Under The Banner Of Heave To Be A Movie

[auteur55]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/warner-bros-acquiring-jon-krakauers-under-the-banner-of-heaven-for-ron-howard-and-dustin-lance-black/

Let me guess. It will come out right before the election. And what exactly does this mean: "The killers claimed they were acting on orders from God, consistent with their interpretation of a fundamentalist interpretation that goes back to the formation of Mormonism."

[alter idem]

Not good. I read that book a few years ago and as I recall, I felt it bordered on a hatchet job--but written in a way that it would not be evident to the casual reader. He massaged, manipulated and prodded the evidence to fit his agenda. I had to go later and read up on some of the information he included to get the true events--I doubt most audience members will take the time.

I also read his book "Into Thin Air" which would make a much better movie.

"The killers claimed they were acting on orders from God, consistent with their interpretation of a fundamentalist interpretation that goes back to the formation of Mormonism."

As I remember, he centers the story on the Lafferty brothers, who brutally murdered their sister in law and her little baby daughter (from the forensic evidence, while she stood crying in her crib) back in about 1982 in Provo. They were mainstream LDS, but got involved with a group of men, I think they called themselves the school of the Prophets. Anyway, they started thinking they should practice polygamy (of course) and the sister in law was standing up to them--speaking out against what they were doing. They killed her because of that (the one ringleader brother claimed he'd had a revelation that she should be killed). They are both at Point of the Mountain prison to this day. At one point, Mark Hoffman and one of the Lafferty brother's were cell mates.

Anyway, he uses that crime to go back and look at early LDS history here in Utah when the saints were first getting settled. There were a number of murders of non-LDS people which were blamed on the 'Mormons' in general--and on the church--Danites, blood atonement and that kind of stuff, so you have an idea where this is going.

The saints and church as a whole were often vilified for the crimes of individuals by the contemporary media of their time and often present day writers will use those news articles, books and novels as fact, even though there was no evidence to support the accusations.

[Daniel2]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/warner-bros-acquiring-jon-krakauers-under-the-banner-of-heaven-for-ron-howard-and-dustin-lance-black/

Let me guess. It will come out right before the election. And what exactly does this mean: "The killers claimed they were acting on orders from God, consistent with their interpretation of a fundamentalist interpretation that goes back to the formation of Mormonism."

As I recall from reading the book, the Lafferty brothers explain they felt similar promptings that Nephi did, and used the same justification for the murder and beheading of an innocent woman and child, which is what I'd assume is the "fundamentalist interpretation that goes back to the formation of Mormonism" your question refers to:

And it was by night; and I caused that they should hide themselves without the walls. And after they had hid themselves, I, Nephi, crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban.

And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.

Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.

And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.

And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

Of course, my answer presumes you'd agree that the first chapter of "The Keystone of the LDS Faith" (let alone divine inspiration that led a prophet to hearken unto the Spirit of God) could both accurately be referred to as "the foundation of Mormonism."

As I grew up in the LDS church, hearing the story of the beheading of Laban, it never phased me. It wasn't until I reached adulthood and began to question many other foundational aspects of Mormonism that I realized that there could have been many more compassionate, and less violent, ways for "the Lord" to accomplish his purposes, rather than commanding Nephi to "slay" a drunken, incapacitated man. I've also become more and more aware that many non-Latter-day Saints find that story to be very problematic--and I'm more inclined to agree with them, now that I no longer share a devoutly LDS paradigm. The Lafferty brothers are a disturbing example of religious fundamentalism taking such a story to it's most violently disturbing interpretation.

Daniel2

[alter idem]

As I recall from reading the book, the Lafferty brothers explain they felt similar promptings that Nephi did, and used the same justification for the murder and beheading of an innocent woman and child, which is what I'd assume is the "fundamentalist interpretation that goes back to the formation of Mormonism" your question refers to:

As I recall, Nephi wasn't trying to justify taking polygamous wives, against the teachings of his church. I believe it is the 'fundamentalist' obsession and love affair with polygamy which they might be referring to, since it is no longer a part of the LDS faith.

