When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

I don't know as I have enough knowledge to say that God commanded the slaughter of innocents as presented in the OT. It well could be that it was man trying to justify himself by invoking God. That has happened often enough in history. It could be that to God our physical death isn't as important as our spiritual life. It could be just about anything. I just don't know. But I sure would like to.

[Jason]

Question: could a command to slaughter some babies be moral under any circumstances?

Yes it could.

How do I know? Because God has in the past given such commands. God will not command that which is immoral, therefore under those specific circumstances it was a moral act.

I don't mean to be sensationalist here, but it seems like you're saying God is allowed to do anything because He is God. I always understood that God can't just do anything - if God did wickedness He'd cease to be God.

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all.

I am arguing that there are circumstances where what appears to be terrible, immoral acts to us are not in fact immoral, and that God has the ability to see when this is the case with perfect accuracy and instruct us accordingly.

[Calm]

It doesn't say he actually hit anyone.

It doesn't say he didn't either.

He was at least threatening enough to cause quite a few grown men to leave the temple grounds leaving behind their money and goods. In that day and time, don't you think there must have been some significant demonstration that he 'meant' it rather than just putting on a show. What would have stopped those men from ganging up on him and tossing him out?

[semlogo]

Attorney: Woman thought God told her to kill sons

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html

Justified?

[semlogo]

semlogo:

I don't know as I have enough knowledge to say that God commanded the slaughter of innocents as presented in the OT. It well could be that it was man trying to justify himself by invoking God. That has happened often enough in history. It could be that to God our physical death isn't as important as our spiritual life. It could be just about anything. I just don't know. But I sure would like to.

I believe it was men who did it and later used God to justify their genocides.

[semlogo]

Yes it could.

How do I know? Because God has in the past given such commands. God will not command that which is immoral, therefore under those specific circumstances it was a moral act.

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all.

I am arguing that there are circumstances where what appears to be terrible, immoral acts to us are not in fact immoral, and that God has the ability to see when this is the case with perfect accuracy and instruct us accordingly.

You make God out to be a moral relativist.

[semlogo]

It doesn't say he didn't either.

He was at least threatening enough to cause quite a few grown men to leave the temple grounds leaving behind their money and goods. In that day and time, don't you think there must have been some significant demonstration that he 'meant' it rather than just putting on a show. What would have stopped those men from ganging up on him and tossing him out?

Cracking the whip enough times would have scared them off. In any case, it's a moot point. There's no proof that he did, and even if he had, that doesn't really relate to the topic at hand - God ordering his children to kill each other.

[Jason]

You make God out to be a moral relativist.

No, I'm not arguing that either. I believe in an absolute morality that is in fact completely independent from God's existence. Good is good and evil is evil, and God's existence is entirely irrelevent to which is which.

However, the same action in different circumstances can be moral or immoral.

Example: killing a robber in your home who was holding your wife hostage: moral.

Killing a man on the street in order to take his wallet: immoral.

[semlogo]

No, I'm not arguing that either. I believe in an absolute morality that is in fact completely independent from God's existence. Good is good and evil is evil, and God's existence is entirely irrelevent to which is which.

However, the same action in different circumstances can be moral or immoral.

Example: killing a robber in your home who was holding your wife hostage: moral.

Killing a man on the street in order to take his wallet: immoral.

Killing a child because he has bad parents: immoral

[Jason]

Killing a child because he has bad parents: immoral

Killing a child because his entire society is corrupt and he has no possibility of living a life that does not end in misery and, ultimately, destroying his soul but killing him will result in his going to the Celestial Kingdom instead: moral, if God is sure that the child has no chance otherwise.

[Thinking]

Killing a child because his entire society is corrupt and he has no possibility of living a life that does not end in misery and, ultimately, destroying his soul but killing him will result in his going to the Celestial Kingdom instead: moral, if God is sure that the child has no chance otherwise.

This thread is scary.

[Brenda]

Which Biblical prophet should the people of his day, not obeyed?

[elguanteloko]

I have to be somewhat vague, because God requires different things of different people, and so the amount of trust required also becomes vague.

...

Well I guess I trust my dad more than you trust yours then.

My trust in God is even greater.

let's see: if you and your dad are walking down the street and he tells you to kill the child next to you but you see no reason to, would you do it? Why?

I already did - if the child is a part of a society that will force it down a path of sin, debauchery, and misery for itself and everyone it encounters, with no chance to ever chose something better then it may in fact be better for the child to die while still innocent.

first of all, how can a society like that exist? that seems completely unrealistic. secondly, when God told Moses to kill even the children the Midianites were already defeated. They could have simply just taken the children and educate them well... that is very far from your precondition to moral infanticide and yet God did it (also, remember they took the women for themselves).

But again - I would only trust God to say when this is actually the case. My own judgement and that of those around me is not up to this task.

...

Again, it's a matter of trust. If you don't trust God to never lead you astray then your viewpoint makes some sense.

...

If what God asked is indeed good then you will possibly be doing evil by not carrying it out.

once again, it is impossible to know if what God asked is indeed good since you never know His reasons. Thus, ALL that God asked, asks, will ask, is good; there is no room for you evaluating any action of God to determine if it is good or bad since they are all good for you.

If in fact God is trying your faith (as with Abraham) you will fail the trial, and miss out on the blessings you would have otherwise had. This is perhaps not an evil result, but it's not a good one either.

if you obey God only because you will "miss the blessings" and do whatever He asks you to knowing you are harming others... I don't see that as good at all. I don't see Abraham's intent to sacrifice his son as good, I don't see your obedience as good, I don't see obeying for the biggest prize as good. I plan on opening a thread on obedience and its merits; I hope I will count with your participation.

Yes. I beleive if you think it through you will see that I am being consistent.

The things God asks us to do are not good simply because God asked them of us (God does not make what was previously not good into good), but the things God asks us to do are good regardless of whether we can see the good in them, because God knows better than we what is good and what isn't and will only ask us to do things that are ultimately good.

again, you mentioned that 1) only God can tell us what is moral, and 2) He does not establishes morality in any way... these two are mutually exclusive. It does not matter if He created the real morality or not since, according to you, He is the only one who has the knowledge of what is moral and what is not. If only He can tell us what is moral then He indeed establishes what you think is the real morality.

I may not know or understand His reasons now - during mortality. I didn't say anything about never knowing His reasons. Everyone eventually will know that God's judgements are just.

It does not matter if you will someday know or if you will never know God's reasons. The problem is that you are willing to harm others even when you see no reason to.

Yet again, it's an issue of trust (and faith). Do you trust God or don't you?

I trust Him... and I trust in that He knows my reasons to disobey to be better than to just obey for the big prize in the afterlife. again, I will soon open a thread about this issue of obedience and I hope I can count with your participation.

[wenglund]

This thread is scary.

That may be true for the hyper-paranoid among us, who may be looking for offence, and who may not grasp the difference between theory and practice as well as extreemely rare exceptions and general rules.

But, for the reasonably minded, it is a rather benign philosophical discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Thinking]

Nobody answered my previous questions so I will ask them again.

If a prophet is wrong about something related to the gospel, and you know it's wrong, why would the Lord expect you to follow the prophet anyway?

If your bishop was wrong about something would you follow him anyway?

At what level do you get to decide? Apostle? Seventy? Stake President?

[elguanteloko]

Nobody answered my previous questions so I will ask them again.

If a prophet is wrong about something related to the gospel, and you know it's wrong, why would the Lord expect you to follow the prophet anyway?

depends on the "wrong" teaching.

If your bishop was wrong about something would you follow him anyway?

depends what the wrong is.

At what level do you get to decide? Apostle? Seventy? Stake President?

it depends on what is wrong in the first place.

