When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[Jason]

I give up, Semlogo. My limited powers of persuasion and explanation are apparently inadequate to the task of conveying my argument to you.

I apologize for wasting your time.

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

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

Sad part is that even most of America's politicians seem to be more sociopathic than empathetic.

[Jason]

Sad part is that even most of America's politicians seem to be more sociopathic than empathetic.

Turning a thread political like that is a good way to get it shut down.

The idea that our age is more enlightened and civilized than any other is called persentism. And usually it's completely untrue.

[semlogo]

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

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

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.

Apples and oranges. We're talking about premeditated infanticide, not a childbirth gone wrong. Let's try to focus.

[Ahab]

Apples and oranges. We're talking about premeditated infanticide, not a childbirth gone wrong. Let's try to focus.

I was giving an example where God would approve of the killing of a child. What more do you want?

Do you want an example of God telling a group of people to kill another group of people, including children, while explaining how God could see that as a good thing for the group of people to do? An OT-like example?

Try looking for what some apostles and prophets of God have said to explain God's perspective, in those examples. Off the top of my head, I recall them talking about how death is just a gateway into another dimension where the lives of those children continued and in better living conditions than they had with their evil parents and the other evil people they were with, such that God was simply giving his approval for the children to come to him.

Remember, Jesus did say: Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.

[semlogo]

I was giving an example where God would approve of the killing of a child. What more do you want?

Do you want an example of God telling a group of people to kill another group of people, including children, while explaining how God could see that as a good thing for the group of people to do? An OT-like example?

Try looking for what some apostles and prophets of God have said to explain God's perspective, in those examples. Off the top of my head, I recall them talking about how death is just a gateway into another dimension where the lives of those children continued and in better living conditions than they had with their evil parents and the other evil people they were with, such that God was simply giving his approval for the children to come to him.

Remember, Jesus did say: Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.

Neither a killing nor a child is involved in your example. Anything else?

That's a pretty twisted interpretation of scripture - the very same interpretation that various mentally ill women have used to justify the murder of their children.

Can you imagine the armies of the Nephites (when they were righteous) slaughtering the children of the Lamanites?

[wenglund]

Semlogo,

While I understand your black/white moral position regarding taking the life of children, do you have the same black/white moral position when it comes to taking the life of another adult, or chopping off the arms of another adult?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Neither a killing nor a child is involved in your example. Anything else?

I was referring to the OT examples that you deny. Think about it again.

That's a pretty twisted interpretation of scripture - the very same interpretation that various mentally ill women have used to justify the murder of their children.

In this case, I'm talking about an instances, several instances in fact, where God (at least supposedly) actually commands people to kill other people, including children. The fact that some women think he is doesn't mean he really is, so I'm talking about instances where God has (at least supposedly) given that commandment, like in the OT examples.

Can you imagine the armies of the Nephites (when they were righteous) slaughtering the children of the Lamanites?

Can you imagine a righteous Nephite slinging a sword through a crowd of evil Lamanites and then, in the heat of battle, after slinging his way through a few men, encountering a child near him slinging his own sword at him or someone else without being able to take the time to try to disarm or "just slightly injure" the child?

Can you imagine the righteous Nephite getting a thought or a feeling that he "needs" to kill that child?

If so, WHO do you think that thought or feeling would come from, which inspired the Nephite to kill the child.

I don't think the righteous Nephite would enjoy killing the child, but I do think he would do it, and I think God would tell him to do it because it was "necessary" at that moment.

[semlogo]

Semlogo,

While I understand your black/white moral position regarding taking the life of children, do you have the same black/white moral position when it comes to taking the life of another adult, or chopping off the arms of another adult?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

With an adult there is the issue of self defense. A toddler isn't going to threaten anyone's life, but a man might. So no, not black and white. What makes the child killing issue black and white is the innocence and relative helplessness of children and babies.

[semlogo]

I was referring to the OT examples that you deny. Think about it again.

In this case, I'm talking about an instances, several instances in fact, where God (at least supposedly) actually commands people to kill other people, including children. The fact that some women think he is doesn't mean he really is, so I'm talking about instances where God has (at least supposedly) given that commandment, like in the OT examples.

Can you imagine a righteous Nephite slinging a sword through a crowd of evil Lamanites and then, in the heat of battle, after slinging his way through a few men, encountering a child near him slinging his own sword at him or someone else without being able to take the time to try to disarm or "just slightly injure" the child?

Can you imagine the righteous Nephite getting a thought or a feeling that he "needs" to kill that child?

If so, WHO do you think that thought or feeling would come from, which inspired the Nephite to kill the child.

I don't think the righteous Nephite would enjoy killing the child, but I do think he would do it, and I think God would tell him to do it because it was "necessary" at that moment.

Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

Nevermind.

[Ahab]

Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

Yes, and I still do.

Nevermind.

O-kay.

[Ahab]

What makes the child killing issue black and white is the innocence and relative helplessness of children and babies.

The fact that children and babies are innocent and relatively helpless doesn't mean there could never possibly be any good reason where it became necessary to kill a child or baby.

