Do Ends Ever Justify Means In Mormonism

[Stone holm]

On many Sundays we sit in Church and sing the words, "Do what is right let the consequence follow.." In most countries if you slew a drunk who was passed out at the curb and the evidence of your deeds came to light you would be eligible to be convicted of murder. Yet in the early chapters of the BOM one of the most revered personages of that scripture does just that. So the question arises does ends ever justify the means?

[Calm]

In most countries if you slew a drunk who was passed out at the curb and the evidence of your deeds came to light you would be eligible to be convicted of murder.

The relevant question would be if this was the law in Jerusalem at Nephi's time. Whether or not it was the law in other countries then or now or anytime in between is really irrelevant (which is not to say the morality of the act varies as to time and place). Edited April 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Most of the time, the ends and the means are in harmony and the issue does not arise as a conflict.

[blackstrap]

Presentism and cultural bias again raise their heads . 1. I suspect that the authorities of the day went looking for the killer of Laban as he most assuredly had friends in high places. 2. I am reminded again of the story told by Nibley about the Arab students in his BoM class who, when shown the verses about Nephi and Laban, asked, " why did Nephi wait so long to kill Laban who was a thief and enemy to the family."

God,who knows the end from the beginning, often uses whatever means is necessary .

[Brian 2.0]

Presentism and cultural bias again raise their heads

...

God,who knows the end from the beginning, often uses whatever means is necessary .

It also okay to think that the writer of the scripture may just be wrong in exactly what was commanded to them.

I find it impossible to stomach the idea that God would command the killing of ALL the Canaanites, including men, women, and children. Presentism, maybe, but I just can't believe in a God who would command that type of killing. And I'm much more comfortable when a believer who says they don't believe God did command it, rather than a believer who justifies it, and thinks it possible that God did and could command a people to do that.

[volgadon]

I should have a blog post soon on the venerable concept of sin for the sake of heaven.

[Stone holm]

The relevant question would be if this was the law in Jerusalem at Nephi's time. Whether or not it was the law in other countries then or now or anytime in between is really irrelevant (which is not to say the morality of the act varies as to time and place).

So you think that the law in Jerusalem at the time would not have considered the private slaying of a drunk in the gutter as murder?

[Avatar4321]

So you think that the law in Jerusalem at the time would not have considered the private slaying of a drunk in the gutter as murder?

The Law of Moses permits killing when prompted by the Spirit.

[Calm]

So you think that the law in Jerusalem at the time would not have considered the private slaying of a drunk in the gutter as murder?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu//publications/pdf/jbms/792565429-1-1.pdf

Abstract: This article marshals ancient legal evidence to show that Nephi’s slaying of Laban should be understood as a protected manslaughter rather than a criminal homicide. The biblical law of murder demanded a higher level of premeditation and hostility than Nephi exhibited or modern law requires. It is argued that Exodus 21:13 protected more than accidental slayings or unconscious acts, particularly where God was seen as having delivered the victim into the slayer’s hand. Various rationales for Nephi’s killing of Laban are explored, including ancient views on surrendering one person for the benefit of a whole community. Other factors within the Book of Mormon as well as in Moses’ killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2 corroborate the conclusion that Nephi did not commit the equivalent of a first-degree murder under the laws of his day.

[Stone holm]

The Law of Moses permits killing when prompted by the Spirit.

Where does it say that? This isn't a challenge just an honest question.

[Brian 2.0]

Why should the law of the land matter at all? The legality or cultural acceptance of something doesn't make it all the sudden okay. Cultural norms of the day might be somewhat of an excuse for a person living in that day, but not for God. I could care less whether back in the day the entire world thought it appropriate and necessary to disembowel a cat if it ate your dinner off your plate, I would still expect God to be more progressive than those people and never command the disemboweling of a cat.

[Calm]

Why should the law of the land matter at all? The legality or cultural acceptance of something doesn't make it all the sudden okay. Cultural norms of the day might be somewhat of an excuse for a person living in that day, but not for God. I could care less whether back in the day the entire world thought it appropriate and necessary to disembowel a cat if it ate your dinner off your plate, I would still expect God to be more progressive than those people and never command the disemboweling of a cat.

So if God knew Laban's heart, knew he had tried to kill Nephi and his brothers before and would continue to pursue them to the best of his ability, do you think it was acceptable for God to instruct Nephi to execute him? Would it make a difference to you if Laban was sober and had a sword in his own hand and God directed Nephi where to find Laban so as to confront him this way instead of how to avoid him?

[Stone holm]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu//publications/pdf/jbms/792565429-1-1.pdf

Okay, I can go with that and it strongly suggests that the answer ti the question posited in the title is, yes the ends sometimes justifies the means. Which leads to the next question, namely...when?