[Analytics]

As I recall, Nephi wasn't trying to justify taking polygamous wives, against the teachings of his church. I believe it is the 'fundamentalist' obsession and love affair with polygamy which they might be referring to, since it is no longer a part of the LDS faith.

You are right; it was Joseph Smith that was trying to justify taking polygamous wives, against the teachings of his church, and behind his wife’s back.

Nevertheless, the story of Nehi murdering a passed-out drunk because he heard a voice in his head telling him to is still held up as a good example of what you should do in those situations, is it not? If the church were to conclusively teach that Nephi made the wrong choice in killing Laban, it would go a long way in distinguishing the LDS Church’s interpretation of Nephi from Lafferty’s interpretation.

[silvermoon383]

Don't forget that this drunk had stolen their property and actively tried to kill him and his brothers, just because they asked for a book. If that had happened today and the police had been involved he would have gone to trial and possible end up in jail for life.

[Kevin Christensen]

You are right; it was Joseph Smith that was trying to justify taking polygamous wives, against the teachings of his church, and behind his wife’s back.

I notice that there are easier methods of justification than dictating 600 page books. People do it all the time.

Nevertheless, the story of Nehi murdering a passed-out drunk because he heard a voice in his head telling him to is still held up as a good example of what you should do in those situations, is it not? If the church were to conclusively teach that Nephi made the wrong choice in killing Laban, it would go a long way in distinguishing the LDS Church’s interpretation of Nephi from Lafferty’s interpretation.

The story of Nephi and Laban is presented as an exceptional circumstance, not a typical situation. Nephi's own statement of general principles should count:

The Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; . . . that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; . . . and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish. For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men . . . and all are alike unto God (2 Nephi 26:32-33).

Did the Lafferty's discuss this? Does Krakhauer?

Personally, I find Eugene England helpful:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=109&chapid=1255

and Tod Harris

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=6&num=2&id=146

After completing the night-sea journey, and with the ready aid of his supernatural helper(s), the hero now stands at the "nadir of the mythological round"21 —he must face the final trial separating him from the boon he has come to win. This final trial is the supreme ordeal, the definitive demonstration of the mettle of the hero and his worthiness to receive the boon. Campbell outlines the severity of this test: "[The hero] must put aside his pride, his virtue, beauty, and life, and bow or submit to the absolutely intolerable."22

Using an economy of words that makes the statement all the more horrible, Nephi explains that for his final trial, "I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban" (1 Nephi 4:10). As if to underscore the critical role this event plays in the large-scale scheme of his journey, Nephi slows the narrative pace here drastically and explains in ominous detail his wrestle to accomplish what he has been asked to do. His agonized reticence leaves no doubt that to do this thing is "absolutely intolerable," yet he is the hero, and the hero must triumph: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18).

The triumph of the hero in his final test leads to the bestowal of the boon he has come so far to gain. A critical aspect of this stage of the monomyth is that in many cases the hero gains not only some tangible reward, but also an understanding of the divinity of the source of the reward. The intangible aspect of the hero's reward is typically symbolized in one of three ways: sacred marriage, apotheosis, or atonement with the father. This last idea is particularly important to the argument at hand. Campbell writes that the effect of the hero

going to meet the father is to open his soul beyond terror to such a degree that he will be ripe to understand how the sickening and insane tragedies of this vast and ruthless cosmos are completely validated in the majesty of Being. The hero transcends life with its peculiar blind spot and for a moment rises to a glimpse of the source. He beholds the face of the father, understands—and the two are atoned.23

In what ways is Nephi's particular experience "validated in the majesty of Being"? According to the archetype, by not only submitting to but ultimately surmounting the final test, one of the intangibles the hero gains is the self-confidence necessary to overcome any future challenge. In Nephi's case, by being commanded to perform an act he knows is specifically forbidden by the God who has forbidden the act, and then following through with the "absolutely intolerable" act of taking the life of another, he not only proves himself capable of any of the tasks that he will yet have to endure, but also seems to gain a certain understanding of what it actually means to obey God. As Campbell explains later, "The agony of breaking through personal limitations is the agony of spiritual growth."24 Perhaps it is also the glimpse Nephi gains, not so much of the face of the father but of what the Father will have to face in being required to sacrifice his own Son, that augments this growth.

far more helpful in understanding the than, say, William D. Russell, "Let's Put Warning Labels on the Standard Works," Sunstone, July 2004, 26–30.

