Do Ends Ever Justify Means In Mormonism

[Tacenda]

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??

I agree, some people just say it came from God in order to validate the evil they want to perpetuate. .

[CV75]

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?

God works in mysterious ways, and His ends and His means are both justified. This is because He atoned, giving Him all power over both. Laban will be resurrected like everyone else, and can receive a kingdom of glory on the same terms that everyone else does.

[CASteinman]

What? Are you serious?

Yes

Why do we have courts then?

1. To record information.

2. To settle disputes.

3. To determine facts and guilt or innocence and hand sentences for crimes.

4. To interpret the law.

The whole defense system in the courts is to try to justify behaviors once an action has been proven.

I do not think so.

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 am saying that the ends and the means are often in harmony and there is no conflict between them. And as a result, the question in the OP may be esoteric.

[Stone holm]

I suppose one might argue that in Mormonism ends justifying the means lies at the very core of our beliefs because Heavenly Father's plan allowed for the creation of sons of perdition in order to allow for the exaltation of some of His children.

[CASteinman]

I suppose one might argue that in Mormonism ends justifying the means lies at the very core of our beliefs because Heavenly Father's plan allowed for the creation of sons of perdition in order to allow for the exaltation of some of His children.

Horrendous logic. Upside down and inside out.

You cannot reasonably say that a consequence (the ends) is the same thing as the cause (the means). People are not exalted BECAUSE there are sons of Perdition. Nor is it the other way around.

The MEANS is the Gospel -- as described by Jesus. The ENDS are the results of that Gospel, including Resurrection and Glory or Darkness.

[CV75]

I suppose one might argue that in Mormonism ends justifying the means lies at the very core of our beliefs because Heavenly Father's plan allowed for the creation of sons of perdition in order to allow for the exaltation of some of His children.

Not to wax overly semantic, but “end” can mean various things. Inasmuch as it means “purpose,” the end of the plan of salvation is that all are exalted. Inasmuch as it means option, the end of the plan of salvation is whatever glory we are willing to receive. Inasmuch as it means a final condition, the end of the plan of salvation is the resurrected immortal state.

So when we speak in terms of “Heavenly Father's plan allowed for the creation of sons of perdition in order to allow for the exaltation of some of His children,” this has more to do with options (which He governs by virtue of mercy and justice) than with the means of obtaining any one of those options (which we govern by virtue of our agency in relation to His eternal mercy and justice).

So He justifies nothing that is not in line with His purpose.

[thesometimesaint]

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??

God didn't make Laban drunk Laban did.

It was Nephi's trial. Not Gods'

Don't know. But I'm just as glad I'm glad to be alive today and not in Joshua's time.

Have to leave more later.

[ERayR]

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.

Cal I don't know about you but I am sure that if my grandchildren were threatened I could do it.

Edited April 19, 2013 by ERayR

[Kevin Christensen]

Does it ever make sense to try to derive a general principle from what is clearly an exceptional circumstance? As a general principle, the Book of Mormon condemns murder and violence. It takes a determined reader with an industrial strength set of blinders misread the story of Laban and Nephi into one of general principles, rather than one of exceptional circumstances.

There are some excellent essays that delve into the story of Nephi and Laban from a wide range of perspectives that emphasize the exceptional circumstances.. Nibley has done the cultural background. Welch has done the ancient legal background, including the very recent discovery that the argument that it would be better for one man to die had recently been part of the public debate to surrender the king the to the Babylonians. Ben McGuire discusses the allusions to the David and Goliath story. Noel Reynolds looks at the political context. Eugene England has compared it to Rene Girard's work on violence and scapegoating. Val Larsen has examined the difference between personal motives and sovereignty (in JBMS 61:1). Tod Harris has looked at the account in comparison to Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces here:

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PS

[ERayR]

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??

God can accomplish anything he wants. He just wants to give you a chance to see how committed you are.

[Calm]

Cal I don't know about you but I am sure that if my grandchildren were threatened I could do it.

There are very few thing that fill me with rage...children being harmed is one of them so perhaps I might be able to do it, it is just such a foreign experience to me I cannot imagine it.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

I agree that his comments are unclear and ill-defined. To quote Michael Pain, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

But I wasn't referencing to our everyday activities. And as you say, our usual activities, shouldn't be bringing us into court, on the average. But when our activities land us in court and as the accused, if proven a principal in the case, we must defend our actions. Merely stating that the cause was the will of God, will do little to establish innocence nor gain acquittal.

Nephi didn't land in court for the murder of the drunk Laban. He did, however, live under the Law of Moses which clearly states that killing is frowned upon. Should a modern Mormon kill someone and end up in court, I don't see where the argument that "the end justifies the means" is a valid argument. If the song is right, "Do what is right let the consequence follow.." The consequence is you will end up in jail.

[bcuzbcuz]

God can accomplish anything he wants. He just wants to give you a chance to see how committed you are.

And if a voice in your head says to kill someone, is that a test to see how "committed" you are?

[Calm]

He did, however, live under the Law of Moses which clearly states that killing is frowned upon.

Murder or "unlawful killing"*** is frowned upon....some killing/execution is actually required IIRC by the Law of Moses.

And as the link I posted demonstrated, it is possible that under the Law of Moses, Nephi's killing of Laban was legal.

***See here for a less than authoritative explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

Edited April 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

Ends are the only things that can justify means.

