Rivers Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I find it odd that people get so heated over Nephi killing Laban when the OT has prophets mass-killing men, women, and children.
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) I find it odd that people get so heated over Nephi killing Laban when the OT has prophets mass-killing men, women, and children. Personally, I'm torn on Nephi. But I'm not torn on the OT killings. I give them 0% weight as coming from God. I grant that God may have tolerated the killings to the extent that he continued to work with those people (because, hey, he had to work with someone). But I cannot worship a genocidist. FWIW, I'm quite thankful for the BOM on this point. The BOM is a parallel records to the OT - same covenants, same time period, same type of covenant people surrounded by enemies and apostates. And yet no where in the BOM are the righteous commanded to commit genocide. They are only allowed self-defense. That gives me good reason to believe the OT accounts are hogwash. Edited June 5, 2015 by Buckeye 1
canard78 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 This made my day.It's brilliant isn't it. Even better than Balaam's *** 1
canard78 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I think the Nephites probably didn't exist. I think the Book of Mormon is probably true.I defer the remainder of my comments to endorsing whatever mfbukowski says. 2
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 It's brilliant isn't it. Even better than Balaam's *** Hey, they even censored Hugh B. Brown: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65418-never-before-seen-letter-to-a-doubter-from-elder-hugh-b-brown/
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Personally, I'm torn on Nephi. But I'm not torn on the OT killings. I give them 0% weight as coming from God. I grant that God may have tolerated the killings to the extent that he continued to work with those people (because, hey, he had to work with someone). But I cannot worship a genocidist. I think it depends on your view of Gods designs. God cast 1/3 part of his children out of heaven, condemned them to a set future judgement, and prevented them having any mortal life at all. I fail to see why the creator of all of us should be against ending a mortal life that was temporary to begin with and was operating contrary to his will. I obviously do not approve of genocide but ALL wicked nations will be destroyed eventually. I think our view of power over life/death is very naive. 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 That is correct. But for some, the BOM and church can still be "true" with either of those options.But that completely ignores definition of true.
Jeanne Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Over the years Church leaders have declared that either the Church is true or it is not, or that the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. There is no middle ground.Such a view blows my meager little mind. Where does it end when we live by such a standard? Could Nephi have erred in doctrine even once? If you go by the "it's either true or not" line of thinking there must only be truth found in the doctrine, no? There is no middle ground. What about historicity? Well, is the book true or not? If true, then the history that is recorded must not only be considered adequate history keeping, but accurate.I'm stumped how this works and would love to hear more thoughts. In the Title page we read, "...if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..." So there must be possibility of mistake and error. If so, then why can't we consider the Book of Mormon both true and not true?This really gets me because I think many wonder how far we can go in either direction? I say as far as our heart can take us. But it seems many in the Church reject such a thought.Thoughts?Whether it is true or not...doesn't leave much room for faith does it?? You have to ask yourself then why it even matters.
mnn727 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 It depends on your definition of true.Is it 100% historical and accurate? probably no more than any other historical book written by men of the time period they wrote about. their world view, perspective, knowledge, etc always come into play as they write.Is it basically true? Yes
mnn727 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I don't see how you can do that completely. If Nephi was lying about God telling him to kill Laban, that would throw doubt on all the revelation and blessings he received afterwards - The vision of the tree/rod, the vision of Christ & the Apostles, being freed from the cords, the vision of the two Churches, being filled with power etc. All of those things come into doubt if you believe Nephi was a murderer who killed Laban in cold blood. I could not accept that God would give such manifestations and blessings to a murderer.Why? Moses was a murderer. Noah was a Drunk, Jonah rebelled against God a number of times and those are just a few of the highlights of Prophets lives. Explore the Bible and you'll find many many more. 1
mnn727 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) The lie is not the reason the following revelations would be invalid.The murder is. Then I guess we better discard everything Moses and David wrote. Edited June 5, 2015 by mnn727
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Why? Moses was a murderer. Noah was a Drunk, Jonah rebelled against God a number of times and those are just a few of the highlights of Prophets lives. Explore the Bible and you'll find many many more. Then why do people feel like our prophets have to be perfect (or basically)?Does God even care when people sin? Because if we go with these examples and our current perspective none of these people are worthy to have a temple recommend, let alone receive the word of the Lord for his people. I say again that we are missing something in our understanding of how God views murder/killing, sin, prophets etc.If it was revealed the Pres. Monson had killed a man that was passed out drunk for ANY reason, 90% of the Church would apostatize and the other 10% would probably be very strange.
