Crossing a line

[Avatar4321]

I've been hearing a lot about how the brethren have crossed a line. That we shouldn't obey them when they speak the Word of the Lord because it would be wrong.

Did Nephi cross  line when he killed Laban? Should he have left Labanthere alive?

Was Abraham crossing a line when he offered up Isaac? Was he wrong to do so?

When Christ told the people they would need to eat His body and drink His blood many left Him. Would you have stayed with Him? Did those who stayed cross a line? We're they wrong? Were the people who left right to leave?

Why is it any different nowadays? Will we follow God even if He asks us to do things we might not want to? Where are our hearts? Will we do what the Lord asks or put up stakes and say we will go no farther?

[thesometimesaint]

If God is telling to do something wrong, maybe you're listening to the wrong God. Are the Bundy's listening to the right God?

[Mystery Meat]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If God is telling to do something wrong, maybe you're listening to the wrong God. Are the Bundy's listening to the right God?

Why in the world would you bring the Bundy's in to this? Completely off topic and asinine.

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've been hearing a lot about how the brethren have crossed a line. That we shouldn't obey them when they speak the Word of the Lord because it would be wrong.

Did Nephi cross  line when he killed Laban? Should he have left Labanthere alive?

Was Abraham crossing a line when he offered up Isaac? Was he wrong to do so?

When Christ told the people they would need to eat His body and drink His blood many left Him. Would you have stayed with Him? Did those who stayed cross a line? We're they wrong? Were the people who left right to leave?

Why is it any different nowadays? Will we follow God even if He asks us to do things we might not want to? Where are our hearts? Will we do what the Lord asks or put up stakes and say we will go no farther?

I think you have done a good job of grouping together the three most abused stories in the standard works.

Nephi killing defenseless Laban, Abraham commanded to kill his defenseless son, and Peter not leaving Jesus after the body and blood sermon in John's Gospel, instead asking where else he could go to seek the words of life.

All of these are powerful and dramatic stories, but must be used with care.

The reason they must be used with care is because they can be used to justify any behavior by any religion, no matter how reprehensible.

Just because these stories are in the scriptures does not give carte blanche for Church leaders to do or say anything they want.

Nor does it bind members of the Church to accept whatever Church leaders do or say, regardless of what the individual conscience attests and the Holy Ghost testifies.

[Buckeye]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've been hearing a lot about how the brethren have crossed a line. That we shouldn't obey them when they speak the Word of the Lord because it would be wrong.

Did Nephi cross  line when he killed Laban? Should he have left Labanthere alive?

Was Abraham crossing a line when he offered up Isaac? Was he wrong to do so?

When Christ told the people they would need to eat His body and drink His blood many left Him. Would you have stayed with Him? Did those who stayed cross a line? We're they wrong? Were the people who left right to leave?

Why is it any different nowadays? Will we follow God even if He asks us to do things we might not want to? Where are our hearts? Will we do what the Lord asks or put up stakes and say we will go no farther?

CFR that anyone has said "don't obey the prophets when they speak the Word of the Lord." All I've seen is advocacy to disobey because, on this point, they are not speaking for the Lord.

As to Nephi, I believe he was a stressed teenager in a tough situation who killed in the heat of the moment and 30 years later, in writing a formative narrative history for his posterity, said that he was inspired to do the killing. It's not too different from the OT authors who say there were commanded by God to commit genocide. I don't personally judge Nephi; not my role. But I also don't believe in a God who commands us to kill. Particularly when there are much less fatal means to accomplish the same goal. The spirit could have just put Laban in a coma for 2 months - thereby preserving his probationary state with allowing the Nephite nation to have the brass plates.

I also think Abraham was wrong. Rather give a lengthy explanation, I just refer you here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2016/01/11/abrahamic-tests/  The scriptures (OT in particular) are full of notions we now reject - such as God turning Pharoah's heart bad, or God siding with Israel's enemies for a time to spite Israel. Abraham's story is another in this line.

As to Christ, I hope I would have continued to follow and that I would have asked more questions about his doctrine. 

As for today's issues, again, I haven't heard anyone say "don't follow God." Rather, they've said to follow God instead of the instruction from church leaders. If you really want to understand them, you'll have to contemplate the possibility that church leaders don't always get God's will correct, despite their sincerity.

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by Buckeye

[BlueDreams]

46 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of grouping together the three most abused stories in the standard works.