It may make a person extremely sad to be placed in a situation where it was necessary to kill such an innocent and helpless person, when it became necessary, but that doesn't mean there would never be a good reason to do it, and hopefully you'll never be placed in a situation where God would ask you to do it, because if it ever became necessary, and you didn't do it, well, someone else would then need to do it, otherwise nobody would ever need to do it, so God would never ask anyone to do it, because it wouldn't ever be necessary.

[wenglund]

With an adult there is the issue of self defense. A toddler isn't going to threaten anyone's life, but a man might. So no, not black and white. What makes the child killing issue black and white is the innocence and relative helplessness of children and babies.

So, if I understand you correctly, your morals, in relation to the taking of a human life, are relative depending upon what is subjectively deemed "innocent" and "relatively helpless" and a "child" (are you speaking soley here in terms of age, or do you also include adults with significant mental and emotional and physical physical challenges). Right?

And, if I also understand you correctly, in regards to adults, your morals are relative to the subjective determination of whether the taking of a life involves self defense or not. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

The fact that children and babies are innocent and relatively helpless doesn't mean there could never possibly be any good reason where it became necessary to kill a child or baby.

Actually, yes it does. That's exactly what it does.

[semlogo]

So, if I understand you correctly, your morals, in relation to the taking of a human life, are relative depending upon what is subjectively deemed "innocent" and "relatively helpless" and a "child" (are you speaking soley here in terms of age, or do you also include adults with significant mental and emotional and physical physical challenges). Right?

And, if I also understand you correctly, in regards to adults, your morals are relative to the subjective determination of whether the taking of a life involves self defense or not. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that is a fairly accurate summation of my feelings.

[Ahab]

Actually, yes it does. That's exactly what it does.

Actually, no it doesn't. The fact that children and babies are innocent and relatively helpless simply means they are innocent and relatively helpless, and while that may mean they can't be held responsible for someone else's decision to kill them, that doesn't mean there can't conceivably be a good reason to kill them even though they are innocent and relatively helpless.

Try this scenario: Imagine a man who is determined to kill someone among a group of 100 people, one of whom is a baby while all of the others are from age 20 on up, at which point he says he will then let all the other people go free. Now imagine the killer telling the other 99 people that it's up to them to choose which of the 100 people will die, and then imagine all 99 people telling the killer they're not going to make that choice, because they don't want the killer to kill anyone and while also somehow giving the killer the message that they do NOT want the killer to kill the baby, because they all believe the baby is innocent and relatively helpless. This all plays into the hands of the killer, however, because the person the killer wants to kill the most is the person who is innocent and relatively helpless. The reason the killer wants to kill someone is for the shock that it will cause among the others, which is how the killer gets his warped sense of pleasure in life. He's done this before, several times, and he's detemined to do it again.

Now, given the fact that someone must die, unless somehow someone intervenes to stop the killer from killing anyone, which of the 100 people would be the best person to be killed, in the eternal perspective?

NOTE: I'm not asking which person the killer should kill, because obviously he shouldn't kill anyone. I'm asking which person out of the 100 people is the most or is among the most who is the most prepared to be killed. The baby, who is innocent and relatively helpless, or the other 99 people who are above the age of accountability and MAY not be prepared to meet their Maker? And, yes, I do realize that it is VERY POSSIBLE for all of the adults to be prepared to meet their Maker, too, if their sins have been forgiven and they are then also innocent and relatively helpless, too, but who among all of them is FOR SURE going to be totally okay if someone kills him or her?

HINT: I expect you to say the baby is the most prepared to be killed because the baby is innocent and relatively helpless.

[wenglund]

I think that is a fairly accurate summation of my feelings.

So, then, are you a moral relativist (as you have been using the term)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

So, then, are you a moral relativist (as you have been using the term)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not at all. Killing children has always been and always will be immoral. Killing adults is to be avoided wherever possible, but self-defense has never been immoral. Of course, unnecessarily killing someone in the name of self-defense when simple incapacitation would do is also immoral.

Bringing in the issue of adults is really a non-sequitur. I have been discussing children and infants this whole time.

Hope this help.

[semlogo]

Actually, no it doesn't. The fact that children and babies are innocent and relatively helpless simply means they are innocent and relatively helpless, and while that may mean they can't be held responsible for someone else's decision to kill them, that doesn't mean there can't conceivably be a good reason to kill them even though they are innocent and relatively helpless.

Try this scenario: Imagine a man who is determined to kill someone among a group of 100 people, one of whom is a baby while all of the others are from age 20 on up, at which point he says he will then let all the other people go free. Now imagine the killer telling the other 99 people that it's up to them to choose which of the 100 people will die, and then imagine all 99 people telling the killer they're not going to make that choice, because they don't want the killer to kill anyone and while also somehow giving the killer the message that they do NOT want the killer to kill the baby, because they all believe the baby is innocent and relatively helpless. This all plays into the hands of the killer, however, because the person the killer wants to kill the most is the person who is innocent and relatively helpless. The reason the killer wants to kill someone is for the shock that it will cause among the others, which is how the killer gets his warped sense of pleasure in life. He's done this before, several times, and he's detemined to do it again.

