they said or because since they are criminals, they had it coming.

Did you read Numbers, as I suggested?

You tell me: were there any procedures?

Lehi

And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities.

Numbers 35:60

And this is relevant to the earlier-cited process of the death penalty for perjury in a priestly tribunal in what way, exactly?

[BCSpace]

Does anyone think Revelation 9:21 implies possible forgiveness for murder? Given the great weight of other scripture, I certainly don't think if it did it would be to the point of highest degree in the CK eligibility.

Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Revelation 9:21

[All-Seeing Eye]

Adulterous murderer King David enters Celestial Kingdom, news at 11.

If I remember correctly, SWK said, in "Miracle of Forgiveness," that David would suffer for his sins in hell until he had paid for them, and then, upon being resurrected, would obtain the Telestial degree of glory.