Why Can'T We Talk About This Topic?

[Honorentheos]

I don't mean to be antagonistic but your post comes accross as very arrogant. For myself I would not dare to tell God which of his actions is acceptable.

ERayR,

Do you feel qualified to question which actions ascribed to God are genuinely His?

If there is one thing I admire still about Joseph Smith, it was his capacity to question every traditional norm or thought. To suggest that a person can not question God regarding His willingness to commit genocide appears to be opposite of the great theological struggles of the Prophets described in the accounts of most of the old testament "fathers". Abraham debating God about Sodom and Gomorrah and the need to destroy the cities is mirrored in Joseph Smith when he was at his most prophetic.

[Libs]

I don't question God's wisdom on anything.

I might question man's discernment, as to whether or not God told him to kill someone, though.

[Honorentheos]

I don't question God's wisdom on anything.

I might question man's discernment, as to whether or not God told him to kill someone, though.

Therein lies the heart of this discussion, libs. Given the variety of form mankind has given God, we may feel very confident that our version of God is the most correct.

But when the supposed behavior of this form contradicts our values and judgment, it should do more than cause us to shrink back as Nephi before killing Laban. We should be asking ourselves where our confidence is best laid - in our values, or in the description of God?

Given the fact LDS belief conceeds that the bible has been manipulated I am not sure why so many here are so quick to place faith in the description first, even though they are clearly resolved in their values - at least as they apply to us.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Honorentheos

[ERayR]

ERayR,

Do you feel qualified to question which actions ascribed to God are genuinely His?

If there is one thing I admire still about Joseph Smith, it was his capacity to question every traditional norm or thought. To suggest that a person can not question God regarding His willingness to commit genocide appears to be opposite of the great theological struggles of the Prophets described in the accounts of most of the old testament "fathers". Abraham debating God about Sodom and Gomorrah and the need to destroy the cities is mirrored in Joseph Smith when he was at his most prophetic.

If I question whether or not God ordered genocide or whether or not he ordered Laban's execution does it change the need for me to align my life more closely to that of Jesus Christ?

[Honorentheos]

Depends on how you answer the question how to, "Be thou therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect" I guess.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Libs]

Some people think questioning anything in the Bible is equivalent to questioning God. Even LDS, don't like to question the Bible, unless the changes come through proper channels, like the Prophet.

Should Christians accept the Bible unquestioningly?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't question God's wisdom on anything.

I might question man's discernment, as to whether or not God told him to kill someone, though.

Yet we do that with the Bible, we do not question that God spoke to Saul through (I believe it was Nathan) Prophets to kill. We applaud Abraham as great (as does the NT) yet he cast out a wife and son into the desert to die; nor the trickery of Esau and Jacob’s mother to secure Jacob the birthright. We don’t do this because we are trained that the Bible and God are above reproach, and it is evil to ever question either.

There is far more questionable behavior in the Bible that within any LDS Scripture. There is far more questionable behavior in Prophets of the OT, or Apostles of the NT, than in all of LDS History. Yet those questions have many leave the LDS Church, while maintaining faith in the Bible and already established religions. I question it all, and receive answers if I exercise proper faith.

[Libs]

There is far more questionable behavior in the Bible that within any LDS Scripture.

I agree with that.

I question it all, but have more recently, also, embraced it all..at least that which is good. We are taught, in the LDS Church, "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things".

That's also expressed in Phillippians 4:8

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

I take from scripture (and any other area of life) that which is helpful. If it doesn't seem to be of use (at least, in the moment), then I leave it be.

Much of the Old Testament history has not been helpful (to me). It only undermines my faith...so, I leave it alone, for now. I am learning to do that with Joseph Smith, as well, and embrace the things I love and find uplifting, about the LDS faith, and leave the rest alone.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I agree with that.

I question it all, but have more recently, also, embraced it all..at least that which is good. We are taught, in the LDS Church, "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things".

That's also expressed in Phillippians 4:8

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

I take from scripture (and any other area of life) that which is helpful. If it doesn't seem to be of use (at least, in the moment), then I leave it be.

Much of the Old Testament history has not been helpful (to me). It only undermines my faith...so, I leave it alone, for now. I am learning to do that with Joseph Smith, as well, and embrace the things I love and find uplifting, about the LDS faith, and leave the rest alone.

Then why not embrace that which you once did, if less objectionable((or questionable)? Come home my sister.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Franktalk]

I think a wider view is required. The people who will be killed as a result of a command from God can come in two flavors. One being people who are not righteous and those who are. Those who are not righteous receive a judgment from God on earth. This satisfies justice. Then God is free to hand out mercy as His will directs. Others who were righteous died in their righteousness and will receive their reward.