And for that matter, Nibley's report on what his Muslim students thought of the story, and Welch's observation on the legal context are also helpful:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=1&num=1&id=7

And his important update here, which would have helped Eugene England.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1037

Another Old Testament case, preserved more fully in the Jewish oral tradition, involved Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, who rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar went to Antioch and demanded that the great Jewish council surrender Jehoiakim or the nation would be destroyed. Jehoiakim protested, "Can ye sacrifice one life for another?" Unmoved, the council replied, "Thus did your ancestors do to Sheba the son of Bichri."1 Jehoiakim was released to Nebuchadnezzar, who took him to Babylon (see 2 Chronicles 36:6), where presumably he was executed. Because Zedekiah became king less than four months later (see verses 9–10), at the time the Book of Mormon account begins (see 1 Nephi 1:4), Nephi was probably keenly aware of how the "one for many" principle was used to justify Jehoiakim's death. Clearly, the cases of Laban and Korihor fit within this tradition.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ChristKnight]

Apparently the Church responded to this book when it first came out:

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-response-to-jon-krakauers-under-the-banner-of-heaven

[bluebell]

Not good. I read that book a few years ago and as I recall, I felt it bordered on a hatchet job--but written in a way that it would not be evident to the casual reader. He massaged, manipulated and prodded the evidence to fit his agenda. I had to go later and read up on some of the information he included to get the true events--I doubt most audience members will take the time.

I also read his book "Into Thin Air" which would make a much better movie.

As I remember, he centers the story on the Lafferty brothers, who brutally murdered their sister in law and her little baby daughter (from the forensic evidence, while she stood crying in her crib) back in about 1982 in Provo. They were mainstream LDS, but got involved with a group of men, I think they called themselves the school of the Prophets. Anyway, they started thinking they should practice polygamy (of course) and the sister in law was standing up to them--speaking out against what they were doing. They killed her because of that (the one ringleader brother claimed he'd had a revelation that she should be killed). They are both at Point of the Mountain prison to this day. At one point, Mark Hoffman and one of the Lafferty brother's were cell mates.

Anyway, he uses that crime to go back and look at early LDS history here in Utah when the saints were first getting settled. There were a number of murders of non-LDS people which were blamed on the 'Mormons' in general--and on the church--Danites, blood atonement and that kind of stuff, so you have an idea where this is going.

The saints and church as a whole were often vilified for the crimes of individuals by the contemporary media of their time and often present day writers will use those news articles, books and novels as fact, even though there was no evidence to support the accusations.

I read the book and remember that he got some pretty basic facts about mormonism wrong. That's never a good sign.

Also a red flag, in my opinion, was that there were a few people who were present during the events which comprise his book "Into Thin Air" (which i also read and which a t.v. movie was made, i believe) who took issue with is 'retelling' and who claimed he got some pretty basic yet important stuff wrong in that book as well.

The story itself is an intersting and timeless one-how people justify heinous crimes. The topic is basically how religion helps certain types of people justify horrible acts, but anyone familiar with history knows that a book on the same premise could be written from an atheistic point of view just as easily.

[Jeff K.]

As I grew up in the LDS church, hearing the story of the beheading of Laban, it never phased me. It wasn't until I reached adulthood and began to question many other foundational aspects of Mormonism that I realized that there could have been many more compassionate, and less violent, ways for "the Lord" to accomplish his purposes, rather than commanding Nephi to "slay" a drunken, incapacitated man. I've also become more and more aware that many non-Latter-day Saints find that story to be very problematic--and I'm more inclined to agree with them, now that I no longer share a devoutly LDS paradigm. The Lafferty brothers are a disturbing example of religious fundamentalism taking such a story to it's most violently disturbing interpretation.