[ksfisher]

I don't think that the example of Nephi killing Laban is a fair example of whether or not the ends justify the means in Mormonism. It is an extreme situation, which practicly zero members of the church, or any church, today will ever face.

What if Nephi had also emptied all the money out of Laban's pockets? Would a mormon pay tithing on that money? Did the Lehites violate immigration law when they landed in the new world? Does this mean that mormons can ignore any law if it suits their purpose?

If we try hard enough we can think of all sorts of extreme and silly example whereby to judge the entire membeship of the church today.

[Brian 2.0]

So if God knew Laban's heart, knew he had tried to kill Nephi and his brothers before and would continue to pursue them to the best of his ability, do you think it was acceptable for God to instruct Nephi to execute him? Would it make a difference to you if Laban was sober and had a sword in his own hand and God directed Nephi where to find Laban so as to confront him this way instead of how to avoid him?

That's fine, but your reasoning here mentions nothing regarding laws of the land. I'm referring to the abstract you posted and others post regarding the legality of it -- if it was according the "laws of Jerusalem" or the "laws of his day." And I'm saying those facts are irrelevant. If Nephi simply killed Laban on his on accord and mentioned nothing about God commanding him to do it, then it seems appropriate to pull in legal stuff from his day to figure out his worldview and such. But since we're talking about God commanding something, where does the law of the land come into play to justify such commands?

Your reasons you post in this post are fine, and are valid arguments to put forth. But I fail to see how laws of the Jerusalem in Nephi's day play into this.

It's like saying, "it was legal to enslave black people back then, that's why it's cool God commanded them to enslave those black people."

Edited April 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[ERayR]

It also okay to think that the writer of the scripture may just be wrong in exactly what was commanded to them.

I find it impossible to stomach the idea that God would command the killing of ALL the Canaanites, including men, women, and children. Presentism, maybe, but I just can't believe in a God who would command that type of killing. And I'm much more comfortable when a believer who says they don't believe God did command it, rather than a believer who justifies it, and thinks it possible that God did and could command a people to do that.

What do you think of a God who would send warning and prophecies of terrible judgements and destruction of lives in the end time judgements?

[Brian 2.0]

What do you think of a God who would send warning and prophecies of terrible judgements and destruction of lives in the end time judgements?

Cool, God, just don't kill babies, okay?

That's probably what I would say.

Or just don't command people to kill babies, if that's cool with you.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[ERayR]

Cool, God, just don't kill babies, okay?

That's probably what I would say.

Or just don't command people to kill babies, if that's cool with you.

Your approach is cool with me. I really quite approve of that approach. However, when such things happen it is usually the children that take the brunt of it while those who cause it sit back in comfortable surroundings, well guarded. That sad and cruel fact causes me to harbor some very dark thoughts for a practicing Christian but I do not doubt that God, at the very least. allows it. I have some very specific punishments that I would personally like to inflict. As the scriptures say: It would be better that a mill stone be hanged about their necks and they be cast in the depths of the sea.

[Glenn101]

On many Sundays we sit in Church and sing the words, "Do what is right let the consequence follow.." In most countries if you slew a drunk who was passed out at the curb and the evidence of your deeds came to light you would be eligible to be convicted of murder. Yet in the early chapters of the BOM one of the most revered personages of that scripture does just that. So the question arises does ends ever justify the means?

I really think that the question should be, was person xxx commanded by God? I.E. are the accounts of God ordering the deaths of complete nations, including women and children, including suckling babies indeed an accurate rendition of the events? This would include the story of the flood itself and God as the actual perpetrator.

If those scriptures are an acurate portrayal of the events, i.e. commanded by God, then the answer would be that the ends are justified, whatever the means if commanded by God.

Nephi's position was echoed much earlier by an event concerning Samuel the prophet and a king of Amelekites that the Lord had commanded Saul to destroy, man, woman, child, ox, and donkey. Saul did not hearken and kept Agag alive as well as the best of the sheep, cattle, etc. When Samuel saw Agag, he did not hesitate but rather uncermoniously "hewed Agag in pieces". Samuel was a prophet of god and had seen in the past what could happen when one disobeyed God's commands (as in his former mentor, Eli). There was no doubt in Samuel's mind as to what he was was supposed to do, and he did it.

That may seem odious and barbaric to us in our day. There are those who suppose that those scriptures are just the authors trying to justify their evil acts by claiming that those acts were commanded by God. However, those scriptures have not been repudiated by any prophet since that time, including Jesus.

Unless we have some further revelations on the subject which do refute those scriptures, including the flood, that is what we have.

I think that it is good that we do cringe at the thought of killing anyone at all, and hope that we never are in that position of ever being commanded to take a human life.

That is also something that I do not believe that God will require of us. We live in a different day and age, and yes, the laws and customs of the land do play a part in what the Lord will require of His people.