Now, given the fact that someone must die, unless somehow someone intervenes to stop the killer from killing anyone, which of the 100 people would be the best person to be killed, in the eternal perspective?

NOTE: I'm not asking which person the killer should kill, because obviously he shouldn't kill anyone. I'm asking which person out of the 100 people is the most or is among the most who is the most prepared to be killed. The baby, who is innocent and relatively helpless, or the other 99 people who are above the age of accountability and MAY not be prepared to meet their Maker? And, yes, I do realize that it is VERY POSSIBLE for all of the adults to be prepared to meet their Maker, too, if their sins have been forgiven and they are then also innocent and relatively helpless, too, but who among all of them is FOR SURE going to be totally okay if someone kills him or her?

HINT: I expect you to say the baby is the most prepared to be killed because the baby is innocent and relatively helpless.

Another unrealistic thought experiment. I have no interest in them. I'm concerned with the real world.

In any case, if we must choose who is to die among a large group, the logical choice is the oldest people, who have already lived their lives. Not that this scenario says anything interesting or valid about anything. It certainly has no bearing on whether God might decide to order someone to kill a baby.

[Ahab]

In any case, if we must choose who is to die among a large group, the logical choice is the oldest people, who have already lived their lives.

While that may be your choice if you were placed in a situation where you had to make a choice about who should die, that wouldn't be the only criteria I would consider. I'd rather choose someone who was as ready as possible to meet their Maker, and the fact that someone was "old" wouldn't necessarily tell me if he or she was ready. I'd much rather choose the baby, or someone else who I knew was as ready to meet their Maker.

Not that this scenario says anything interesting or valid about anything. It certainly has no bearing on whether God might decide to order someone to kill a baby.

If God ordered someone to kill another person, I'd like to think God would rather have someone who was ready to come to him die rather than someone who wasn't ready. I accept the fact that God sometimes orders others to kill people who aren't ready to come to him, though, but you're really throwing me for a loop as someone who can't imagine God ever ordering someone else to send someone to him when that person IS ready.

For a person who is ready to meet God, or see him again, death isn't anything to be afraid of, and usually it is welcome.

Anyway, I'm done with trying to help you see things from my perspective.

I hope you will never feel the need to kill anyone, ever.

[Jason]

Another unrealistic thought experiment. I have no interest in them. I'm concerned with the real world.

In any case, if we must choose who is to die among a large group, the logical choice is the oldest people, who have already lived their lives. Not that this scenario says anything interesting or valid about anything. It certainly has no bearing on whether God might decide to order someone to kill a baby.

You would prefer to kill someone who may not have repented and may not be prepared to meet their God, therefore possibly condemning their soul to a lesser kingdom for all eternity rather than someone who most definitely is innocent and most definitely will be taken up to the Celestial Kingdom?

[elguanteloko]

You would prefer to kill someone who may not have repented and may not be prepared to meet their God, therefore possibly condemning their soul to a lesser kingdom for all eternity rather than someone who most definitely is innocent and most definitely will be taken up to the Celestial Kingdom?

is it OK to kill babies because you will save them the risk of committing serious sin when adults?

[semlogo]

While that may be your choice if you were placed in a situation where you had to make a choice about who should die, that wouldn't be the only criteria I would consider. I'd rather choose someone who was as ready as possible to meet their Maker, and the fact that someone was "old" wouldn't necessarily tell me if he or she was ready. I'd much rather choose the baby, or someone else who I knew was as ready to meet their Maker.

If God ordered someone to kill another person, I'd like to think God would rather have someone who was ready to come to him die rather than someone who wasn't ready. I accept the fact that God sometimes orders others to kill people who aren't ready to come to him, though, but you're really throwing me for a loop as someone who can't imagine God ever ordering someone else to send someone to him when that person IS ready.

For a person who is ready to meet God, or see him again, death isn't anything to be afraid of, and usually it is welcome.

Anyway, I'm done with trying to help you see things from my perspective.

I hope you will never feel the need to kill anyone, ever.

All people die - the purpose of this life is to be tested. Children have not been tested, and are thus more deserving of life than we adults, who have already undergone some trials. Whether we have succeeded yet or not is irrelevant. Not everyone will succeed.

If we are ever in such ludicrous situation together, I will sure to keep you far away from my child.

[semlogo]

You would prefer to kill someone who may not have repented and may not be prepared to meet their God, therefore possibly condemning their soul to a lesser kingdom for all eternity rather than someone who most definitely is innocent and most definitely will be taken up to the Celestial Kingdom?

Far better to do that than to essentially punish an innocent child for some adult's transgressions.

[Ahab]

All people die - the purpose of this life is to be tested. Children have not been tested, and are thus more deserving of life than we adults, who have already undergone some trials. Whether we have succeeded yet or not is irrelevant. Not everyone will succeed.

If we are ever in such ludicrous situation together, I will sure to keep you far away from my child.

If God ever inspires me to kill someone, I hope he'll inspire me to send someone to Heaven rather than send them to Hell, but I'm open to both options depending on what God really wants me to do.