I can forgive ignorance regarding the context of the times. And for those who have never really studied history but have chosen to emplace modern contextual mores of society upon ancient more brutal times. Well this is expected. They are errors of ignorance, and so statements made in ignorance deserve some leeway. However, there are other aspects.... I take it you overlooked the portion where they attempted to buy the information and were forced to flee because Laban and his men hunted them and attempted to kill them. Or perhaps how they were in hiding and in fear of their lives that this man would indeed destroy them, even as he had taken their property. I suppose as a mature adult who studied the Book of Mormon these things never occurred to you? Or are we presuming too much of your studies? Perhaps you weren't well informed? While the discussion of faith is one aspect, one cannot compartmentalize the entire incident and ignore the ver real circumstances surrounding Laban's death.

[cdowis]

You are right; it was Joseph Smith that was trying to justify taking polygamous wives, against the teachings of his church, and behind his wife’s back.

CFR please. Wild eyed assertions against the church and the prophet are not appropriate in this forum, so you need to show us your proof. Or you may feel more comfortable in another forum which welcomes such claims.

It may be necessary to start a new thread to give you ample space to explain yourself.

[bluebell]

Nevertheless, the story of Nehi murdering a passed-out drunk because he heard a voice in his head telling him to is still held up as a good example of what you should do in those situations, is it not? If the church were to conclusively teach that Nephi made the wrong choice in killing Laban, it would go a long way in distinguishing the LDS Church’s interpretation of Nephi from Lafferty’s interpretation.

Millions of LDS members who believe in the truthfulness and morality of that account manage not to kill off their aquaintances because they thought God told them to every day.

I might be wrong, but as far as i know, the only people who ever have used that scriptural story as justification to end someone else's life have been people who were kicked out of the LDS church, and therefore weren't even members at the time they committed the crimes.

Only religious fanatics and anti-religion zealots seem to have issues with the verses in question.

[kolipoki09]

I certainly hope Dustin Lance Black makes better use of historical resources than the writers of September Dawn and Big Love. Krakauer wasn't overtly anti-Mormon, and I think much of his work could have been improved if he'd #1 done more homework and #2 enlisted the help of a few LDS historians (i.e. Richard Turley, Gene Sessions, Richard Bushman).

I've rarely seen media portrayals of Mormon Fundamentalism without seeing caricatures of historical Mormonism, which I would venture to say was a very different picture than what fundamentalists claim it was (i.e. Chris Nemelka, James Muir, Jim Harmston, Kody Brown).

From a conservative LDS historical view, I think Craig Foster nailed down Krakauer remarkably well. From my understanding, Krakauer was deeply offended by the fact that Mormons were off-put by his getting things intentionally and maliciously wrong.

[Jaybear]

CFR please. Wild eyed assertions against the church and the prophet are not appropriate in this forum, so you need to show us your proof. Or you may feel more comfortable in another forum which welcomes such claims.

It may be necessary to start a new thread to give you ample space to explain yourself.

What is your CFR directed at.

I thought it was an accepted fact that at that time, members who engaged in polygamy were at risk of being excommunicated if they were caught.

I also thought it was an accepted fact that Smith mislead his wife.

[Analytics]

I notice that there are easier methods of justification than dictating 600 page books. People do it all the time.

The story of Nephi and Laban is presented as an exceptional circumstance, not a typical situation. Nephi's own statement of general principles should count:

Did the Lafferty's discuss this? Does Krakhauer?

Personally, I find Eugene England helpful....

I haven't read the book since it first came out, and I don't recall if Krakhauer mentioned those verses.

In a general way, your references support my point. After all, just like your authors, the Laffertys took this story very seriously, believed that it was not only literal history but literal scripture. They studied it, pondered it, and prayed about it.

According to the Eugene England article, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland considered the commandment to be an Abrahamic Test. The story is to force all readers to deal with it and to focus on the absolutely fundamental gospel issue of obedience and submission to the communicated will of the Lord. If Nephi cannot yield to this terribly painful command, if he cannot bring himself to obey, then it is entirely probable that he can never succeed or survive in the tasks that lie just ahead. (itallics quoting Holland).