[Thinking]

depends on the "wrong" teaching.

depends what the wrong is.

it depends on what is wrong in the first place.

That clears it up.

[elguanteloko]

That clears it up.

well, my response was basically a call for you to be more specific. I did not answer your previous post because it was way too general. Your generalizing all teachings to be either obeyed when they are correct, or disobeyed when they are incorrect. I can obey things that I believe to be incorrect but do not harm anyone, really. so, again, it depends on the wrong teaching or command.

[Thinking]

well, my response was basically a call for you to be more specific. I did not answer your previous post because it was way too general. Your generalizing all teachings to be either obeyed when they are correct, or disobeyed when they are incorrect. I can obey things that I believe to be incorrect but do not harm anyone, really. so, again, it depends on the wrong teaching or command.

I read an earlier post justifying the killing of a child.

Others have stated that they will follow the prophet even if he is wrong. Link

The fact that you said "it depends" tells me that sometimes you would follow the prophet if you thought he was wrong, and sometimes you wouldn't. Please enlighten me. You wouldn't say "it depends" unless you had specific examples. Otherwise you would have said "I don't know."

[elguanteloko]

I read an earlier post justifying the killing of a child.

Others have stated that they will follow the prophet even if he is wrong. Link

The fact that you said "it depends" tells me that sometimes you would follow the prophet if you thought he was wrong, and sometimes you wouldn't. Please enlighten me. You wouldn't say "it depends" unless you had specific examples. Otherwise you would have said "I don't know."

I mentioned in my earlier post that "I can obey things that I believe to be incorrect but do not harm anyone." Example: my Bishop tells me to manage some money (Church money) in a certain way when I know for sure there is a better way. I explain my reasons and he, pridefully, does not accept them and tells me to do it his way. I would do it his way.

[Thinking]

I mentioned in my earlier post that "I can obey things that I believe to be incorrect but do not harm anyone." Example: my Bishop tells me to manage some money (Church money) in a certain way when I know for sure there is a better way. I explain my reasons and he, pridefully, does not accept them and tells me to do it his way. I would do it his way.

Procedure is different from something that is or isn't a sin.

[elguanteloko]

Procedure is different from something that is or isn't a sin.

I don't get it. how do you apply this to what I said?

[Thinking]

I don't get it. how do you apply this to what I said?

There is a difference between procedure and doctrine. In your example, the bishop is directing you to manage the church's money in a certain way. Your desire to use a better method is rejected by the bishop and you obey him and use the inferior method. This is procedural.

Suppose your bishop asked you to steal some bread from a local market for the sacrament. According to the gospel, stealing is a sin. If the prophet asked you to steal the bread, would you steal it? Would you require an explanation from your bishop? Would you require an explanation from the prophet? This is a doctrinal example.

[elguanteloko]

There is a difference between procedure and doctrine. In your example, the bishop is directing you to manage the church's money in a certain way. Your desire to use a better method is rejected by the bishop and you obey him and use the inferior method. This is procedural.

Suppose your bishop asked you to steal some bread from a local market for the sacrament. According to the gospel, stealing is a sin. If the prophet asked you to steal the bread, would you steal it? Would you require an explanation from your bishop? Would you require an explanation from the prophet? This is a doctrinal example.

I think I got it... but still I don't know what sinning has to do with the issue. it does not matter if my decision to disobey involves 'sinning' or not since I would refuse to follow the orders even if it is considered as a sin to disobey when someone is going to get unfairly hurt or have his/her freedoms unjustly restricted.

[semlogo]

Killing a child because his entire society is corrupt and he has no possibility of living a life that does not end in misery and, ultimately, destroying his soul but killing him will result in his going to the Celestial Kingdom instead: moral, if God is sure that the child has no chance otherwise.

By that logic, all children should be killed to save them from the sins they will most certainly commit in the future.

Which brings us back to this unfortunate woman:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html