When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[LeSellers]

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

Now who's assuming? It was my hypothetical situation.

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.

In the M*A*S*H episode I based this on, the enemy would have killed them all.

Now, as to breastfeeding, the mother in question tried it and it failed. She, the baby, and all the others remained in the same danger as before.

I can assure you that, although it is useful, it is not 100% effective. I agree the nursing the child is a better way, when it works, but having seven children (and 25 grandchildren), I am as much an expert on how to quiet an unhappy child as there is.

Lehi

[semlogo]

Now who's assuming? It was my hypothetical situation.

In the M*A*S*H episode I based this on, the enemy would have killed them all.

Now, as to breastfeeding, the mother in question tried it and it failed. She, the baby, and all the others remained in the same danger as before.

I can assure you that, although it is useful, it is not 100% effective. I agree the nursing the child is a better way, when it works, but having seven children (and 25 grandchildren), I am as much an expert on how to quiet an unhappy child as there is.

Lehi

It's not a hypothetical - this really happened, yes? It was based on a true story. That is my understanding. And in the real world, there was no certainty that discover meant death.

[wenglund]

Hi Semlogo,

In answer to my question whether you consider yourself a moral relativist (as you use the term), you answered:

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.

So. while your morals are clearly relative (as you agree above), you do not consider yourself to be a moral relativist, yet you repeatedly claimed that Jason's position is moral relativism (Jason rightly denies this claim). I would like to know, beside the single degree of separation, what to your way of thinking makes Jason allegedly a moral relativist and you not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Hi Semlogo,

In answer to my question whether you consider yourself a moral relativist (as you use the term), you answered:

So. while your morals are clearly relative (as you agree above), you do not consider yourself to be a moral relativist, yet you repeatedly claimed that Jason's position is moral relativism (Jason rightly denies this claim). I would like to know, beside the single degree of separation, what to your way of thinking makes Jason allegedly a moral relativist and you not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Because Jason allows for the rightness of murder (esp. child murder) under certain circumstances, while I believe it is morally wrong under all circumstances.

[Jason]

Because Jason allows for the rightness of murder (esp. child murder) under certain circumstances, while I believe it is morally wrong under all circumstances.

Actually I agreed that murder is always wrong, but said that killing is sometimes justified in particular circumstances.

You seem to agree with me that killing is sometimes justified but reject the idea that circumstances can ever justify the killing of a specific category of person (children). The two positions are not really that different.

Of course, arguing that killing children is never moral makes God a murderer, since He most definitely has directly killed children (the Flood being the most obvious example).

[wenglund]

Because Jason allows for the rightness of murder (esp. child murder) under certain circumstances, while I believe it is morally wrong under all circumstances.

In other words, while both your and Jason's morals are relative, to your way of thinking Jason is allegedly a moral relativist simply because his morals are relative on one more of innumerable issues that you?

How did you happen to come up with that definition of moral relativism? (I ask because your definition doesn't comport with anything authoritative that I have read on the subject.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

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

Jason, you can't say that your reason to act is just when the conclusions to where it takes you are absurd.

[semlogo]

Actually I agreed that murder is always wrong, but said that killing is sometimes justified in particular circumstances.

You seem to agree with me that killing is sometimes justified but reject the idea that circumstances can ever justify the killing of a specific category of person (children). The two positions are not really that different.

Of course, arguing that killing children is never moral makes God a murderer, since He most definitely has directly killed children (the Flood being the most obvious example).

Killing an innocent person is murder, by definition.

There was never a global flood. At best, it might have been a local flood, wherein a man named Noah was able to save his family through divine providence. God never flooded the earth.

[semlogo]

In other words, while both your and Jason's morals are relative, to your way of thinking Jason is allegedly a moral relativist simply because his morals are relative on one more of innumerable issues that you?

How did you happen to come up with that definition of moral relativism? (I ask because your definition doesn't comport with anything authoritative that I have read on the subject.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Murder is murder is murder. Hope this helps.

[wenglund]

Murder is murder is murder. Hope this helps.

It evades my question, so I don't see how it could help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

It evades my question, so I don't see how it could help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Killing is only justified as a last retort, as self defense. I have a clear, anti-death position. I make no exceptions for murder. That's consistency itself and the opposite of Jason's morally relativist position.

Hope this helps.

[wenglund]

Killing is only justified as a last retort, as self defense. I have a clear, anti-death position. I make no exceptions for murder. That's consistency itself and the opposite of Jason's morally relativist position.

Actually, you also make an exception to your relative self-defense justification. You don't allow for killing children even in self defense. You are consistent in your inconsistency.

But, again, this evades my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Actually, you also make an exception to your relative self-defense justification. You don't allow for killing children even in self defense. You are consistent in your inconsistency.

But, again, this evades my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Self-defense against children is a nonsensical concept.

It doesn't evade your question. You just don't like the answer.

