When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[semlogo]

1I alluded to at least one passage when I intimated that God's ways are not our ways.

2Not everyone. Many of us are willing to let God decide for us since we believe he knows better than us what he has inspired or not. To each their own.

3Unlike you, I don't presume to dictate to God what can reasonably be accepted as inspired or not. I let him dictate that to me since I believe he is in a better position than I to know.

4Yes, and were that all that he has spoken on the matter, or could speak on the matter, you may have a point. But, unlike you, I will let him tell me if that is his only and final word on the matter, and whether our finite and fallible interpretations are the final arbitor.

5That is what you keep saying. Yet, you contradict this by making statements like "Everyone must decide that for themselves". Perhaps without intending, you have nevertheless repeatedly made yourself, and not God, the judge of what is moral for God and what is inspired of God. At some point, with my continued demonstrations, you may finally see this.

6Yes. And, some of us are willing to continue to be humbly taught, from grace to grace, by both Christ and the Holy Spirit. Others of us seem intent on arrogantly restricting the Father's will and morals to the confines of their own finite and fallible and fundamentalist understanding of the scriptures.

7Unlike apparently with you, I don't view God as hypocritical for deciding not to practice the lower law that he had given men, but determined to abide instead the higher law of Godliness, just as I would not view the mortal Christ or his disciples as hypocrites for not practicing the Law of Moses that God once commanded, but abiding instead the new law of Christ. To view either as hypocritical would be something the Scribes and Pharisees might errantly do, and this because they, like you, tend to lean on their own understanding of the scriptures, and dictate, perhaps unwittingly, to God what God could or could not do and what would be hypocritical for God to do our not.

8No. Obviously.

9Clearly, though perhaps unintentionally, you do. Your statement above unwittingly implies as much.

10You somehow managed to get your conclusions exactly backwards. If man's ways are lower than God's ways, and since you have explicitly stated that man should decide for themselves what is inspired and moral, rather than letting God decide that for them, then logically your way is the lower way. And if God's ways are higher than man's ways, and since I explicitly state the God should decide for man what is inspired and moral, then logically my way (or rather God's way) is the higher way. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

1Yes, but the scripture said "higher." You seem to think He can go lower.

2The OT is obviously riddled with errors, regardless of your moral views. In any case, you're still making a decision.

3.How wonderfully passive.

4.You expect God to contradict himself on this matter in the future?

5.Are you an automaton? Choose ye this day, and all that.

6.There's that famous humility again. Made all the more convincing by your continued self-promotion.

7.Non sequitur

9.Perhaps you should read it again.

10.You think that a more moral approach is lower, and a less moral, Machiavellian approach is higher? Fascinating.

[semlogo]

Isaac was no child when he lay on the altar and when his father raised the knife to take the life of his long-awaited son. He was at least 25 and probably in his early 30s, or even older.

Lehi

I did not know that.

Jason's only pseudo point is now completely moot. God has never commanded anyone to kill a child.

[wenglund]

1Yes, but the scripture said "higher." You seem to think He can go lower.

2The OT is obviously riddled with errors, regardless of your moral views. In any case, you're still making a decision.

3.How wonderfully passive.

4.You expect God to contradict himself on this matter in the future?

5.Are you an automaton? Choose ye this day, and all that.

6.There's that famous humility again. Made all the more convincing by your continued self-promotion.

7.Non sequitur

9.Perhaps you should read it again.

10.You think that a more moral approach is lower, and a less moral, Machiavellian approach is higher? Fascinating.

We are evidently going around and around in the same argumentational circle without any apparent progress. Since that is not something I wish to do, I will let you have he last word even thought in some respects it grossly distorts my position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

We are evidently going around and around in the same argumentational circle without any apparent progress. Since that is not something I wish to do, I will let you have he last word even thought in some respects it grossly distorts my position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Likewise.

[Jason]

I'd venture than most modern people of good character have a superior grasp of morality. Abraham was, after all, a primitive man in many respects.

Presentism.

I think we both know that you're a moral relativist. Your objection to being called on is likely due to the fact that you don't like the term. But you're a moral relativist in ever respect.

*Sigh*. Maybe you don't understand moral relativism either.

Yes, it's logically consistent with the rest of your argument, and reveals just how absurd your argument is. You're saying that God can do anything because He's God.

NO!! I AM NOT SAYING THIS!!

Does shouting make it any clearer? It's only about the fifth time I've said so.

I am saying that you cannot say what God will and will not command with the certainty you seem to have.

[Jason]

Jason's only pseudo point is now completely moot. God has never commanded anyone to kill a child.