Glenn

[Calm]

That's fine, but your reasoning here mentions nothing regarding laws of the land. I'm referring to the abstract you posted and others post regarding the legality of it -- if it was according the "laws of Jerusalem" or the "laws of his day." And I'm saying those facts are irrelevant. If Nephi simply killed Laban on his on accord and mentioned nothing about God commanding him to do it, then it seems appropriate to pull in legal stuff from his day to figure out his worldview and such. But since we're talking about God commanding something, where does the law of the land come into play to justify such commands?

Your reasons you post in this post are fine, and are valid arguments to put forth. But I fail to see how laws of the Jerusalem in Nephi's day play into this.

It's like saying, "it was legal to enslave black people back then, that's why it's cool God commanded them to enslave those black people."

I think you misunderstood.

You were talking about God not encouraging immoral acts in response so I responded solely from that POV, disregarding whether or not it was legal and focusing on when it would be appropriate/moral for God to tell someone to kill someone else (which in my opinion would be moral in a self defence situation or to save other innocent lives....since God knows the man's heart and future actions the situation would not require limitation to only being in immediate danger where it is obvious the other wants to harm you, but also to less overt situations where the behaviour would be unknown to any mortal....but not to God.)

Does that make sense?

For me the legal issue...which Stone holm was talking about...is separate from the "would God command it" issue which you were talking about.

If it helps, I am agnostic about God commanding certain acts like genocide...and whether or not the scriptures portray what really happened. After all the scriptures in some places talk about the total destruction of a people and yet the next book has them still living among the Israelites IIRC.

Edited April 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

I think you misunderstood.

You were talking about God not encouraging immoral acts in response so I responded solely from that POV, disregarding whether or not it was legal and focusing on when it would be appropriate/moral for God to tell someone to kill someone else (which in my opinion would be moral in a self defence situation or to save other innocent lives....since God knows the man's heart and future actions the situation would not require limitation to only being in immediate danger where it is obvious the other wants to harm you, but also to less overt situations where the behaviour would be unknown to any mortal....but not to God.)

Does that make sense?

For me the legal issue...which Stone holm was talking about...is separate from the "would God command it" issue which you were talking about.

If it helps, I am agnostic about God commanding certain acts like genocide...and whether or not the scriptures portray what really happened. After all the scriptures in some places talk about the total destruction of a people and yet the next book has them still living among the Israelites IIRC.

I hear you. We were addressed different points I guess. Sounds like we are pretty in line with each other.

As far as God commanding someone to kill someone... I recommend a new rule: If God commands you to kill someone... politely pass. If you were wrong in your interpretation and God wasn't telling you to kill someone, and you were just kinda going nuts, or listening to Satan... whew! Aren't you glad you didn't kill that person?! If God was commanding you to kill the person, I'm sure he'll be cool with you if you just explain that you were just very afraid of making the wrong decision and killing an innocent person. I think the world would be a lot better off if we just all kept that one rule.

[Calm]

I think the world would be a lot better off if we just all kept that one rule.

And I might be okay with that unless I found out that person went and killed someone else because I was cautious....

I don't believe I could kill someone, I can't even dream about hitting, let alone killing someone or something. Whenever I dream about a gun, they turn to fingers pointing and me trying to go 'bang, bang' like a kid. I would hope I would be able to in defense of someone else, but I am afraid I would likely just freeze.

Edited April 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

Most of the time, the ends and the means are in harmony and the issue does not arise as a conflict.

What? Are you serious? Why do we have courts then?Is there no court system in Utah, or is it a system just for those who aren't Mormons? The whole defense system in the courts is to try to justify behaviors once an action has been proven. It sounds like you are saying because of the harmony between ends and means that the ends justify the means, or are you stating such is true when done by church members?

[california boy]

The question that I find interesting and no one is asking is this; If God wants someone dead, why doesn't He just take the life himself? If God is able to make Laban drunk, fall asleep in the gutter and "deliver" him to Nephi to slay, why can't he just give Laban a heart attack? God certainly has power over life and death. Why was it important for israelites to go around murdering entire nations including women and children? I guess you could say it was some kind of test. But aren't there test that can be asked that don't involve the breaking of the Ten Commandments? Certainly Nephi passed numerous tests that proved his devotion to God. Is killing Laban the supreme test??

[Calm]

What? Are you serious? Why do we have courts then?Is there no court system in Utah, or is it a system just for those who aren't Mormons? The whole defense system in the courts is to try to justify behaviors once an action has been proven. It sounds like you are saying because of the harmony between ends and means that the ends justify the means, or are you stating such is true when done by church members?

I suspect what he means is something along the lines of that the vast majority of our behaviours do not result in the possibility of us being brought to a court, generally most of the ordinary every day behaviours we engage in are justified (whether done by LDS or not). I could be wrong in what he said though, that is my interpretation of it.