Murder

[cjwright]

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.

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

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?

The very letter of the Law includes the Lord in the process, so it does apply to this, and every example:

Deuteronomy 19:16+17 - 16:

[LinuxGal]

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

So I guess this D&C reverses Christ's call in 3 Nephi when he tells the Gentiles to stop committing murders and be baptized, and then he will number them with Israel.

3 Nephi 30:2 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.

[changed]

murder

[Vance]

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.

Thank you.

[ttribe]

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.

How do you figure that D&C 42 doesn't reiterate the Ten C's given that they are all in there?

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?

These aren't interrogatories counselor and I don't engage in idle speculation about living a doctrine that doesn't apply to me. Nevertheless, perhaps you'll understand this language better:

"Objection. This request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

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

It was true and it is true. However when you insist on proceeding from a false set of assumptions, it sure does color your conclusions.

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

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?

Just reporting my experiences. I'm sorry they fly in the face of your strategy. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.

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.

Since I'm not "FAIR", you'll need to register your complaints elsewhere.

TBM's don't need the help.

Nice. Do you intend to begin acting like a reasonable adult at any point in this conversation?

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

Actually, no. It's because I don't have a habit of compartmentalizing God's words in order to benefit a petty argument.

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

Since nothing was being trumped, it seems your argument has no merit.

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.

You wish.

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.

I don't care about your criticisms of FARMS; they were just completely out of place.

[LeSellers]

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

If you apply the Law of Moses, under which Nephi and Laban, but not us, lived, capital punishment was quite common, and the person who carried it out was the one who'd been harmed by the criminal.

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

I gave but one verse among several that spoke of the cities of refuge. You found it, and missed the others. I suggest you read the entire suite so as to get a better understanding of the concept.

Cities of refuge were established so a person who'd killed another by accident ("unawares") did not suffer retributive punishment. This is critical because there were no "trials" as we would understand the word ("procedures", you called them). The "revenger of blood" was forbidden to slay him when the original killer was in the city of refuge.

It was and remains and example of the nature of punishment among Israel under the Law of Moses.

As the perjury Laban had committed was to call Nephi and his brothers "murderers", the punishment for which was death, and since the Law of Moses prescribed the same punishment for perjury as would have applied to the one accused, Laban, in this case, merited death for his perjury. Nephi carried out that sentence and he was justified under the Law of Moses because it was he who had been in danger of being killed for the crime of which Laban had falsely accused him.

And, by the way, Jerusalem was not a city of refuge.

Lehi

[Darth J]

How do you figure that D&C 42 doesn't reiterate the Ten C's given that they are all in there?

Here are the 10 Commandments:

1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour

[Darth J]

If you apply the Law of Moses, under which Nephi and Laban, but not us, lived, capital punishment was quite common, and the person who carried it out was the one who'd been harmed by the criminal.

I gave but one verse among several that spoke of the cities of refuge. You found it, and missed the others. I suggest you read the entire suite so as to get a better understanding of the concept.

Cities of refuge were established so a person who'd killed another by accident ("unawares") did not suffer retributive punishment. This is critical because there were no "trials" as we would understand the word ("procedures", you called them). The "revenger of blood" was forbidden to slay him when the original killer was in the city of refuge.

It was and remains and example of the nature of punishment among Israel under the Law of Moses.

As the perjury Laban had committed was to call Nephi and his brothers "murderers", the punishment for which was death, and since the Law of Moses prescribed the same punishment for perjury as would have applied to the one accused, Laban, in this case, merited death for his perjury. Nephi carried out that sentence and he was justified under the Law of Moses because it was he who had been in danger of being killed for the crime of which Laban had falsely accused him.

And, by the way, Jerusalem was not a city of refuge.

Lehi

So, in summary: they needed killin.'

The goading is getting old. Clean it up if you want to stay in the thread.

[shrff]

I taught a man on my mission in Florida who killed a guy. He had done his time and was off probation. I called the mission president and asked whether we could teach him. The mission president said, "Elder, teach that man and if he will humble himself and be baptized he will be forgiven."

The guy decided not to get baptized, but we had some pretty interesting discussions with him.

[Gillebre]

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

The Family: A Proclamation To The World

I particularly enjoyed the revelation presented during General Conference that a Temple would be built in Rome.

Also, I believe it was Elder Oaks, but I might be mistaken, who assisted in putting together a document discussing same-gender attraction and providing counsel for members of the Church who so struggle with those things, as well as words for those who know of members (Church and family) that face it too. For the sake of not detracting from the topic of this thread, I won't go any further into that particular revelation. Let it suffice that I say I genuinely believe it is a revelation for our benefit, from a living Father in Heaven who is very much concerned about the times in which we live.

As to the topic of this thread: When I think of murder, I associate it with the shedding of innocent blood.

As has been pointed out, it is by no means black and white. There is so much more to it beyond the fact that someone is dead, and someone killed them. Self defense, war, and killing an innocent person in cold blood are all three very, very different aspects of the word 'murder'.

Please consider the many differences within the word, and remember that the Lord looks on our hearts, our intentions, as well as actions. If I'm defending my loved ones, or my country, they are certainly not the same as killing someone because I could, and felt like it (also take into account the mental state of the guilty party, their personal responsibility and understanding of their actions).

Things to think about...

[Kenngo1969]

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

Oh, I just looove playing this game. I'll mention some innovations that I believe were guided by inspiration and you'll dismiss them, and around and around we'll go. OK, here goes: Perpetual Education Fund, smaller temples and more of them, and additional quorums of seventy. Your turn: "Oh, those really don't have anything to do with inspiration/revelation. ..."