rodheadlee Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Personally, I'm torn on Nephi. But I'm not torn on the OT killings. I give them 0% weight as coming from God. I grant that God may have tolerated the killings to the extent that he continued to work with those people (because, hey, he had to work with someone). But I cannot worship a genocidist. FWIW, I'm quite thankful for the BOM on this point. The BOM is a parallel records to the OT - same covenants, same time period, same type of covenant people surrounded by enemies and apostates. And yet no where in the BOM are the righteous commanded to commit genocide. They are only allowed self-defense. That gives me good reason to believe the OT accounts are hogwash.So I guess you don't believe God killed everyone in the great flood either? Edited June 5, 2015 by rodheadlee
Coreyb Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I think that if we fall into this dichotomy by saying that everything in the book is TRUE or nearly true with maybe just a couple mistakes of men about some minute details then we are not treating it like a real book. Real books have errors, biases and interpolations. We should expect these things. That shouldn't do any damage to the historical "truthyness" of the record, it should only enhance it. 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Then why do people feel like our prophets have to be perfect (or basically)?Does God even care when people sin? Because if we go with these examples and our current perspective none of these people are worthy to have a temple recommend, let alone receive the word of the Lord for his people. I say again that we are missing something in our understanding of how God views murder/killing, sin, prophets etc.If it was revealed the Pres. Monson had killed a man that was passed out drunk for ANY reason, 90% of the Church would apostatize and the other 10% would probably be very strange.I doubt that. I mean it was revealed he started a fire in the woods and no one batted an eye 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 So I guess you don't believe God killed everyone in the great flood either?He didn't.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 And if you think they did not exist is there not room to get scriptural enlightenment from the BoM?What if there were Nephites but not as many as is suggested in the Book of Mormon? What if Alma existed but Nephi did not? Could he have buried them in Central America somewhere and alter they were transported to NY? He could have in a visitation sense or a natural sense. Thanks for yoru thoughts. it seems like there is only middle ground. The extremes seem nonsensical to me.You are missing the point, stemebow. DJBrown isn't playing games with all the shades of gray that are possible to consider. He didn't hem and haw about numbers and nuances. He simply said: "The Nephites either existed, or they didn't. Moroni either buried the plates, or he didn't. Either Christ visited the Americas, or He didn't. There is no middle ground." You are asking additional questions, not basic questions. The same sort of questions can be asked about biblical events, where you can again claim that there is only "middle ground." Sounds more like muddle ground to me. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Sure, just like you might get enlightenment out of ****ens, Hemingway, Tolkien or even Rowling.Does this mean that The Twilight Saga by Mormon author Stephanie Meyer provides enlightenment via vampires? Does this mean that fiction and non-fiction are actually the same? That the dichotomy between them is phony?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Personally, I'm torn on Nephi. But I'm not torn on the OT killings. I give them 0% weight as coming from God. I grant that God may have tolerated the killings to the extent that he continued to work with those people (because, hey, he had to work with someone). But I cannot worship a genocidist. FWIW, I'm quite thankful for the BOM on this point. The BOM is a parallel records to the OT - same covenants, same time period, same type of covenant people surrounded by enemies and apostates. And yet no where in the BOM are the righteous commanded to commit genocide. They are only allowed self-defense. That gives me good reason to believe the OT accounts are hogwash.A Calvinist would be shocked at your disregard for the absolute sovereignty of God.
Mystery Meat Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Does this mean that The Twilight Saga by Mormon author Stephanie Meyer provides enlightenment via vampires? Does this mean that fiction and non-fiction are actually the same? That the dichotomy between them is phony? No. The point I was making that there might be some limited value in the Book of Mormon if it was not historically correct. But it would be no more than the value you might get from reading the Half Blood Prince. Fiction and non-fiction are certainly not the same. The Book of Mormon as the latter is infinitely (literally) more valuable than the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites series (or any other work of fiction for that matter).
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 ...................................................................................................If it was revealed the Pres. Monson had killed a man that was passed out drunk for ANY reason, 90% of the Church would apostatize and the other 10% would probably be very strange.How did you reach that 90% figure? Seems somewhat overblown to me.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 ......................................................................... .........................................................................the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites series.Is that the Mormon version of Morris West's Shoes of the Fisherman? 1
mikegriffith1 Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 In my opinion, the evidence for the Book of Mormon has become so impressive that I believe that one could convince a fair-minded jury that there is no way that anyone in Joseph Smith's day could have authored the book. I would note that a few--very few, but a few--anti-Mormons have begun to make the argument that there are in fact ancient elements in the Book of Mormon, elements that Joseph Smith could not have known about, but that Satan inspired Joseph to include those elements.
JLHPROF Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 How did you reach that 90% figure? Seems somewhat overblown to me. Forgive me a touch of hyperbole. But there would be enough outcry if this happened today:According to Amasa Lyman, a member of the First Presidency under Smith, Smith once finished preaching a sermon on the Word of Wisdom and immediately afterward rode through the streets smoking a cigar. According to Lyman, this was just one of many instances in which Smith "tried the faith of the Saints ... by his peculiarities." Now imagine the member reaction if the action was murder.
canard78 Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 In my opinion, the evidence for the Book of Mormon has become so impressive that I believe that one could convince a fair-minded jury that there is no way that anyone in Joseph Smith's day could have authored the book. I would note that a few--very few, but a few--anti-Mormons have begun to make the argument that there are in fact ancient elements in the Book of Mormon, elements that Joseph Smith could not have known about, but that Satan inspired Joseph to include those elements.I would have been fascinated to see LDS truth claims have their day in court. It nearly happened in UK last year but fell at one of the final hurdles. Tom Phillips apparently continues to try other country legal systems.
Recommended Posts