By the same process of sincere and diligent gospel study, the Laffertys came to the same conclusion as Holland. And when they received their own Abrahamic test and received a commandment from God to kill, they diligently obeyed. According to the book, Ron Lafferty was a bit of a psychopath and experienced some rage, by Dan Lafferty, before, during, and after their act of Abrahamic obedience, maintained a state of equanimity and faith that he was doing the will of God.

In their mind, it was certainly an exceptional circumstance, but not one without scriptural precedence.

[Daniel2]

I can forgive ignorance regarding the context of the times. And for those who have never really studied history but have chosen to emplace modern contextual mores of society upon ancient more brutal times. Well this is expected. They are errors of ignorance, and so statements made in ignorance deserve some leeway. However, there are other aspects.... I take it you overlooked the portion where they attempted to buy the information and were forced to flee because Laban and his men hunted them and attempted to kill them. Or perhaps how they were in hiding and in fear of their lives that this man would indeed destroy them, even as he had taken their property. I suppose as a mature adult who studied the Book of Mormon these things never occurred to you? Or are we presuming too much of your studies? Perhaps you weren't well informed? While the discussion of faith is one aspect, one cannot compartmentalize the entire incident and ignore the ver real circumstances surrounding Laban's death.

So, you're saying that since Laban previously refused to sell his property to Nephi, and because Nephi and his brothers were also previously chased and threatened by Laban's guards (not to mention that Laban stole the loot with which Nephi attempted to purchase the Brass Plates), that God was incapable of giving Laban a heart-attack, instead of ordering Nephi to kill him? Or that God was incapable of simply revealing the content of the Brass Plates to Nephi, to avoid bloodshed altogether? Or that the historical context of living in ancient times, as well as Laban's despicable behavior, warrented his death?

I fail to see how any lack of information about any of the justifications you propose could make an allegedly God-mandated execution of an unconscious drunk more palatable (EDIT: thanks, Kevin!) to a mature adult.

Daniel2

[Kevin Christensen]

I think you mean to say palatable, not palpable.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Analytics]

CFR please. Wild eyed assertions against the church and the prophet are not appropriate in this forum, so you need to show us your proof. Or you may feel more comfortable in another forum which welcomes such claims.

It may be necessary to start a new thread to give you ample space to explain yourself.

I’ll address the CFR in a Q&A format.

Q: Did Joseph Smith try to justify taking polygamous wives?

A: Yes. D&C 132 repeatedly uses the word "justified" in the context of Joseph’s actions, and the conditions under which, when "any man" desires to espouse another virgin is justified in doing so.

Q: Was polygamy against the teachings of his church?

A: Yes. The official teachings of the church, as canonized in the D&C and repeatedly sustained by the church contained the following passage: Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife ... (Doctrine and Covenants 111: 4).

Those were the publically defended, canonized, teachings of the church.

Q: Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy behind his wife’s back?

A: In some cases, yes. For example, in 1843, Emily Dow Partridge (age 20), and Eliza Marie Partridge (age 24), were Joseph Smith’s housekeepers. On March 4th of that year, Emily and Joseph Smith got married, with Heber C. Kimball performing the marriage ceremony. A few days later, Eliza married him also. In the words of Emily, “This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith.” A couple of months later, Emma finally agreed to let Joseph Smith have some plural wives, with the condition that she be allowed to choose them. In a stroke of misplaced trust and irony, Emma chose Emily and Eliza to be his plural wives. In the words of Emily, “to save family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed. Accordingly on the 11th of May, 1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma's presence, she giving her free and full consent thereto.”

See The Historical Record, Volume 5-6, page 240, to see Emily’s full account. It is available on Google Books.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 20 July 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

I can forgive ignorance regarding the context of the times. And for those who have never really studied history but have chosen to emplace modern contextual mores of society upon ancient more brutal times. Well this is expected. They are errors of ignorance, and so statements made in ignorance deserve some leeway. However, there are other aspects.... I take it you overlooked the portion where they attempted to buy the information and were forced to flee because Laban and his men hunted them and attempted to kill them. Or perhaps how they were in hiding and in fear of their lives that this man would indeed destroy them, even as he had taken their property. I suppose as a mature adult who studied the Book of Mormon these things never occurred to you? Or are we presuming too much of your studies? Perhaps you weren't well informed? While the discussion of faith is one aspect, one cannot compartmentalize the entire incident and ignore the ver real circumstances surrounding Laban's death.

So, you're saying that since Laban previously refused to sell his property to Nephi, and because Nephi and his brothers were also previously chased and threatened by Laban's guards (not to mention that Laban stole the loot with which Nephi attempted to purchase the Brass Plates), that God was incapable of giving Laban a heart-attack, instead of ordering Nephi to kill him? Or that God was incapable of simply revealing the content of the Brass Plates to Nephi, to avoid bloodshed altogether? Or that the historical context of living in ancient times, as well as Laban's despicable behavior, warrented his death?

I fail to see how any lack of information about any of the justifications you propose could make an allegedly God-mandated execution of an unconscious drunk more palpable to a mature adult.

Daniel2

13 And behold, it came to pass that Laban was angry, and thrust him out from his presence; and he would not that he should have the records. Wherefore, he said unto him: Behold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee. (1 Nephi 3:13)

I am sorry God doesn't want to meet your Hollywood script and give someone a "heartattack". Why didn't Pharoah just die the first day and why didn't Goliath simply fall dead... Why didn't God simply make the Canaanites dispappear... and so on and so on... Seems to me God does command us to do things as his servants to build and test our faith. However you missed the point, as it seems you missed the scripture. It was indeed a case of self defense where their lives were in peril. Indeed there is nothing stating that Laban would have left them alone after taking their property. So as I have said. It is excusable to be ignorant of history, to not know much of context. But if you claim to have read the scriptures and then used them as some sort of justification in attacking the church, then the least you could do is read them rather than having to fumble with backstepping excuses.

[Daniel2]

I am sorry God doesn't want to meet your Hollywood script and give someone a "heartattack".

Your mockery of a more compassionate approach, wherein a Heavenly Father doesn't require his children to kill one another to accomplish his purposes, is noted.

Why didn't Pharoah just die the first day and why didn't Goliath simply fall dead... Why didn't God simply make the Canaanites dispappear... and so on and so on...

Because, like the dieties of ancient Greece, Rome, Scandanavia, Asia, Africa, and South America, the dieties of the Middle East are not literally real, but are the creation of man in his own (and oftentimes rather primative and occassionally capricious) image.

Incidently, my criticism of God's command to kill others isn't limited to Mormon-exclusive scripture; I find God's murderous requirements in the Old and New Testament to be just as abhorrent.

Seems to me God does command us to do things as his servants to build and test our faith.

Again... a God that requires some of his children to kill others to accomplish his purposes, or especially in order to build and test their faith--is exactly the kind of foundation of Mormonism that the Lafferty brothers were displaying, as detailed in "Under the Banner of Heaven." I don't think your words are persuasively advancing your case, to those of us who aren't wearing the rose-colored glasses.

However you missed the point, as it seems you missed the scripture. It was indeed a case of self defense where their lives were in peril. Indeed there is nothing stating that Laban would have left them alone after taking their property. So as I have said. It is excusable to be ignorant of history, to not know much of context. But if you claim to have read the scriptures and then used them as some sort of justification in attacking the church, then the least you could do is read them rather than having to fumble with backstepping excuses.

I also find it amazing that I overlooked my current understanding of "The Book of Mormon" the first seven times I read it cover-to-cover, not to mention the countless hours of scripture study in Seminary, BYU religion classes, and the many years I taught Gospel Doctrine, Gospel Essentials, and Priesthood. Since my own paradigm shift, I've appreciated learning more about how we humans have an amazing capacity for emotional blind-spots and self deception in order to minimize cognitive dissonance.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 20 July 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

I am sorry God doesn't want to meet your Hollywood script and give someone a "heartattack".

Your mockery of a more compassionate approach, wherein a Heavenly Father doesn't require his children to kill one another to accomplish his purposes, is noted.

Which shows an incorrect view. Why doesn't Heavenly Father put us all in a Garden of Eden? Why isn't everything easy? Why do we have to do things?

Because, like the dieties of ancient Greece, Rome, Scandanavia, Asia, Africa, and South America, the dieties of the Middle East are not literally real, but are the creation of man in his own (and oftentimes rather primative and occassionally capricious) image.

.

Or like so many who have given up and given in to their carnal natures. It is easier to have things done for your, to have your own actions justified by removing the thing which makes them wrong. It is so much easier to say there isn't a God in order to carry out your own personal pecadillos, than to have to go through a repentance process. With your method there is no worry, no guilt, nothing to prevent you from going to the next level.

Incidently, my criticism of God's command to kill others isn't limited to Mormon-exclusive scripture; I find God's murderous requirements in the Old and New Testament to be just as abhorrent

One wonders which is more abhorrent, the fact sometimes in battling evil God has had lives taken (lives which he has granted), or that you want Him to take a life and thus give yourself some kind of self imposed "I can't be bothered with it" moral cover.

Quote

Seems to me God does command us to do things as his servants to build and test our faith

.

Again... a God that requires some of his children to kill others to accomplish his purposes, or especially in order to build and test their faith--is exactly the kind of foundation of Mormonism that the Lafferty brothers were displaying, as detailed in "Under the Banner of Heaven." I don't think your words are persuasively advancing your case, to those of us who aren't wearing the rose-colored glasses.

Wrong. As the idea behind Laban's death is explained had been explained within a proper context, it appears you have chosen to ignore the context in order to keep repeating what is obviously a false point. You brought up the death of Laban, you did so with a certain depth of ignorance both of the scripture and the historical context. You raised it in order to show that our church believes in such actions. Unfortunately you did a poor job of research (anti Mormons usually make the knee jerk reaction by using Laban's death as some indication of our blood thirsty nature) in understanding the scripturet at all, and seem to have overlooked the entire motive of self defense.

I also find it amazing that I overlooked my current understanding of "The Book of Mormon" the first seven times I read it cover-to-cover, not to mention the countless hours of scripture study in Seminary, BYU religion classes, and the many years I taught Gospel Doctrine, Gospel Essentials, and Priesthood. Since my own paradigm shift, I've appreciated learning more about how we humans have an amazing capacity for emotional blind-spots and self deception in order to minimize cognitive dissonance.

I didn't find it amazing at all. Some people seem to have a penchant for overlooking things they might not be comfortable with. Law of Chastity for instance, tithing, loving one's family. Funny how so many other people have taken the same classes, read the same books, and then simultaneously understood it quite well. There are apparently things some prefer to gloss over rather than study on, no matter how many times they have run into it.

[Daniel2]

Which shows an incorrect view. Why doesn't Heavenly Father put us all in a Garden of Eden? Why isn't everything easy? Why do we have to do things?

See my answer to your previous queries about "why doesn't God do [x]?"

Or like so many who have given up and given in to their carnal natures. It is easier to have things done for your, to have your own actions justified by removing the thing which makes them wrong. It is so much easier to say there isn't a God in order to carry out your own personal pecadillos, than to have to go through a repentance process. With your method there is no worry, no guilt, nothing to prevent you from going to the next level.

Morality exists independant of God or belief in any conscious higher power. Worry and guilt likewise can exist, without any belief in God. Finally, a desire to improve the world, promote goodness, and be a better person can come from within one's self, rather than being reliant upon an imaginary being as the source of such.

One wonders which is more abhorrent, the fact sometimes in battling evil God has had lives taken (lives which he has granted), or that you want Him to take a life and thus give yourself some kind of self imposed "I can't be bothered with it" moral cover.

I don't "want God to take a life"--as I've explained, I hold no belief in any such God. My questions were an attempt to engage your mythology in it's own terms to demonstrate that there are yet more compassionate means for God to have accomplished the purposes your mythology claims to promote, rather than the black and white "self-defense" stance you've taken (a stance I find laughable. Would any court in America accept such a defense? "Your honor, the drunken, unconcsious man I beheaded last night had his thugs try to kill me the day before... So when I went back last night and found him drunk and asleep in the street, it should be excused that I cut off his head, disguised myself as him, and stole the property I had attempted to buy the day before. It was just 'self defense'! Plus, God told me to do it." Good luck finding a judge--even a Mormon one, who'd accept that "defense.")