1. Truth is a defense to defamation.

So it is. Remarkable that you, alone among humankind, apparently, are so free of bias that you're able to see the past and its characters, not as you are, but rather as it was/they were. Congratulations.

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

I'm not aware that I ever lionized Brother Joseph, or that I ever claimed he was anything other than mortal. Perhaps you can point that out to me.

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?"

Yes, indeed. What about them? You think Nephi should've just picked up the phone, dialed 9-1-1, and summoned the Jerusalem City Police? You think that wouldn't have raised any suspicions after he and his family had already been driven out of town once? OK.

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?

Do we actually have all of the papyrus from which Joseph took the Book of Abraham? I'm sorry; I must have missed that announcement. Do you have a link? As for the plates, you may doubt the account of what happened to them when Joseph was through with them, but there existence is well-attested. In any event, Joseph did receive at least one text in the absence of a physical artifact through direct revelation, so the presence or absence of papyrus or plates at any point during translation doesn't trouble me. To each, his own.

[Darth J]

Oh, I just looove playing this game. I'll mention some innovations that I believe were guided by inspiration and you'll dismiss them, and around and around we'll go. OK, here goes: Perpetual Education Fund, smaller temples and more of them, and additional quorums of seventy. Your turn: "Oh, those really don't have anything to do with inspiration/revelation. ..."

Let's look at what Dallin H. Oaks says about open canon and continuing revelation:

Most Christians believe that the scriptural canon

[LinuxGal]

1 Jn. 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

A second witness?

Alma 34:11-13 says Christ's death on the cross (still in the future when written) will fulfill the law of life-for-life.

Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of

his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

(Excellent stuff. Sometimes the BoM comes through very well.)

[Vance]

Alma 34:11-13 says Christ's death on the cross (still in the future when written) will fulfill the law of life-for-life.

Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of

his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

(Excellent stuff. Sometimes the BoM comes through very well.)

Those are very nice, BUT, I don't see where they declare that eternal life (the celestial kingdom) will be available to the murderer.

It is possible that these verses simply describe the redemption from death and hell (spirit prison) for even the murderer.

As David said,

Ps. 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Ps. 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.

[Binah]

Those are very nice, BUT, I don't see where they declare that eternal life (the celestial kingdom) will be available to the murderer.

That's Intermediate LDS Theology. Linuxgal said she's just studying the Book of Mormon right now, which means she's still in LDS 101.

[MDalby]

REPOST

Are there different levels of forgiveness?

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

[Vance]

That's Intermediate LDS Theology. Linuxgal said she's just studying the Book of Mormon right now, which means she's still in LDS 101.

In one way or another, aren't we all in LDS 101?

BTW I like your avatar.

<=== I am the handsome one!

[Kenngo1969]

I seriously doubt this will convince anybody who isn't already convinced, but in connection with Nephi's slaying of Laban, I found the following two articles of interest:

Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban, by John W. Welch.

Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order, by Val Larsen.

To sum up, Laban needed killin'!

[LinuxGal]

To sum up, Laban needed killin'!

He sure did. Otherwise Nephi would have never stolen the brass plates that said "Thou Shalt Not Steal" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" on them. President Nixon once said, "If the President of the United States does something, that means it's not illegal." The Book of Mormon takes a similar stand. If the Holy Spirit tells you do something, that means it is not a sin.

God had set Lehi apart from the rest of the Jews to avoid the coming destruction, because, like Noah, he was a righteous and blameless man. What was righteousness before the coming of Christ? Obedience to the Law. That means, logically, that Lehi either had his own copy of the Law of Moses on a scroll like everyone else, or he knew the Law by heart and could write a new scroll. Otherwise he wouldn't know if he was breaking the law and slipping into unrighteousness. So why they needed the brass plates also is a mystery.

[Kenngo1969]

Most often prophetic revelations add new doctrinal understanding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and new illustrations of his love for and guidance of His children.

Explain to me how more Quorums of Seventy, smaller and more temples, and the PEF are not

[Kenngo1969]

He sure did. Otherwise Nephi would have never stolen the brass plates that said "Thou Shalt Not Steal" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill" on them.

Your logic reminds me of the folks who thought that only certain people should have the Bible. It's not the mere having of something like the Brass Plates that makes them significant. They weren't just an interesting historical artifact. Nephi says he knew his people couldn't keep the commandments according to the Law of Moses unless they had the law. If you read the account of Laban and Nephi very carefully, it becomes quite clear who was most interested in keeping the law, your unwarranted indictment of Nephi notwithstanding.

President Nixon once said, "If the President of the United States does something, that means it's not illegal." The Book of Mormon takes a similar stand. If the Holy Spirit tells you do something, that means it is not a sin.

And it's such a shame that this sort of ethic is unique to the Book of Mormon! Oh, wait. No, it's not. Sorry. My bad.

God had set Lehi apart from the rest of the Jews to avoid the coming destruction, because, like Noah, he was a righteous and blameless man. What was righteousness before the coming of Christ? Obedience to the Law. That means, logically, that Lehi either had his own copy of the Law of Moses on a scroll like everyone else, or he knew the Law by heart and could write a new scroll. Otherwise he wouldn't know if he was breaking the law and slipping into unrighteousness. So why they needed the brass plates also is a mystery.

Your post makes some astounding leaps in logic rather than employing it. I believe what the Book of Mormon actually says, that they needed the plates, which had the law, in order to be able to live the law. I'm not buying your, "Everyone had a scroll with the law written on it, so Lehi must've had one, too, and that means he didn't need the Plates of Brass" theory. Just a hunch: ya didn't actually read the articles I linked, did ya?!

P.S.: By the way, my "Laban needed killin'" comment was a jab at DarthJ's oversimplification of a very nuanced occurrence as recorded in the Book of Mormon.