When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[Jason]

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

No, it's not, but if you must choose between killing one or the other...

[LeSellers]

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.

Let's imagine (although I have seen the thing represented in many movies and on television, so I have an advantage you seem to have missed out on) that a young mother and her infant are on a bus filled with refugees fleeing the battle. The driver learns there is an enemy checkpoint ahead and pulls off under a bridge and camouflages the bus, waiting 'til they leave.

However, a patrol travels across the bridge every hour. While it is there, all the passengers must keep quiet so as to avoid detection. During one of the patrol's crossings, the child starts crying loudly. The mother tries vainly to muffle the noise. If the patrol discovers them all the passengers will be killed.

There are few options. The mother kills her baby to save forty others.

Was this homicide justified? In the mother's eyes, it was. I suspect that others would share her belief, and still others would find her guilty of murder.

I await your verdict.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

No, it's not, but if you must choose between killing one or the other...

if it is not correct then there is something wrong with your reasons for choosing which one to kill.

[Ahab]

Let's imagine (although I have seen the thing represented in many movies and on television, so I have an advantage you seem to have missed out on) that a young mother and her infant are on a bus filled with refugees fleeing the battle. The driver learns there is an enemy checkpoint ahead and pulls off under a bridge and camouflages the bus, waiting 'til they leave.

However, a patrol travels across the bridge every hour. While it is there, all the passengers must keep quiet so as to avoid detection. During one of the patrol's crossings, the child starts crying loudly. The mother tries vainly to muffle the noise. If the patrol discovers them all the passengers will be killed.

There are few options. The mother kills her baby to save forty others.

Was this homicide justified? In the mother's eyes, it was. I suspect that others would share her belief, and still others would find her guilty of murder.

I await your verdict.

Lehi

Interesting discussion we're having here, I think. Somewhat gruesome to contemplate, but something that is good to think out.

Someday we may actually be appointed to sit in judgment of a mother who has done that, in real life.

What would we decide?

Would we vote to set the Mother free while at the same time looking down in disgust at her for what she has done to her baby, or will be praise her as a hero, or, as another option, will we sentence her to suffer or die for what we may consider to be murder, which is to kill someone for no good reason?

I think it's also interesting to realize that we will also be judged for how we judge others.

I would praise the woman as a hero for doing one of the most difficult things a person could ever do, and with good reason.

[Jason]

Let's imagine (although I have seen the thing represented in many movies and on television, so I have an advantage you seem to have missed out on) that a young mother and her infant are on a bus filled with refugees fleeing the battle. The driver learns there is an enemy checkpoint ahead and pulls off under a bridge and camouflages the bus, waiting 'til they leave.

However, a patrol travels across the bridge every hour. While it is there, all the passengers must keep quiet so as to avoid detection. During one of the patrol's crossings, the child starts crying loudly. The mother tries vainly to muffle the noise. If the patrol discovers them all the passengers will be killed.

There are few options. The mother kills her baby to save forty others.

Was this homicide justified? In the mother's eyes, it was. I suspect that others would share her belief, and still others would find her guilty of murder.

I await your verdict.

Lehi

Lest this be dismissed as another "useless thought experiment", something very like it happened in real life to Smadar Haran in 1979 when Samir Kuntar and three other terrorists attempted to kidnap her family from an Israeli resort.

[Jason]

if it is not correct then there is something wrong with your reasons for choosing which one to kill.

It's probably not a good thing to kill either, but if you must kill one then it follows that you should try to do the least damage.

[semlogo]

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.

How would you do it? Box cutters? IEDs?

[semlogo]

Let's imagine (although I have seen the thing represented in many movies and on television, so I have an advantage you seem to have missed out on) that a young mother and her infant are on a bus filled with refugees fleeing the battle. The driver learns there is an enemy checkpoint ahead and pulls off under a bridge and camouflages the bus, waiting 'til they leave.

However, a patrol travels across the bridge every hour. While it is there, all the passengers must keep quiet so as to avoid detection. During one of the patrol's crossings, the child starts crying loudly. The mother tries vainly to muffle the noise. If the patrol discovers them all the passengers will be killed.

There are few options. The mother kills her baby to save forty others.

Was this homicide justified? In the mother's eyes, it was. I suspect that others would share her belief, and still others would find her guilty of murder.

I await your verdict.

Lehi

That's murder. Not to mention she'd be guilty of driving Hawkeye totally batty.

[kamenraider]

If a bishop or any other officer in this Church shall counsel the people to violate any of the laws of God, and to sustain and build up the kingdoms of this world, I will justify them, and the Lord will justify them in refusing to obey that counsel.

--Brigham Young, Feb. 16, 1868, JD 12:164.

[Ahab]

How would you do it? Box cutters? IEDs?

Hmm. I don't know, at this point. I'll let you know when I do it IF and when God tells me I should do it.

[Ahab]

If a bishop or any other officer in this Church shall counsel the people to violate any of the laws of God, and to sustain and build up the kingdoms of this world, I will justify them, and the Lord will justify them in refusing to obey that counsel.

