Conquest of Canaan

[Calm]

What do you conclude, did God command the genocide of the Canaanites or not?

I haven't made any conclusions yet. I believe that God has reveal to me information about how I am supposed to treat others, but there are a lot of his dealings with others I have not be made privy to.....

If not shouldn't the prophet change what is written?

Why would the prophet change what is written? He is not the author of what was written.....now if you mean make commentary or receive new revelation on the same topic, yeah, I have no problem with that but only if he is directed to, just because it doesn't sound right to modern ears doesn't require imo automatic editing. I think troubling things in scriptures challenge us to go to the source, God, and help us frame how we think about God ourselves and what is most important to us, aligning our wills with His or putting our own desires and understanding first.

Why didn't Joseph Smith provide a better translation?

Better translation or do you mean a better understanding of how God really wants us to interact with others in general and specific instances?I think that JS did exactly the second and as I said above, I don't have a problem with the original being left standing even if it contradicts more modern teachings as it encourages people to seek out the source to resolve the contradictions. I see a prophet as someone who helps people get set on their way, but whose purpose is to direct people to God more than to provide all direction himself. Same with the scriptures.

[zelder]

I haven't made any conclusions yet. I believe that God has reveal to me information about how I am supposed to treat others, but there are a lot of his dealings with others I have not be made privy to.....

Thats understandable

[inquiringmind]

I found this interesting.

...Let me now share an extremely important observation: It does not make sense that this same God who wants to deliver the babies would then turn around and say to the Israelites (instruments of His justice),

[volgadon]

Till this day you have near constant conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, all stemming from the failure of Israel to follow God's plan for them thousands of years ago.

That is NOT the reason for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Seriously, how ignorant can statements get?

[volgadon]

More direct evidence that the BofM is a 19th century book and no ancient history at all. Joseph Smith was raised in the atmosphere of biblical literalness. Virtually no religious person back then questioned the Bible as a history book. Therefore, "the Lord" did command the killing of the wicked Canaanites, repeatedly. And the OT asserts, repeatedly, that the cause of Israel's woes was their disobedience; they did not carry out "the Lord's" plan for conquest valiantly; they left the inhabitants of the land in their midst. Had the Israelites obeyed "the Lord" they would not have been later tempted by the gods and carnality of the Canaanite religions. So the case of Nephi and Laban is simply Israel and Canaan in miniature; and Nephi obeyed and was thus counted more valiant. The inference is unmistakable to anyone but an apologist who flinches in the presence of the terrible OT GOD....

Then why was there none of that with the Lamanites? Isn't that a closer situation?

[semlogo]

I too am perplexed by the killing of children. But the Book of Mormon teaches us that God is capable of commanding his servants to kill.

God in the Book of Mormon teaches that war is ONLY justified in a clear case of self-defense.

[semlogo]

What do you conclude, did God command the genocide of the Canaanites or not? If not shouldn't the prophet change what is written? Why didn't Joseph Smith provide a better translation?

Let me put it this way - if I believed it were true, I'd have no choice but to reject God as a false God.

[LDS Guy 1986]

God in the Book of Mormon teaches that war is ONLY justified in a clear case of self-defense.

So where was the self defense in Nephi killing Laban?

There isn't a court in the world that wouldn't find Nephi guilty of the murder of Laban. He killed a unarmed and passed out man, there is no self defense, Nephi was so troubled by this that he had to be repeatedly commanded to do so.

So did God order murder, here?

Of was this a justified killing because God commanded it to be so?

Either your position is wrong or the Book of Mormon is false IMO.

[Questing Beast]

Then why was there none of that with the Lamanites? Isn't that a closer situation?

Lamanites are Israelites with promises of inheritance. There is no equality between Lamanites and Canaanites....

[semlogo]

So where was the self defense in Nephi killing Laban?

There isn't a court in the world that wouldn't find Nephi guilty of the murder of Laban. He killed a unarmed and passed out man, there is no self defense, Nephi was so troubled by this that he had to be repeatedly commanded to do so.

So did God order murder, here?

Of was this a justified killing because God commanded it to be so?

Either your position is wrong or the Book of Mormon is false IMO.

That's a head scratcher, but then again, it wasn't a war, but a single killing. Perhaps it counts as capital punishment for crimes committed by Laban. The Nephites DID practice capital punishment.

[LeSellers]

So where was the self defense in Nephi killing Laban?

This event was not "war". The criterion does not apply.

There isn't a court in the world that wouldn't find Nephi guilty of the murder of Laban. He killed a unarmed and passed out man, there is no self defense, Nephi was so troubled by this that he had to be repeatedly commanded to do so.

Your chronocentrism is showing.

The Law of Moses applied there, not XXI USmerican law, not British Law, not modern Israeli Law. I am not a Mosaic Law scholar, but I have read that it did permit such retaliatory executions for the evil things Laban did to Nephi and his family.

So did God order murder, here?

If God orders it, it is not murder. In any case, it was execution, not murder.

Of was this a justified killing because God commanded it to be so?

Bingo.

Either your position is wrong or the Book of Mormon is false IMO.

Since you took it out of context, the position may be correct and the Book of Mormon remains true. Nephi's execution of Laban was not war, and self-defense (as understood in modern USmerican jurisprudence) played no part in it.

That said, I believe that his action was self-defense. Laban had already threatened to kill the Lehisons. He had sent armed mercenaries to chase them down and kill them, and doubtless, had he lived and Zoram had delivered the Brass Plate to Nephi, Laban would have been "on the trail" the next morning. (Remember, Laban had taken their property which was only offered to him on condition of its being the purchase price of the plates, ergo, by his act, if not his words, he had sold them to the brothers

[semlogo]

If God orders it, it is not murder. In any case, it was execution, not murder.

I don't think that's true. If God were to order an unjust killing (such as the slaughter of infants) it would be murder, and God would cease to be God. (Alma 42:13)

[LDS Guy 1986]

The Law of Moses applied there, not XXI USmerican law, not British Law, not modern Israeli Law. I am not a Mosaic Law scholar, but I have read that it did permit such retaliatory executions for the evil things Laban did to Nephi and his family.

And under the Law of Moses, anyone observing this event would of reported this as murder, and Nephi would of been executed, most likely by stoning.

The death penalty from murder is derived from the Law of Moses, so you rebuttal of no value.

[semlogo]

And under the Law of Moses, anyone observing this event would of reported this as murder, and Nephi would of been executed, most likely by stoning.

The death penalty from murder is derived from the Law of Moses, so you rebuttal of no value.

That's not a terribly meaningful argument, considering a) the character/actions of Laban and b) the source of the order to kill.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Nephi's execution of Lban fell under justifiable homicide in the Law of Moses. If a person steals from you and threatens your life- if the Lord delivers that person into your hands, you are justified in executing the person.

[LDS Guy 1986]

This event was not "war". The criterion does not apply.

Baloney, assassination of a high ranking official (such as a High Priest in 600BC) is an act of war.

Do you remember the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria?

His assassination resulted in a World War that claimed the lives of almost 10 million young men in WWI, not to mention the loss of civilian lives and the massive damage done to Europe from the War.

One could also argue that since the conclusion of WWI set the grounds for WWII that this assassination was an indirect cause of WWII which claimed over 25 million lives militarily and over 12 million civilian lives in the Holocaust alone.

A single murder is an act of war, especially if you assassinate a high ranking religious or government official, and a single murder has resulted in millions of lives lost in war.

Now Nephi was doing what the Lord commanded him to, but had there been witnesses to this assassination, I have no doubt that Zedekiah would of sought to capture and try Nephi for murder.

[LeSellers]

If God were to order an unjust killing (such as the slaughter of infants) it would be murder, and God would cease to be God. (Alma 42:13)

Because He is and remains God, then it follows that the killing the Canaanite infants was not unjustified.

Lehi

[semlogo]

Because He is and remains God, then it follows that the killing the Canaanite infants was not unjustified.

Lehi

Not true. The Book of Mormon specifically says that if God does something unjust, God would cease to be God. The implication is then that justice and morality are concepts that do not depend on God, but exist separately from God. If God deviates from them, God is in trouble, just as we are. God doesn't get to decide what is right and wrong.

Because killing the innocent is murder, it follows that if God is still God, then God never commanded the killing in the first place - or, perhaps that it never happened at all.

[LeSellers]

The Book of Mormon specifically says that if God does something unjust, God would cease to be God.

Where? I cannot find such a statement.

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

If the work of justice even could be destroyed, God would cease to be God. Nothing about His doing anything "unjust".

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

If the work of justice were to be destroyed, God would cease to be God. Nothing about His doing something "unjust".

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

Were God to allow mercy to rob justice, He would cease to be God. Nothing about doing something "unjust".

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

God once performed miracles, and if He stopped doing so, He would be a changing god, and therefor would cease to be God. Nothing about His doing something "unjust".

In the above comments, when I used the word "unjust", I mean "unjust" in the eye of LDS Guy or Lehi, or anyone else here. I don't know the facts, and I cannot determine what is truly unjust in the eyes of God. I'll leave that to Him.

Nonetheless, there is no passage in the Book of Mormon that says what you claim it says. That said, I agree that God does not do things that are unjust. The difference is that I am not so arrogant as to force God to adjust His position to accommodate my concepts of what is just and what in unjust.

The implication is then that justice and morality are concepts that do not depend on God, but exist separately from God. If God deviates from them, God is in trouble, just as we are. God doesn't get to decide what is right and wrong.

Agreed. I merely contend that you are not in possession of enough information to make the determination that you have.

Because killing the innocent is murder, ...

You make three assumptions here that may not be true.

First, that the infants were "innocent". I agree in general, but where are all of the facts in this case?

Second, that killing innocents is, ipso facto, murder. From a theological point of view, murder is the ending of a life that could have been lived so that person would have the opportunity to repent of his sins and to demonstrate whether he will follow the commandments of God. God, in this case, can tell that these infants would not have been able to repent because they would have been taught not to, etc.

Furthermore, since an innocent child is automatically saved in the kingdom of God, it is not murder for God to take a child, irrespective of His mechanism.

it follows that if God is still God, then God never commanded the killing in the first place - or, perhaps that it never happened at all.

Only if we accept your premises, and I do not.

Lehi

[LDS Guy 1986]

Not true. The Book of Mormon specifically says that if God does something unjust, God would cease to be God. The implication is then that justice and morality are concepts that do not depend on God, but exist separately from God. If God deviates from them, God is in trouble, just as we are. God doesn't get to decide what is right and wrong.

Because killing the innocent is murder, it follows that if God is still God, then God never commanded the killing in the first place - or, perhaps that it never happened at all.

You are partially correct about what the BoM says, but you are completely wrong with your implications of what it says, IMO.

The BoM and the Bible also say that God is all powerful and supreme, which means your implication that God is subject to morality or justice is false. God is morality and justice, these things come from God, so they restrict God because God wills to be restricted because he knows best.

The implication is that since God is justice and morality, he is incapable of doing unjust or immoral things, he is all knowing and all powerful. The symbolism in the BoM that God would cease to be, is not to be taken literally that God is capable of these things and would cease to exist if he did them. God is incapable of doing these things because he knows and understands that they are wrong, even though he has the power to do so.

Now your implication that God cannot command the destruction of Canaanite children is equally flawed, IMO.

It assumes that man has a deeper understanding than God, which is fool hearty at best.

God can command the destruction of an entire people, he did it at Sodom and Gomorrah, he has told his prophets that when Christ returns he will destroy all the wicked on the Earth. The scriptures show a God that requires justice to be fulfilled, he has given us a plan of salvation and will show mercy to those who live righteous lives, but he does and will order the destruction of the wicked.

Now we know that it is not our place to cast judgement on our fellow man, also that we are to love all regardless and only to shed blood in defense or when commanded to by God. Christ is the only person worthy of making the judgement of who is righteous and who is wicked, and only he has the authority to destroy the wicked, unless God commands his prophets otherwise.

[semlogo]

If the work of justice were to be destroyed, God would cease to be God. Nothing about His doing something "unjust".

Were God to allow mercy to rob justice, He would cease to be God. Nothing about doing something "unjust".

They are obviously the same thing. You're equivocating.

[semlogo]

First, that the infants were "innocent". I agree in general, but where are all of the facts in this case?

Second, that killing innocents is, ipso facto, murder. From a theological point of view, murder is the ending of a life that could have been lived so that person would have the opportunity to repent of his sins and to demonstrate whether he will follow the commandments of God. God, in this case, can tell that these infants would not have been able to repent because they would have been taught not to, etc.

Furthermore, since an innocent child is automatically saved in the kingdom of God, it is not murder for God to take a child, irrespective of His mechanism.

Only if we accept your premises, and I do not.

Lehi

And now you're inventing your own personal definition of murder on the fly, as an ad hoc defense for your position. Unacceptable.

[LDS Guy 1986]

And now you're inventing your own personal definition of murder on the fly, as an ad hoc defense for your position. Unacceptable.

It is just as unacceptable as to declare without any support that God isn't supreme and that he is subject to anything, like you did previously.

[semlogo]

You are partially correct about what the BoM says, but you are completely wrong with your implications of what it says, IMO.

The BoM and the Bible also say that God is all powerful and supreme, which means your implication that God is subject to morality or justice is false. God is morality and justice, these things come from God, so they restrict God because God wills to be restricted because he knows best.

The implication is that since God is justice and morality, he is incapable of doing unjust or immoral things, he is all knowing and all powerful. The symbolism in the BoM that God would cease to be, is not to be taken literally that God is capable of these things and would cease to exist if he did them. God is incapable of doing these things because he knows and understands that they are wrong, even though he has the power to do so.

Now your implication that God cannot command the destruction of Canaanite children is equally flawed, IMO.

It assumes that man has a deeper understanding than God, which is fool hearty at best.

God can command the destruction of an entire people, he did it at Sodom and Gomorrah, he has told his prophets that when Christ returns he will destroy all the wicked on the Earth. The scriptures show a God that requires justice to be fulfilled, he has given us a plan of salvation and will show mercy to those who live righteous lives, but he does and will order the destruction of the wicked.

Now we know that it is not our place to cast judgement on our fellow man, also that we are to love all regardless and only to shed blood in defense or when commanded to by God. Christ is the only person worthy of making the judgement of who is righteous and who is wicked, and only he has the authority to destroy the wicked, unless God commands his prophets otherwise.

That's not what the scripture says. If God, failing to uphold the works of justice, can cease to be God, then it follows that God is not the source of Justice, but merely its custodian.

Otherwise, we have no moral compass. We're left to merely obey, obey, obey, and we have no standard of morality.

[semlogo]

It is no more or less unacceptable than to declare that God is not supreme, like you did.

But God isn't supreme. Why would you think that he is?