Wrong. As the idea behind Laban's death is explained had been explained within a proper context, it appears you have chosen to ignore the context in order to keep repeating what is obviously a false point. You brought up the death of Laban, you did so with a certain depth of ignorance both of the scripture and the historical context. You raised it in order to show that our church believes in such actions. Unfortunately you did a poor job of research (anti Mormons usually make the knee jerk reaction by using Laban's death as some indication of our blood thirsty nature) in understanding the scripturet at all, and seem to have overlooked the entire motive of self defense.

Nothing you've shared with me about the cultural context in the story related in First Nephi has given me any knowledge that I didn't already have, so I'm puzzled by your claim of ignorance on my part of "scripture and historical context." You may consider me an "anti-Mormon," but I certainly don't have a lack of research on that particular matter--nor have I accused Mormons of having a "blood thirsty nature."

Some people seem to have a penchant for overlooking things they might not be comfortable with.

Indeed. I highly agree.

Law of Chastity for instance, tithing, loving one's family. Funny how so many other people have taken the same classes, read the same books, and then simultaneously understood it quite well. There are apparently things some prefer to gloss over rather than study on, no matter how many times they have run into it.

Again, we can certainly agree on that. I'd add Joseph Smith's polygamy, polygamy in general, previous LDS leaders' racist teachings on blacks, and the numerous problems with the historicity of The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham to that list.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Or like so many who have given up and given in to their carnal natures. It is easier to have things done for your, to have your own actions justified by removing the thing which makes them wrong. It is so much easier to say there isn't a God in order to carry out your own personal pecadillos, than to have to go through a repentance process. With your method there is no worry, no guilt, nothing to prevent you from going to the next level.

Morality exists independant of God or belief in any conscious higher power. Worry and guilt likewise can exist, without any belief in God. Finally, a desire to improve the world, promote goodness, and be a better person can come from within one's self, rather than being reliant upon an imaginary being as the source of such.

To those who claim that, morality is merely a relativist term. You would find yourself in agreement with the Lafferty Brothers more than I do since I reject their view that they are promoting goodness in the world. You however would be hard pressed to argue they cannot have that promotion of goodness within themselves. I believe morality is objective and is taught to us by God, since reason counters sacrifice often and reason fails us in determining what is good.

Jeff K., on 20 July 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

Which shows an incorrect view. Why doesn't Heavenly Father put us all in a Garden of Eden? Why isn't everything easy? Why do we have to do things?

See my answer to your previous queries about "why doesn't God do [x]?"

From your standpoint I assume, you believe if there is a God, there should be no death.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Law of Chastity for instance, tithing, loving one's family. Funny how so many other people have taken the same classes, read the same books, and then simultaneously understood it quite well. There are apparently things some prefer to gloss over rather than study on, no matter how many times they have run into it.

Again, we can certainly agree on that. I'd add Joseph Smith's polygamy, polygamy in general, previous LDS leaders' racist teachings on blacks, and the numerous problems with the historicity of The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham to that list.

Again, you don't understand church history very well. I suggest you read up on it, and maybe if you have the time take a history class or two regarding the times. Especially how LDS leaders never segregated their congregations, how Brigham Young passed a voting rights act eliminating race before the US government did, and a number of other issues that apparently you have overlooked. It is good when prophets are able to overcome their environment to do God's work.

Perhaps a review of your own life would lead to you to think more carefully on your words and what you seem to easily justify as you jettison God and moral codes for your own desires and wants.

[Judd]

I think all too often it is neglected that this isn't just someone thinking they had a prompting, which could be interpreted if you only take into consideration that chapter and neglect the previous chapter where an angel appeared and said the Lord would deliver Laban into their hands. Whether or not you believe in angels, or that one appeared to Nephi, is irrelevant. When taking into context the preceding chapter it makes the comparison to any ridiculous thing someone does because of "a prompting" a ridiculous contrast where the two scenarios share little more religious overtones.