--Brigham Young, Feb. 16, 1868, JD 12:164.

The key point Brigham was making was that we shouldn't violate any of the laws of God, regardless of who tells us to violate any of the laws of God, but that presupposes we know what the laws of God are.

How do you suppose we find out what God has commanded?

[semlogo]

The key point Brigham was making was that we shouldn't violate any of the laws of God, regardless of who tells us to violate any of the laws of God, but that presupposes we know what the laws of God are.

How do you suppose we find out what God has commanded?

[Ahab]

By what we are taught by the men who wrote those collections of writings?

I asked how you suppose we find out what God has commanded.

Please explain how your answer relates to my question for those who may not "get it".

[semlogo]

By what we are taught by the men who wrote those collections of writings?

I asked how you suppose we find out what God has commanded.

Please explain how your answer relates to my question for those who may not "get it".

We're taught to love God and love our fellow human beings. We find out if these things are true through personal revelation. Also, our God-given conscience plays a strong role.

[LeSellers]

That's murder.

No, because the baby would have died anyway. Just as a baby will die if his mother dies before his birth.

When the choice is literally between the mother or the child choosing the child is a death sentence to both of them.

Things are not so black'n'white as you are portraying them to be.

Not to mention she'd be guilty of driving Hawkeye totally batty.

So, you do recall the episode. I hoped to have disguised it well enough not to be recognizable as coming directly from M*A*S*H, because that is not the only place I have seen the same plot. As we have seen (thanks, Jason), it has been a real life scenario.

Had the mother not killed her child, neither she nor her child, nor any of the other passengers or family members would have survived. I re-iterate, her baby would have died in any case.

Lehi

[semlogo]

No, because the baby would have died anyway. Just as a baby will die if his mother dies before his birth.

When the choice is literally between the mother or the child choosing the child is a death sentence to both of them.

Things are not so black'n'white as you are portraying them to be.

So, you do recall the episode. I hoped to have disguised it well enough not to be recognizable as coming directly from M*A*S*H, because that is not the only place I have seen the same plot. As we have seen (thanks, Jason), it has been a real life scenario.

Had the mother not killed her child, neither she nor her child, nor any of the other passengers or family members would have survived. I re-iterate, her baby would have died in any case.

Lehi

How do you know they all would have died? Perhaps they would have become POWs.

In any case, killing a baby is not the best way to silence him or her. Breast feeding is quite effective. There's a pro tip for you new parents out there.

[Ahab]

How do you know they all would have died? Perhaps they would have become POWs.

In any case, killing a baby is not the best way to silence him or her. Breast feeding is quite effective. There's a pro tip for you new parents out there.

I still give God the credit for the idea the woman had which inspired her to kill her child.

In my perspective, she killed her baby to save the life of the other 40 people with her, thinking of them first without even thinking of herself and the life of her own child. Most Mothers would kill themselves first before killing their children, but if she had killed herself she wouldn't have helped anyone, so, instead, she killed her baby because she was trying to save them, not her, and not her baby.

What greater love can a Mother show than to sacrifice the life of a child she loves to save the lives of other people?

Also, considering the fact that we usually get better ideas when looking back in hindsight, rather than in the spur of a moment, I believe God will judge her based on what her intent was when she did what she did, and not only will he forgive the woman, but he'll also praise her for her heroic intent to save the life of the other 40 people... assuming, of course, that the Mother really loved her baby.

[semlogo]

I still give God the credit for the idea the woman had which inspired her to kill her child.

In my perspective, she killed her baby to save the life of the other 40 people with her, thinking of them first without even thinking of herself and the life of her own child. Most Mothers would kill themselves first before killing their children, but if she had killed herself she wouldn't have helped anyone, so, instead, she killed her baby because she was trying to save them, not her, and not her baby.

What greater love can a Mother show than to sacrifice the life of a child she loves to save the lives of other people?

Also, considering the fact that we usually get better ideas when looking back in hindsight, rather than in the spur of a moment, I believe God will judge her based on what her intent was when she did what she did, and not only will he forgive the woman, but he'll also praise her for her heroic intent to save the life of the other 40 people... assuming, of course, that the Mother really loved her baby.

Again, how do we know they would have been killed? And why didn't she just breastfeed the child instead of killing him/her?

The whole premise sounds twisted to me.

[Ahab]

Again, how do we know they would have been killed?

A more pertinent question would be one asking what she was thinking. Why did she do it?

Did she have a good reason to believe those men on patrol wouldn't kill her and those other people she was with? She was the one who had seen what those men, or men like that, had done before, so she did what she did based on what she thought of those men and what they would do to them.

And why didn't she just breastfeed the child instead of killing him/her?

If that idea had come to her, she apparently didn't think it was a good idea, otherwise she would have done that, wouldn't she.

Try putting yourself in her place, semlogo. Show a little empathy.

I'm pretty sure she really didn't want to kill her child, and yet that's what she did.

Why do YOU think she did it?

The whole premise sounds twisted to me.

I think that's because you think this is just some kind of mental puzzle for you to figure out while sitting comfortably in your chair. Try thinking that this is a real-life situation that actually happened in someone's life, and then show her a little compassion.

[tictac]

A more pertinent question would be one asking what she was thinking. Why did she do it? ...

I'm pretty sure she really didn't want to kill her child, and yet that's what she did.

Why do YOU think she did it?

Without knowing with a surety the outcome of being discovered, and considering that the nature of human beings tends towards self-preservation, it can just as well be argued that killing the child was an act of self-preservation by the mother, and therefore, selfish.

It's easy to state, after-the-fact, that one killed their child to save others, but much less easy to prove the intent in the face of simple self-preservation.

[semlogo]

A more pertinent question would be one asking what she was thinking. Why did she do it?

Did she have a good reason to believe those men on patrol wouldn't kill her and those other people she was with? She was the one who had seen what those men, or men like that, had done before, so she did what she did based on what she thought of those men and what they would do to them.

If that idea had come to her, she apparently didn't think it was a good idea, otherwise she would have done that, wouldn't she.

Try putting yourself in her place, semlogo. Show a little empathy.

I'm pretty sure she really didn't want to kill her child, and yet that's what she did.

Why do YOU think she did it?

I think that's because you think this is just some kind of mental puzzle for you to figure out while sitting comfortably in your chair. Try thinking that this is a real-life situation that actually happened in someone's life, and then show her a little compassion.

Perhaps she had a mental illness. Who knows?

Where's your compassion for the child she killed?

[Ahab]

Perhaps she had a mental illness. Who knows?

Where's your compassion for the child she killed?

The child is fine and dandy. He (or she) is now in paradise, so there's no need for anyone to worry about him (or her).

The person in trouble is anyone who has done something which is evil, while knowing it was evil, and that baby didn't do anything that was evil, and I don't think the Mother did anything evil, either.

Sure, the child missed out on some really great stuff that is available to us mortals here, like learning what it's really like to live as a mortal, but that child can still everything that we mortals can do, aside from living life as a mortal.

There is nothing at all to be sad about as far as that child is concerned, even though the people who love him/ her probably want to be with him/her ASAP, and that will happen soon enough for all of us, or at least to those of us who are worthy of being with him/her.

[Ahab]

Without knowing with a surety the outcome of being discovered, and considering that the nature of human beings tends towards self-preservation, it can just as well be argued that killing the child was an act of self-preservation by the mother, and therefore, selfish.

You seem to be operating under the premise that the Mother didn't love her baby, and while I know there are some Mothers who really don't love their babies as well as they can love them, the vast majority of Mothers love their children more than their own life and would willingly give their own life to save the life of their children.

I see a woman who had compassion on the other 40 people who were with her while believing they were about to be killed unless she did something to stop her baby from crying, which she did, out of love for the other people who were with her.

[tictac]

You seem to be operating under the premise that the Mother didn't love her baby, and while I know there are some Mothers who really don't love their babies as well as they can love them, the vast majority of Mothers love their children more than their own life and would willingly give their own life to save the life of their children.

I agree with that premise.

I see a woman who had compassion on the other 40 people who were with her while believing they were about to be killed unless she did something to stop her baby from crying, which she did, out of love for the other people who were with her.

Then she loves her child yet sacrifices her child out of a greater love for the lives of others.

Or she loves her child, yet will sacrifice the child's life on the hopes of preserving the lives of others as valued in quantity.

Or she doesn't have as great a love for her child as for her own life, and will sacrifice the child's life on the hopes of staying alive whether or not it preserves the lives of others.

Or she's unimaginative, or she innocently panicked, as there are likely other situations where full-blown child suffocation may not have been the only solution to quieting the child.

What can we know the true motive behind the actions? Enough to state that the child deserved to die?

It can be argued that if she valued the life of her child above herself then she would have taken the chance that would have resulted from not having to kill the child. In the case you posit the contradiction still exists that she cared about other's lives to differing degrees to decide who should be saved and who should be killed... without having a surety of the outcome.

[semlogo]

The child is fine and dandy. He (or she) is now in paradise, so there's no need for anyone to worry about him (or her).

The person in trouble is anyone who has done something which is evil, while knowing it was evil, and that baby didn't do anything that was evil, and I don't think the Mother did anything evil, either.

Sure, the child missed out on some really great stuff that is available to us mortals here, like learning what it's really like to live as a mortal, but that child can still everything that we mortals can do, aside from living life as a mortal.

There is nothing at all to be sad about as far as that child is concerned, even though the people who love him/ her probably want to be with him/her ASAP, and that will happen soon enough for all of us, or at least to those of us who are worthy of being with him/her.

Going by this logic, all children across the world should be slaughtered immediately so they can go straight to heaven. Of course, that might somewhat interfere with the plan of salvation, but you make it sound so positive.