Nephi killing defenseless Laban, Abraham commanded to kill his defenseless son, and Peter not leaving Jesus after the body and blood sermon in John's Gospel, instead asking where else he could go to seek the words of life.

All of these are powerful and dramatic stories, but must be used with care.

The reason they must be used with care is because they can be used to justify any behavior by any religion, no matter how reprehensible.

Just because these stories are in the scriptures does not give carte blanche for Church leaders to do or say anything they want.

Nor does it bind members of the Church to accept whatever Church leaders do or say, regardless of what the individual conscience attests and the Holy Ghost testifies.

 

Even without the more extreme examples that, yes, should be used with caution. I think the basic sentiment could still stand. I've been drawn to Laban and Lemuel's problems throughout 1 Nephi lately. The thing is, their murmuring was never really unwarranted. They were being asked to do something absolutely insane and moving against the common beliefs of their people at that time and their sense of right and wrong. It made no sense to leave a comfortable city life to become desert nomads. In the first book, most if not all of their murmuring occurred when their lives were at risk, their families/wives were starving and suffering, or their brother gets some insane idea like "I'm going to build a boat to cross this here sea to a land seen only in vision/promise during what easily could have been a vivid dream. And, oh yeah, I've never done it before but I'm sure God will show me how to become a boat engineer and a sailor too." All based on Prophet and Prophet Junior ie Dad and kid brother with their magic ball and lucid dreams.   

Besides no one has actually suggested killing someone here. The bar is far lower than that on obeying or trusting His chosen Prophets/Apostles.

But our God is still a God that asks us to be willing to sacrifice all if needed. And yes, that's a potent message, but one really can't skirt it either. For God "lines" are crossed all the time. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 13, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Avatar4321]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If God is telling to do something wrong, maybe you're listening to the wrong God. Are the Bundy's listening to the right God?

did God tell nephi and Abraham to do something wrong?

did Christ tell the people something wrong?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Even without the more extreme examples that, yes, should be used with caution. I think the basic sentiment could still stand. I've been drawn to Laban and Lemuel's problems throughout 1 Nephi lately. The thing is, their murmuring was never really unwarranted. They were being asked to do something absolutely insane and moving against the common beliefs of their people at that time and their sense of right and wrong. It made no sense to leave a comfortable city life to become desert nomads. In the first book, most if not all of their murmuring occurred when their lives were at risk, their families/wives were starving and suffering, or their brother gets some insane idea like "I'm going to build a boat to cross this here sea to a land seen only in vision/promise during what easily could have been a vivid dream. And, oh yeah, I've never done it before but I'm sure God will show me how to become a boat engineer and a sailor too." All based on Prophet and Prophet Junior ie Dad and kid brother.   

Besides no one has actually suggested killing someone here. The bar is far lower than that on obeying or trusting His chosen Prophets/Apostles.

But our God is still a God that asks us to be willing to sacrifice all if needed. And yes, that's a potent message, but one really can't skirt it either. For God "lines" are crossed all the time. 

 

With luv,

BD

I think that we don't learn as much from Laban and Lemuel as we should learn, because we struggle to get past the primary-age caricatures that we associate them with.  We learn to see ourselves as the Nephi's of our story when more often than not we are probably the Laman and Lemuels.  We murmur, we justify, we find reasons for why our priesthood leaders are out of touch or wrong and how and why we know better.  

Probably most often we are guilty of using society's standards for what is good/bad to judge whether or not something is what God really wants of us.

[CA Steve]

21 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Even without the more extreme examples that, yes, should be used with caution. I think the basic sentiment could still stand. I've been drawn to Laban and Lemuel's problems throughout 1 Nephi lately. The thing is, their murmuring was never really unwarranted. They were being asked to do something absolutely insane and moving against the common beliefs of their people at that time and their sense of right and wrong. It made no sense to leave a comfortable city life to become desert nomads. In the first book, most if not all of their murmuring occurred when their lives were at risk, their families/wives were starving and suffering, or their brother gets some insane idea like "I'm going to build a boat to cross this here sea to a land seen only in vision/promise during what easily could have been a vivid dream. And, oh yeah, I've never done it before but I'm sure God will show me how to become a boat engineer and a sailor too." All based on Prophet and Prophet Junior ie Dad and kid brother with their magic ball and lucid dreams.   

Besides no one has actually suggested killing someone here. The bar is far lower than that on obeying or trusting His chosen Prophets/Apostles.

But our God is still a God that asks us to be willing to sacrifice all if needed. And yes, that's a potent message, but one really can't skirt it either. For God "lines" are crossed all the time. 

 

With luv,

BD

Hi BD,

 

I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. I do have a question.

For those who consider that the current direction of leadership is wrong regarding gay people, gay marriage and the children of gay members, while at the same time still believing that Mormonism offers eternal rewards not found anywhere else on earth, do you think that the bar in question might actually be higher for them? For those people it appears that the consequences of what leadership is doing isn't the loss of an earthly life, but one of eternal salvation.

 

For example I have a niece who lives in the north east and is in a gay marriage who, even though she is in such a marriage, had hopes of raising children within the church. I think she looked so fondly upon her own upbringing that even though there are some very direct conflicts with her lifestyle she wanted the same childhood for her own children. Now any such children would have to wait until they were 18 to make that choice, a choice that will have long been made for them due to a complete lack of any positive LDS influence. In a case like this, can't such a person believe that eternal risks are at hand?

[consiglieri]

20 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

did God tell nephi and Abraham to do something wrong?

did Christ tell the people something wrong?

Yes, yes, and no.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of grouping together the three most abused stories in the standard works . . . All of these are powerful and dramatic stories, but must be used with care.

 

How would a wise and erudite learned man such as yourself properly use these stories, (other than how the Church abuses them)?

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Hi BD,

 

I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. I do have a question.

For those who consider that the current direction of leadership is wrong regarding gay people, gay marriage and the children of gay members, while at the same time still believing that Mormonism offers eternal rewards not found anywhere else on earth, do you think that the bar in question might actually be higher for them? For those people it appears that the consequences of what leadership is doing isn't the loss of an earthly life, but one of eternal salvation.

 

For example I have a niece who lives in the north east and is in a gay marriage who, even though she is in such a marriage, had hopes of raising children within the church. I think she looked so fondly upon her own upbringing that even though there are some very direct conflicts with her lifestyle she wanted the same childhood for her own children. Now any such children would have to wait until they were 18 to make that choice, a choice that will have long been made for them due to a complete lack of any positive LDS influence. In a case like this, can't such a person believe that eternal risks are at hand?

To your last question: One could, but it would be ignoring several key points to LDS doctrine in order to do so, including work done for the dead in the temple and that they could also be worse of, in the eternal schema, by taking on covenants that they would be taught are unnecessary or even wrong at home. 

I don'y think the bar might actually be higher for them, but I also don't like to being quick to judge on other's experiences. I've got to head to work, but I'll make sure to answer more fully as to why my immediate reaction is no. But I'm more curious, how do you see it as feasibly higher? I just want to make sure I understand your point.

With luv,

BD

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Even without the more extreme examples that, yes, should be used with caution. I think the basic sentiment could still stand. I've been drawn to Laban and Lemuel's problems throughout 1 Nephi lately. The thing is, their murmuring was never really unwarranted. They were being asked to do something absolutely insane and moving against the common beliefs of their people at that time and their sense of right and wrong. It made no sense to leave a comfortable city life to become desert nomads. In the first book, most if not all of their murmuring occurred when their lives were at risk, their families/wives were starving and suffering, or their brother gets some insane idea like "I'm going to build a boat to cross this here sea to a land seen only in vision/promise during what easily could have been a vivid dream. And, oh yeah, I've never done it before but I'm sure God will show me how to become a boat engineer and a sailor too." All based on Prophet and Prophet Junior ie Dad and kid brother with their magic ball and lucid dreams.   

Besides no one has actually suggested killing someone here. The bar is far lower than that on obeying or trusting His chosen Prophets/Apostles.

But our God is still a God that asks us to be willing to sacrifice all if needed. And yes, that's a potent message, but one really can't skirt it either. For God "lines" are crossed all the time. 

 

With luv,

BD

BD, You must also remember that Laman and Lemuel actually saw an angel not too far into their journey which should have pretty much answered their questions about their "visionary" father. I do find it interesting that some LDS now are trying to revise scriptures or rather give us their version of how those scriptures were wrong to fit their own paradigms. Sort of like some Christians that are telling us that Judas Iscariot was just misunderstood.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Yes, yes, and no.

CFR on your first two. