Personal Revelation

[stemelbow]

A month or so ago, in EQ I brought up Nephi's slaying of Laban. I did it in this context:

The message of the lesson was that personal revelation is as important, at least as I recall, as any other form of revelation. That sometimes it ought to take precedence. I thought out loud, a little, "well Nephi knew the command to not kill, or so it seems, so when confronted with a defenseless person he inherently knew not to kill. But personal revelation kicked in saying, in this case, you can break the commandment, and you need to break it."

He went ahead and did it, causing the dwindling of a whole nation in unbelief to be delayed a little longer than it otherwise would have. Or so the story goes.

The reaction of the brethren was interesting. No one seemed to flinch at the notion of having exceptions to murder unarmed people, but were very uncomfortable with the notion of feeling justified to break a commandment because of personal revelation. I was the opposite--I say break commandments as God instructs personally, except for when it comes to things like murder. Maybe a line ought to be drawn there. It fostered a little discussion there, but as you know discussion doesn't really happen in a Church environment. So I thought I'd bring it here.

What say you?

[Duncan]

I can't recall where I had heard or read this idea but who knows that Laban would have been killed anyways(due to the Babylonians) and so Nephi got the plates before that happened. Who knows!

[bluebell]

I think this is one of those stories in the scriptures that people are so used to hearing that they make absolute sense,....until someone tries to apply the logic to any and all examples that could be presented to someone in our day and age.

 

Sure, God would instruct Nephi to kill Laban in that instance.  Of course!!  It makes perfect sense!

 

But ask anyone if they think that God would ever instruct someone to kill a defenseless and unconscious person tomorrow in downtown SLC and they'll all say absolutely no way, would NEVER happen.

[Gray]

If you think you've gotten a revelation to behead someone, that's a prime indicator that the revelation is false. 

[Mystery Meat]

If you think you've gotten a revelation to behead someone, that's a prime indicator that the revelation is false. 

 

Except that Nephi did, so there goes your argument.

[JLHPROF]

The number of God's chosen prophets and leaders who have killed people in many different circumstances is quite long.

(Moses, Captain Moroni, Joseph Smith (maybe), David, Mormon, Moroni).  Abraham was ready to kill his son, although he was stopped at the last minute.

 

And of course, while Christ never killed anyone in mortality, he certainly directly ended a few lives from the other side of the veil.

 

Perhaps there is more to the Aaronic law "Thou Shalt Not Kill" than we understand.  Perhaps there is a Melchizedek level to that law too.

[ERayR]

If you think you've gotten a revelation to behead someone, that's a prime indicator that the revelation is false. 

 

Unless your name is Nephi son of Lehi.

Edited June 3, 2015 by ERayR

[bluebell]

If you think you've gotten a revelation to behead someone, that's a prime indicator that the revelation is false. 

 

So do you believe that Nephi's revelation was false?  (If you believe in Nephi that is, i have no idea your feelings on the BOM).

[CV75]

I say break commandments as God instructs personally, except for when it comes to things like murder.

I think making any exceptions would preempt the potential personal revelation one might receive. Instead, I think it is more vital for one to know his purpose, as Nephi did, so as to be able to receive and carry out the terrible revelations when they come.

 

If you think you've gotten a revelation to behead someone, that's a prime indicator that the revelation is false. 

Likewise, if one knows his purpose as Nephi did, such terrible revelations would be true.

[Storm Rider]

I think anyone would question and should question a revelation that leads them to break traditional commandments.  It would take a special manifestation of the Spirit before I would ever feel comfortable taking an action similar to Nephi.  There is too much social and religious teaching against violence for us not to question such a command.  I suspect that I would fail in such a trial of my faith.  Others may have more mettle, but I have never attempted to harm anyone in a physical manner during my life on this earth to this point.  I certainly have thought bad thoughts about others, but have never acted on those feelings.  

 

I can see where a specific person with a specific calling may have these types of experiences, but for almost everyone else, we are not required to perform in such a manner.  My shoulders are far too narrow for such a burden.

[thesometimesaint]

If you think you've gotten a revelation to behead someone, that's a prime indicator that the revelation is false. 

 

It isn't really useful to posit our modern day mores, and laws onto someone of a entirely different culture and 2600 years ago. It must be remembered that Laban stole Lehi's son's money and threatened/tried to kill them. According to the laws of the time Nephi was justified in killing Laban as an act of self defense.

[Rain]

Is it the personal revelation that makes people uncomfortable or the possibility that the idea wasn't actually revealed?

I think we have all had times when we weren't sure if something was our own revelation or personal thoughts. There are also examples of people thought they had revelation, but some was terribly wrong.

Many people think Nephi was a prophet and really in tune so they can deal with his revelation. It's another story trusting whether some in the here and now is actually inspired or not.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Perhaps there is more to the Aaronic law "Thou Shalt Not Kill" than we understand.  Perhaps there is a Melchizedek level to that law too.

 

You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire. 

[JLHPROF]

You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire. 

 

Wow, talk about a double standard. 

 

It's ok for God and Christ to call us fools, liars and hypocrites and to wipe us out by the nation, but heaven forbid we do so in our attempts to become like him. 

[Gray]

Except that Nephi did, so there goes your argument.

 

In the story he did, but in practice is another matter

[Gray]

Unless your name is Nephi son of Lehi.

 

I don't think it matters what your name is

[Gray]

So do you believe that Nephi's revelation was false?  (If you believe in Nephi that is, i have no idea your feelings on the BOM).

 

I don't believe in a historical Nephi (or a historical Moses, Abraham, Adam, etc). But I think this would be one of the "particular" teachings of the BOM, as opposed to the universal teachings. 

Edited June 3, 2015 by Gray

[ERayR]

I don't believe in a historical Nephi (or a historical Moses, Abraham, Adam, etc). But I think this would be one of the "particular" teachings of the BOM, as opposed to the universal teachings. 

 

Thus the difficulty for having this discussion.  No common ground to start with.

[Buckeye]

I would argue that a God who gives a contradictory commandment to one from what he gives to the many, must take upon himself the obligation to save that one from the consequences of that exception. Thus, if I were a juror over Nephi in 600 BC (or 2015 AD) I would convict. Likewise, if I were on a high counsel considering disciplinary action against Nephi for the killing in 600 BC (or 2015 AD) I would likewise convict. His personal revelation may be real - and if so he should follow it. But it is not binding on me, my country, or my church.

 

Now, if I got a revelation affirming Nephi's special instruction ... that's another matter entirely.

[The Nehor]

I would follow the revelation but I would only do it if I was sure it was revelation. I would not act if it was a vague maybe my idea/ maybe inspired situation.

Nephi did do this. He first had to overcome his natural repugnance which is one way of telling it is probably not your idea. If you think God is telling you to drown your kids and you are depressed and think your life would be easier without your kids and are justifying it by guessing they would be better off dead then that is not revelation. Do not act. If your worst enemy who just cost you your job, stole your spouse, and kicked your puppy is discovered drunk in the street and you eagerly want to finish them off to make the world a better place that is probably not revelation either.

Exceptions to commandments are part of the advanced gospel and usually only come to the advanced students who have substantial experience with revelation. They are also rare. I think I have gotten permission to break a commandment once in my whole life and it was not a commandment against serious sin and was in pretty unique circumstances.

[JLHPROF]

I don't believe in a historical Nephi (or a historical Moses, Abraham, Adam, etc). But I think this would be one of the "particular" teachings of the BOM, as opposed to the universal teachings. 

Which I still don't understand how you can believe that way and accept the prophets and the restoration.

Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham etc.  Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw Moses (and presumably had his hands laid upon their heads) and the same for Elias (Noah) and Elijah.

 

The prophecies of Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the grand council all feature the historical Adam turning his family over to Christ.  We would have to no longer believe in that prophecy.

 

There would be SO much gospel I would have to disbelieve to deny the historicity of these prophets.

Edited June 3, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Mystery Meat]

Which I still don't understand how you can believe that way and accept the prophets and the restoration.

Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham etc.  Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw Moses (and presumably had his hands laid upon their heads) and the same for Elias (Noah) and Elijah.

 

The prophecies of Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the grand council all feature the historical Adam turning his family over to Christ.  We would have to no longer believe in that prophecy.

 

There would be SO much gospel I would have to disbelieve to deny the historicity of these prophets.