I think when we look at any command from God and disagree with it it is the ultimate judgment. A judgment of God not just each other on earth. So this takes judgment to another level. I think we have to give God total trust. And from a strict logic we have no choice. We sure don't want to be included in Psalm 2. Except of course being included in the group which trust God.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think a wider view is required. The people who will be killed as a result of a command from God can come in two flavors. One being people who are not righteous and those who are. Those who are not righteous receive a judgment from God on earth. This satisfies justice. Then God is free to hand out mercy as His will directs. Others who were righteous died in their righteousness and will receive their reward.

I think when we look at any command from God and disagree with it it is the ultimate judgment. A judgment of God not just each other on earth. So this takes judgment to another level. I think we have to give God total trust. And from a strict logic we have no choice. We sure don't want to be included in Psalm 2. Except of course being included in the group which trust God.

I am not aware of anyone righteous being called upon to be killed by others…other than Christ; unless you include Job’s family. What you say sounds good. But what scripture supports your finding?

[LeSellers]

I am not aware of anyone righteous being called upon to be killed by others…other than Christ; unless you include Job’s family. What you say sounds good. But what scripture supports your finding?

"O, Jeruslaem, thou that killest the prophets!"

Joseph Smith was called on to be killed by others, too. What was it Paul, aIr, said about a testator's witness not being of force until the death of the testator?

Lehi

Edited July 15, 2011 by LeSellers

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

"O, Jeruslaem, thou that killest the prophets!"

Joseph Smith was called on to be killed by others, too. What was it Paul, aIr, said about a testator's witness not being of force until the death of the testator?

Lehi

We were speaking of those who God commanded to be killed…are so I thought.

[LeSellers]

We were speaking of those who God commanded to be killed…are so I thought.

I read it differently. (In fact, I'm not quite sure how to read what you've said here.)

Lehi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I read it differently. (In fact, I'm not quite sure how to read what you've said here.)

Lehi

Think I will call it a day...good grief.

[Libs]

"O, Jeruslaem, thou that killest the prophets!"

Joseph Smith was called on to be killed by others, too. What was it Paul, aIr, said about a testator's witness not being of force until the death of the testator?

Lehi

I understand what you're saying, about God "calling" someone to do this. All of the prophets were called (supposedly, in the pre-existence or even before, as "intelligences"), but I think the focus here has been, primarily, on God commanding that large groups of people be killed, because they were idol worshipers and such (like the various Canninite tribes, when Joshua brought the people of Israel into the Promised Land). Did God "literally" command the execution of every man, woman and child (and their animals)? Perhaps, there were wars between Israel and the Canninites, and Israel assumed God was on their side, even telling them to completely exterminate these people. I have a difficult time believing God would give such a command. There are other explanations that are more feasible, IMHO.

I looked up the verse you were referring to, I think...it's Hebrews 9:16. That was interesting, in regards to "inheritance". We cannot inherit, until someone dies. The reference was to Christ. Had never looked at his death in that way.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Libs

[Libs]

Then why not embrace that which you once did, if less objectionable((or questionable)? Come home my sister.

You are sweet, PaPa. I think a part of me never really left.

I am still on the rolls.

[Franktalk]

I am not aware of anyone righteous being called upon to be killed by others…other than Christ; unless you include Job’s family. What you say sounds good. But what scripture supports your finding?

It seems to me that Job's sons and daughters were righteous. (I agree)

Job 1:5

5And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

It seems as though his sons and daughters at least did not openly say things that Job heard. His sacrifice was for things unknown. I don't think it is a reach to say they were righteous.

Matthew 5:45

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

If this is true then it is also true that holding back rain will affect the just and the unjust.

It seems to me that there was a time when a Jew did something he was not supposed to do. This caused the army of the Jews to be beaten in their next battle. This was a judgment of the Lord. How many of those who died were just?

Jos 7:5-26

and

1 Samuel 15:3

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

I will say that the infants were innocent but probably not righteous since that takes an act of will. But the point is that these infants would be treated by God after their death as sinless.

And the big one is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Of the 1.5 million people who died I am sure some were righteous.

Frank

[Mute]

God, having knowledge of the aferlife and the eternal nature of the spirit, cannot possibly commit genocide by wiping out the mortal inhabitants of any world by definition. Those people still exist relative to Him. In that case, all He's done is the equivalent of calling out "Okay, everyone out of the pool!"

And if one does not believe in the existence of God, then such a one cannot possibly accuse God of genocide in the first place or rationally use that argument.

I don't see how you can apply that argument to a God and not use that for people who commit murder as well. If I take another person's life, I could hardly say "They're time in the pool is up and I'm sending them on to a better place". One can not judge the actions of a God to be good if they can not also use that same judgment to label their actions as evil. One can not simply say the actions of a God are good and then apply the term "We don't know all the mysteries of God and we can't see the big picture" for things we view as evil.

[Mute]

God has the authority to do what He wants with His creation. You don't have the authority to do what you want with His creation. If life comes from God, then it's God's to control. Someone who murders usurps authority that isn't theirs to weild.