What's the point to a "means" if it aims at no end?

Companies don't build factories for their own sake, but to produce cars (or whatever). Factory workers don't work in them purely for the sake of working in them, but to earn a pay check. And so forth.

The statement "The ends justify the means" makes no sense when used as a condemnation. Of course they do. But some ends are unworthy or wrong, and some means are too expensive, or too morally questionable, for their "end" (or, in some cases, for any end) to justify them.

[escott3564]

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 don't understand it, but it is an end which the Lord personally commanded, so in that case, yes. I don't know what would have happened had Nephi not slew Laban. We won't ever know. Laban might have been able to use forces to come after Lehi and his family later to either execute them all, or retrieve the Brass Plates again, or both.

[ERayR]

And if a voice in your head says to kill someone, is that a test to see how "committed" you are?

Are you having trouble with voices in your head? If you have not been getting your direction through the promptings of the Holy Ghost it would probably be difficult to tell. I would say one ought to become familiar enough with the Holy Ghost to differentiate between his promptings and schizophrenia.

[Kenngo1969]

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

It's true that we, quite rightly these days, conclude that a perpetrator is "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" when s/he kills a child and claims that God commanded him or her to do so. But the fact of the matter is that unless we have, a priori, concluded that if there were a god, he wouldn't do [x], then we have to allow for a god who "kill babies" all the time. Even if we dismiss the prospect that God at all was involved in an instance of someone killing someone because s/he said God told him or her to do so, we still have to account for other instances in which people (including the young) are "killed" ... by such things as disease and accidents ... all the time. In order to allow for the existence of God in such a world we must conclude (a) that there is one; (b) that we are not Him; © that He will not allow His purposes to be frustrated (even if we do not understand them); and (d) that we only have a limited, finite understanding of those purposes, whatever they are.

According to Mormon thought, if children die before the age of accountability their eternal fate is assured. As tragic as such deaths might seem to the finite mind, if God's overriding purpose is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," isn't that purpose achieved even when children die before they have a chance to grow, go to school, marry, start a career, start a family, et cetera? According to this perspective, might God's purposes be better served by not allowing children to reach the age of accountability (but, instead, commanding that "every man, woman, and child" in a particular society be killed rather than allowing that child to reach accountability, only to follow in his ancestors' iniquitous footsteps)?

Other than the intermediate agent, and the fact that it offends our 21st-century laws, norms, and mores, is there really any difference between God commanding one person to kill (an) other(s) and God doing the "killing" Himself through accident or disease?

[Calm]

Other than the intermediate agent....

Which is I think a very significant point...

[california boy]

God didn't make Laban drunk Laban did.

It was Nephi's trial. Not Gods'

Don't know. But I'm just as glad I'm glad to be alive today and not in Joshua's time.

Have to leave more later.

So did God "deliver" Laban to Nephi or not?

Why was Nephi's trial breaking one of the very laws of God? Was not Nephi tested in other ways as well? Were they not a trial?

Do you have any problem with others that say "God delivered this bus load of Jews to me, and God told me to blow the bus up?

Godwin's Law.

[Brian 2.0]

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

Cal I don't know about you but I am sure that if my grandchildren were threatened I could do it.

I could do it if my kids were threatened for sure. But there is a big difference between

A) Killing someone because your kids are threatened

and

B) Killing someone because God told you the person was a threat to you children

B is a big no-no for me.

[Brian 2.0]

According to Mormon thought, if children die before the age of accountability their eternal fate is assured. As tragic as such deaths might seem to the finite mind, if God's overriding purpose is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," isn't that purpose achieved even when children die before they have a chance to grow, go to school, marry, start a career, start a family, et cetera? According to this perspective, might God's purposes be better served by not allowing children to reach the age of accountability (but, instead, commanding that "every man, woman, and child" in a particular society be killed rather than allowing that child to reach accountability, only to follow in his ancestors' iniquitous footsteps)?

It this kind of idea that scares the [poop] out of me. It think it's a very dangerous idea. Some crackpot takes this idea and runs with it and starts killing children to assure their exaltation. Some mental disturbed parent kills their kids out of love so they can be exalted. It's a horrible, horrid concept to say God's purposes are "better served by not allowing children to reach the age of accountability."

If there is a God who is worth worshiping, He weeps when a child dies, and would never think such death better served His purposes.

[CASteinman]

B) Killing someone because God told you the person was a threat to you children

B is a big no-no for me.

So you would not actually have done as Nephi did. Why is that?

[CASteinman]

I am thinking about this "The ends justifying the means". I think pretty much they always must do so.

Whatever you are doing must be justified by the end. I can't see any way around this. And if the end does not really justify it, you should stop.

I am having a hard time of imagining an exception to this.

The problem I see though is that we cannot predict the future very well on our own, so having a certain knowledge of the end is hard and that doubtfulness must be considered.

Edited April 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[Brian 2.0]

So you would not actually have done as Nephi did. Why is that?

Obviously I don't know exactly what Nephi was thinking at the time, but I only would have killed Laban if I thought I should kill Laban, not because I thought God wanted me to kill Laban. If the situation was "I don't think I should kill Laban" and I thought God was telling me I should kill him, I probably would have not killed him, because I would have a very hard time being sure where that "inspiration" was coming from (myself because I hate Laban, Satan, or God).

Edited April 20, 2013 by Brian 2.0