[thesometimesaint]

wenglund:

An 8 year old firing a firearm at me is still firing a firearm at me. Returning fire is self defense. Plus I'll still hold legally and morally responsible the idiot "adult" for anything that happens to that child.

[wenglund]

Self-defense against children is a nonsensical concept.

It may be for narrow minds.

It doesn't evade your question. You just don't like the answer.

Wrong on both accounts. But, there again, you are consistent. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

wenglund:

An 8 year old firing a firearm at me is still firing a firearm at me. Returning fire is self defense. Plus I'll still hold legally and morally responsible the idiot "adult" for anything that happens to that child.

That makes sense to me, but semlogo would summarily dismiss it as a "nonsensical concept". So, you will need to take this up with him, not me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

It may be for narrow minds.

Wrong on both accounts. But, there again, you are consistent. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know about you, but I don't see many toddlers going out on killing sprees.

I'm sorry you didn't like my answer.

[wenglund]

I don't know about you, but I don't see many toddlers going out on killing sprees.

I don't either.

I'm sorry you didn't like my answer.

I am sorry you falsely concluded that I didn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

I don't either.

I am sorry you falsely concluded that I didn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sorry that you falsely concluded that a clear and consistent repudiation of murder is somehow evasive.

What a sorry pair we make.

[Jason]

Killing an innocent person is murder, by definition.

No, the issue isn't that simple actually.

There was never a global flood. At best, it might have been a local flood, wherein a man named Noah was able to save his family through divine providence. God never flooded the earth.

The true scope of the Flood is laregely irrelevent to the issue. If God killed a single child with the Flood then He is by your definition a murderer.

Or, if you find the Flood unpalatable, how about the destruction wrought in the Americas after the death of Christ?

The Lord specifically claims credit for destroying these cities in 3 Nephi 9: Zarahemla, Moroni, Moronihah, Gilgal, Onihah, Mocum, Jerusalem, Gadiandi, Gadiomnah, Jacob, Gimgimno, Jacobugath, Laman, Josh, Gad, and Kishkumen.

Do you think the Lord managed to burn, bury, and sink sixteen cities while missing any child below 8? If not, then He is by your definition a murderer.

[Jason]

Killing is only justified as a last retort, as self defense. I have a clear, anti-death position. I make no exceptions for murder. That's consistency itself and the opposite of Jason's morally relativist position.

So Nephi is guilty of murder, since he wasn't killing Laban in self defense - Laban was in fact helpless at the time.

Captain Moroni is guilty of murder many times, since he put to death the King Men and refused the surrender and killed many Lamanites when they would not also covenant to never fight again.

The State of Utah as a whole is guilty of murder, since Ronnie Lee Gardner was helpless in prison when we executed him.

Your position is not the opposite of mine. You agree that killing is not always wrong.

[wenglund]

I'm sorry that you falsely concluded that a clear and consistent repudiation of murder is somehow evasive.

You are consistently wrong again. It's not evasive of questions regarding repudiation of murder, but it is evasive of clarifying questiona regarding morals that are relative and moral relativism.

What a sorry pair we make.

I'll let you speak for yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

No, the issue isn't that simple actually.

The true scope of the Flood is laregely irrelevent to the issue. If God killed a single child with the Flood then He is by your definition a murderer.

Or, if you find the Flood unpalatable, how about the destruction wrought in the Americas after the death of Christ?

The Lord specifically claims credit for destroying these cities in 3 Nephi 9: Zarahemla, Moroni, Moronihah, Gilgal, Onihah, Mocum, Jerusalem, Gadiandi, Gadiomnah, Jacob, Gimgimno, Jacobugath, Laman, Josh, Gad, and Kishkumen.

Do you think the Lord managed to burn, bury, and sink sixteen cities while missing any child below 8? If not, then He is by your definition a murderer.

The literal telling of the flood is such obvious mythology that even assuming that God intended that the flood should happen is going too far, IMO. It was probably just a random event. Floods happen all the time.

You bring up an interesting point with the destruction in the Americas. It's reported that the righteous survived and the wicked were killed. Since no one is more righteous than a little child, we can correctly assume that none of them were killed.

[semlogo]

You are consistently wrong again. It's not evasive of questions regarding repudiation of murder, but it is evasive of clarifying questiona regarding morals that are relative and moral relativism.

I'll let you speak for yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't see how much clearer I could be. If you have a specific question, by all means, ask.

[semlogo]

So Nephi is guilty of murder, since he wasn't killing Laban in self defense - Laban was in fact helpless at the time.

Captain Moroni is guilty of murder many times, since he put to death the King Men and refused the surrender and killed many Lamanites when they would not also covenant to never fight again.

The State of Utah as a whole is guilty of murder, since Ronnie Lee Gardner was helpless in prison when we executed him.

Your position is not the opposite of mine. You agree that killing is not always wrong.

You seem to have thrown out the word "innocent" by the wayside in order to make your argument. Convenient for you, but intellectually dishonest.

It is the opposite of yours, in that you think murder may be justifiable, and I do not.