No it isn't. The argument rests on Isaac's innocence, not his age.

And Abraham is only one OT example of God commanding people to kill a child/children.

[Ahab]

I am saying that you cannot say what God will and will not command with the certainty you seem to have.

If that first "you" is meant as a general term, in reference to any person, that actually is possible, once we correctly understand God.

I can say with absolute confidence that God (our Father in heaven) will not command anyone to do anything which is evil, and I think that's the premise behind semlogo's argument, too.

Where semlogo errs is in thinking that what he (semlogo) regards as evil equates to what God regards as evil, with semlogo thinking that because he (semlogo) considers it to always be evil to intentionally kill a child, God also considers it to always be evil to intentionally kill a child.

In other words, semlogo thinks he and God agree on that issue, nevermind the fact that OT scriptures portray God as being the one to command the intentional killing of children.

The strange thing to me is that semlogo claims to rely on scripture to form his perception and understanding of God, yet semlogo disregards what the OT scriptures actually tell us about God in regards to little children. I haven't quite yet figured him out on that point.

[Jason]

I can say with absolute confidence that God (our Father in heaven) will not command anyone to do anything which is evil, and I think that's the premise behind semlogo's argument, too.

Yes.

Where semlogo errs is in thinking that what he (semlogo) regards as evil equates to what God regards as evil, with semlogo thinking that because he (semlogo) considers it to always be evil to intentionally kill a child, God also considers it to always be evil to intentionally kill a child.

Yep.

In other words, semlogo thinks he and God agree on that issue, nevermind the fact that OT scriptures portray God as being the one to command the intentional killing of children.

Exactly.

Obviously, Ahab, you understand what I am saying much better than semlogo does.

The strange thing to me is that semlogo claims to rely on scripture to form his perception and understanding of God, yet semlogo disregards what the OT scriptures actually tell us about God in regards to little children. I haven't quite yet figured him out on that point.

I explained what seems to be his reasoning earlier. He holds that those sections of the scriptures must be wrong precisely because they show God doing something he believes God would never do, based on the parts of scripture that he likes and agrees with.

[Zeta-Flux]

No, He isn't.

Let me try to understand you. Are you claiming that God never has to choose between killing one of His children, or killing lots of people? Do you believe God kills people?

[Zeta-Flux]

My comments presuppose, rather than ignore, that mortals are trying to make decisions according to their consciences. To me, it goes without say--though I can respect if you think differently, and I appreciate and respect your differing point of view.

I understand that to you it might go without saying--but sometimes it is worth saying it for the benefit of others.

However, I don't believe that one's conscience ought to have primacy over the will of God, though agency allows men to choose otherwise. I believe it is best for man to subject their conscience to God, thereby making their conscience one with God. In so doing, mankind is elevated and becomes more godly--which, according to the gospel, is the intended goal for us.

Yes, and our consciences tell us that this is a good thing to do! It is a beautiful relationship.

The question though is what we do when our conscience tells us one thing and we believe God is telling us another. Would you not agree that in that case we might safely assume that we are unsure about what God is trying to command us to do? While trying to come to that understanding, wouldn't you also agree that we should give our conscience primacy?

I don't know that my point has been understood in the way that I intended (as you suggested above, it may have been "missed"). My intent, though, wasn't to judge, but rather to clarify and convey understanding. I can accept though, that I may have failed in my attempt, and so I appreciate your feedback.

Thank you for taking my comments as they were intended (I was only so blunt because I knew you would!).

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[thatjimguy]

And Abraham is only one OT example of God commanding people to kill a child/children.

I may be missing part of this conversation, but when it comes to this and obeying a prophet. I can only say that back in the OT days, people were barbarians back then and that's the way people understood things. Now, we are enlightened so I doubt anything like that would come out of a Prophet any longer. Just my 2 cents.

[Glenn101]

I may be missing part of this conversation, but when it comes to this and obeying a prophet. I can only say that back in the OT days, people were barbarians back then and that's the way people understood things. Now, we are enlightened so I doubt anything like that would come out of a Prophet any longer. Just my 2 cents.

I do not consider Abraham a barbarian. But things were certainly different back in that time. There was no "law of the land" except the naturalistic law of might makes right. Abrham was virtually a law unto himself, and chose to follow God's laws. He had the power of life and death over everyone in his camp, as did every other nomadic chief. Abrham could have killed Isaac and have to answer to no one else but God.

We, on the other hand, are subject to the laws of the United States, a country that God had a hand in preparing for the retoration of all things. I do not think that God will ask any of His followers to break those constitutional laws.

Glenn

[Kenngo1969]

Instead they just ask us to fight against the rights of womens ...

Less blood, but just as cruel.

Yep. We's gots to keep them womens down. Better barefooted and pregnunt, that's what I say!

[semlogo]

No it isn't. The argument rests on Isaac's innocence, not his age.

And Abraham is only one OT example of God commanding people to kill a child/children.

This is what is commonly referred to as "moving the goal posts." We're talking about children.

Abraham is the only authentic, inspired example, or would be if an actual child were involved. You may disagree and chose to accept the genocidal verses.

[semlogo]

Presentism.

*Sigh*. Maybe you don't understand moral relativism either.

NO!! I AM NOT SAYING THIS!!

Does shouting make it any clearer? It's only about the fifth time I've said so.

I am saying that you cannot say what God will and will not command with the certainty you seem to have.

You say you're not saying it, and then you turn around and say it again. Interesting.

If you can't say it with certainty, it just shows that you doubt God's character and goodness.

[semlogo]

If that first "you" is meant as a general term, in reference to any person, that actually is possible, once we correctly understand God.

I can say with absolute confidence that God (our Father in heaven) will not command anyone to do anything which is evil, and I think that's the premise behind semlogo's argument, too.

Where semlogo errs is in thinking that what he (semlogo) regards as evil equates to what God regards as evil, with semlogo thinking that because he (semlogo) considers it to always be evil to intentionally kill a child, God also considers it to always be evil to intentionally kill a child.

In other words, semlogo thinks he and God agree on that issue, nevermind the fact that OT scriptures portray God as being the one to command the intentional killing of children.

The strange thing to me is that semlogo claims to rely on scripture to form his perception and understanding of God, yet semlogo disregards what the OT scriptures actually tell us about God in regards to little children. I haven't quite yet figured him out on that point.

The pro-infanticide chapters of the OT contradict Jesus' teachings on children. You may choose one or the other. I choose Jesus. You, of course, are free to side with infanticide.

[semlogo]

Let me try to understand you. Are you claiming that God never has to choose between killing one of His children, or killing lots of people? Do you believe God kills people?

Perhaps you have an example of a time where God had to choose between killing one group or another?

[wenglund]

The question though is what we do when our conscience tells us one thing and we believe God is telling us another. Would you not agree that in that case we might safely assume that we are unsure about what God is trying to command us to do? While trying to come to that understanding, wouldn't you also agree that we should give our conscience primacy?

Yes. To me, one ought to go with what their conscience is telling them until one has sufficient certitude that God is telling one otherwise. Once one gains that certitude, God ought to be given primacy.

Excellent point!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

Perhaps you have an example of a time where God had to choose between killing one group or another?

Please answer my questions, so I can understand where you are coming from. Here they are again: Are you claiming that God never has to choose between killing one of His children, or killing lots of people? Do you believe God kills people?

In the mean time, I'll try to answer your question. God has all power. If He willed it, He could keep us all alive a very long time. He could prevent us from killing one another. But that isn't how He seems to operate. For example, the scriptures suggest that He uses wicked nations to destroy other wicked nations. He rained fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The parable of the olive tree, given in Jacob 5, tells of a time when God had to choose between killing off a wicked branch (the Lamanites) or letting that branch kill off the other branch (the Nephites). God, in His wisdom, chose the second path, even though it caused Him much grief.

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes. To me, one ought to go with what their conscience is telling them until one has sufficient certitude that God is telling one otherwise. Once one gains that certitude, God ought to be given primacy.

Excellent point!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm glad we agree. I just wanted to add that I believe that when we reach that point where we are certain that God is telling us to do something, and if we don't let our fears rule us, our conscience will also align with God's will and we'll feel it is right.

Best,

Zeta-Flux (a.k.a. Pace Nielsen)

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

I may be missing part of this conversation, but when it comes to this and obeying a prophet. I can only say that back in the OT days, people were barbarians back then and that's the way people understood things. Now, we are enlightened so I doubt anything like that would come out of a Prophet any longer. Just my 2 cents.

Yes, we are so much more enlightened today. You would never have a state department say that sanctions on Iraq killing thousands of children is an acceptable cost (Allbright), the firebombing of a city full of innocent children and women fleeing war (Dresden, Germany) or mass executions of millions of innocent people (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia, Cambodia).

Of course, I do not believe a prophet today would give an order to kill people like was done in the OT unless t were a case of survival of the Church -- if civilization as we know it collapsed.

[Ahab]

The pro-infanticide chapters of the OT contradict Jesus' teachings on children.

I understand that you believe that, semlogo. I'd just like to see you openly admit that:

1) you claim those chapters with those accounts are not scripture, or at least not true scripture, and

2) you claim some parts of the Holy Bible are true and some parts aren't true, and

3) you have some way to determine what is true and what isn't true other than by using only the Bible, and

4) you rely on something other than the Holy Bible for your understanding of God.

You see, we Mormons aren't accustomed to seeing statements like that from people who are not Mormons, or at least I'm not, so I'm trying to understand you just a wee bit more to see if you might be like us.

You may choose one or the other. I choose Jesus. You, of course, are free to side with infanticide.

I choose Jesus, but I'm also open to the possibility that Jesus might someday tell me that it's okay to kill an infant, in certain circumstances, even going so far as to actually tell me to kill an infant. I would want a really strong assurance from him to convince me that it was HIM who was asking me to do that, and it just might send me over the edge of sanity if he did, but based on the fact that HE knows more about what is GOOD than I do, based on my track record, I'm at least OPEN to the idea that there may be some good reason, or reasons, for killing an infant.

[semlogo]

I understand that you believe that, semlogo. I'd just like to see you openly admit that:

1) you claim those chapters with those accounts are not scripture, or at least not true scripture, and

2) you claim some parts of the Holy Bible are true and some parts aren't true, and

3) you have some way to determine what is true and what isn't true other than by using only the Bible, and

4) you rely on something other than the Holy Bible for your understanding of God.

You see, we Mormons aren't accustomed to seeing statements like that from people who are not Mormons, or at least I'm not, so I'm trying to understand you just a wee bit more to see if you might be like us.

I choose Jesus, but I'm also open to the possibility that Jesus might someday tell me that it's okay to kill an infant, in certain circumstances, even going so far as to actually tell me to kill an infant. I would want a really strong assurance from him to convince me that it was HIM who was asking me to do that, and it just might send me over the edge of sanity if he did, but based on the fact that HE knows more about what is GOOD than I do, based on my track record, I'm at least OPEN to the idea that there may be some good reason, or reasons, for killing an infant.

First off, I'm Mormon. Where are you getting that I'm not? Hopefully this startling revelation will make you understand better my willingness to take some of the OT with a large helping of salt.

As far as your second paragraph goes, my first instinct is to react in revulsion, and to tell you how abominable your willingness to accept such a thing is. To react with incredulity that anyone calling himself a disciple of Christ would be willing to entertain such wickedness, and has such a low opinion of Deity as to contemplate the possibility that God could ever command evil and abomination. But I doubt that's helpful.

As Latter-day Saints, we know that infant baptism is an abomination, period. But infant murder is a gray area for you? Come on.

[Ahab]

First off, I'm Mormon. Where are you getting that I'm not?

Hmm. I don't know. Somehow I just got the idea that you weren't. I'm glad I was wrong, in this case.

Hopefully this startling revelation will make you understand better my willingness to take some of the OT with a large helping of salt.

Well, it doesn't "make" me, but it does "help" me to see a little better.. It helps immensely.

As far as your second paragraph goes, my first instinct is to react in revulsion, and to tell you how abominable your willingness to accept such a thing is. To react with incredulity that anyone calling himself a disciple of Christ would be willing to entertain such wickedness, and has such a low opinion of Deity as to contemplate the possibility that God could ever command evil and abomination. But I doubt that's helpful.

I think you're starting with the idea that it is ALWAYS evil to kill an infant, and it is because you already have that idea in your mind that you can't see that it MIGHT be good, at least sometimes, in certain circumstances.

Abortion, for example. In most cases, killing the infant would be a bad and evil thing to do, but not in ALL cases.

I can actually foresee God actually telling a doctor that he should abort the birth of a child, in certain circumstances, in an effort to save the life of the Mother. If you can't foreee that, fine. That just means you can't see what I see, but I think you should still be open to at least the possibility that God knows more about what is GOOD than you do, even when you think something is bad which God can forsee as a good thing.

[thatjimguy]

Yes, we are so much more enlightened today. You would never have a state department say that sanctions on Iraq killing thousands of children is an acceptable cost (Allbright), the firebombing of a city full of innocent children and women fleeing war (Dresden, Germany) or mass executions of millions of innocent people (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia, Cambodia).

Of course, I do not believe a prophet today would give an order to kill people like was done in the OT unless t were a case of survival of the Church -- if civilization as we know it collapsed.

For the most part we are strides above. Won't deny you are right though. Those people might as well carry big wooden clubs.