I think that's a pretty significant difference which makes it impossible to compare a mortal's choice to end someone's life with God's choice to end someone's life.

The LDS faith teaches that people have always existed. If I understand the lds beliefs correctly, God simply organized us and provided us with a body. So we are not his creation. You are saying it is a God's right to kill us when he pleases because he provided for our bodies? A mother also provides for her child's body. Should it also be her right to kill her children when ever she pleases?

[TAO]

The LDS faith teaches that people have always existed. If I understand the lds beliefs correctly, God simply organized us and provided us with a body.

Nah, he organized our bodies... and then put us in them.

So we are not his creation.

That is a matter of opinion, and in my opinon, we are.

For example... a watchmaker... watches are his creations.

A watchmaker makes his watch from several parts, and he organizes them into a new pattern, into a watch, so it does good things.

Now, a watchmaker does not organize his watch from the atoms up. But he does make it from his parts. And the watch is his creation =).

So I think, despite us existing in a much different and unsual form, God is still our creator because he organized us (our body is part of us) from things that already existed.

You are saying it is a God's right to kill us when he pleases because he provided for our bodies?

It is God's right to kill because God sees what is best for us, and loves us the most.

A mother also provides for her child's body. Should it also be her right to kill her children when ever she pleases?

Humans can't see everything, I'm afraid. We must trust in the divine, who can. =D

[bluebell]

The LDS faith teaches that people have always existed. If I understand the lds beliefs correctly, God simply organized us and provided us with a body. So we are not his creation.

This issue has already been addressed, but it's a long thread so you might not have gotten to the relevant post yet so i'll say it again.

Yes, LDS believe that God did not create our spirits, but we do believe that He created our physical bodies.

Since we aren't talking about God taking away spiritual life, but are talking about God taking away physical life, it is valid and logical to speak of Him as our 'creator'.

You are saying it is a God's right to kill us when he pleases because he provided for our bodies? A mother also provides for her child's body. Should it also be her right to kill her children when ever she pleases?

You need to read more of my posts in this thread to understand my full point. Right now, you haven't read enough to do so.

[alter idem]

The LDS faith teaches that people have always existed.

No, the LDS faith teaches that 'intelligence' has always existed.

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligences, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. D&C 93:29

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; Abraham 3:22

We were not in the form we are now--we have not always existed as 'people', however LDS believe that we have always existed as 'intelligence' and exactly what that means, we do not know--something God will make clear to us on the other side.

If I understand the lds beliefs correctly, God simply organized us and provided us with a body. So we are not his creation.

No, to LDS, we are still part of God's creations. God is our Father and we are his spirit children. Our bodies are certainly part of all that he has created.

You are saying it is a God's right to kill us when he pleases because he provided for our bodies?

In the LDS faith, God doesn't think in these terms and neither do we. God is our creator and our Father--all that we have and are is by his grace and benevolence. By putting us on this earth as mortal beings, we will inevitably die. He knows the time allotted to us and will call us home accordingly. If you want to look at it as 'God killing us', I guess that's up to you, but LDS don't interpret it in such a way.

A mother also provides for her child's body. Should it also be her right to kill her children when ever she pleases?

Many mothers choose to kill their own children, but LDS know and uphold that God has condemned the taking of innocent life and we do not condone it or believe as you seem to, that a child is the property of the mother. God has designed the procreative process and when a child is conceived, a spirit is sent to inhabit a physical body. LDS believe that it is a sacred opportunity to bear children and that a child is a separate human being with all the same rights as any other of God's children.

[Mute]

This issue has already been addressed, but it's a long thread so you might not have gotten to the relevant post yet so i'll say it again.

Yes, LDS believe that God did not create our spirits, but we do believe that He created our physical bodies.

Since we aren't talking about God taking away spiritual life, but are talking about God taking away physical life, it is valid and logical to speak of Him as our 'creator'.

You need to read more of my posts in this thread to understand my full point. Right now, you haven't read enough to do so.

I read the rest of the post. I think Noble Savage already said a lot of what I would have said anyways. So there is no point continuing this. I don't agree with your points but I do like seeing opposite points of view. It's not a subject that I have thought about to great extent but I will think more about it in the future. It would just take a lot of time to put all my thoughts on paper and that's not something I have time to do right now. I tried writing down my view points to the things both of you were talking about but I found that it just brought up more questions. I'll think about it more later but still this is an interesting topic.

[Mute]

Many mothers choose to kill their own children, but LDS know and uphold that God has condemned the taking of innocent life and we do not condone it or believe as you seem to, that a child is the property of the mother. God has designed the procreative process and when a child is conceived, a spirit is sent to inhabit a physical body. LDS believe that it is a sacred opportunity to bear children and that a child is a separate human being with all the same rights as any other of God's children.

I never said I agree with abortion. I was using it as an example but anyways, Noble Savage already seemed to cover this point.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Mute