 

Joseph saw at least one BoM prophet as well, so yeah

[rodheadlee]

A month or so ago, in EQ I brought up Nephi's slaying of Laban. I did it in this context:

The message of the lesson was that personal revelation is as important, at least as I recall, as any other form of revelation. That sometimes it ought to take precedence. I thought out loud, a little, "well Nephi knew the command to not kill, or so it seems, so when confronted with a defenseless person he inherently knew not to kill. But personal revelation kicked in saying, in this case, you can break the commandment, and you need to break it."

He went ahead and did it, causing the dwindling of a whole nation in unbelief to be delayed a little longer than it otherwise would have. Or so the story goes.

The reaction of the brethren was interesting. No one seemed to flinch at the notion of having exceptions to murder unarmed people, but were very uncomfortable with the notion of feeling justified to break a commandment because of personal revelation. I was the opposite--I say break commandments as God instructs personally, except for when it comes to things like murder. Maybe a line ought to be drawn there. It fostered a little discussion there, but as you know discussion doesn't really happen in a Church environment. So I thought I'd bring it here.

What say you?

I say a story in Daniel helps explain that Laban was judged by God and his time was up. Nephi was the instrument of that policy. I'd say you have to be 100% positive the command is from God and be willing to accept the consequences of obeying.

 

This is in Daniel 5:  18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

  19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.

  20 But when his ^aheart was lifted up, and his ^bmind hardened in pride, he was ^cdeposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:

  21 And he was driven ^afrom the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.

  22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

  23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the ^agods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

  24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.

  25 ¶ And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

  26 This is the interpretation of the thing: ^aMENE; God hath ^bnumbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

  27 ^aTEKEL; Thou art ^bweighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

  28 ^aPERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and ^bPersians.

  29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they ^aclothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

  30 ¶ In that night was Belshazzar the king of the ^aChaldeans ^bslain.

  31 And ^aDarius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

 

Much as Darius took the kingdom, Nephi took the plates, the sword of Laban and I believe that he also got his money back.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

First, we are assuming that, under the circumstances, it was considered murder in that society.  Laban had recently robbed and attempted to murder him and his brothers. Nephi had reason to believe that once Laban sobered up, he and his men would have come after him and his family and attempted to murder them all -- probably under color of law as commander of the local garrison.  Obviously that would have been no justification in our society, but might have been in his.  After all, Nephi not only knew the commandments, he probably knew the precedent of David killing the defenseless Goliath (apparently, without any specific revelation to do so).  

 

But for the sake of discussion, lets assume that it was considered murder in that society.  Nephi’s personal revelation not only trumped the commandments, it trumped his own personal conscience.  So if it is OK (and even praiseworthy) to break a commandment if you receive personal revelation commanding you to do so, it is also OK and praiseworthy to violate your own personal conscience for the same reason?  Or does your own personal conscience trump personal revelation? 

 

Two other observations.  Usually those who argue that personal revelation or personal conscience trump commandments, implicitly leave themselves an “escape” should they ultimately “choose wrong” in a real life situation.  (After all, a just God wouldn’t punish me for a good faith mistake or for following my conscience.)  Given our capacity for rationalization and self deception, I suspect that a good many of us might find that what we rationalized as a matter of personal conscience was really not, because we actually knew better.  

 

Second, one of the major advantages of having a church hierarchy is that if I believe I receive a revelation to murder someone, I am able to discuss the matter first with my bishop and stake president -- both of whom have the right to receive revelation for me.  Even if both signed off on it, I could take it up the line to the general authorities, and ultimately to those whom we sustain as prophets. (As a practical matter, since my stake president is a recently retired law enforcement officer, I doubt that there would be any need to bother President Monson).

 

The church hierarchy can, at times, be stifling, but does provide useful checks and balances. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

It isn't really useful to posit our modern day mores, and laws onto someone of a entirely different culture and 2600 years ago. It must be remembered that Laban stole Lehi's son's money and threatened/tried to kill them. According to the laws of the time Nephi was justified in killing Laban as an act of self defense.

 

Today someone that receives a "revelation" to commit an atrocity needs to go see a psychiatrist. The brethren at Mountain Meadows "received" a revelation to commit an atrocity. 

 

The human brain is powerful 

Edited June 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian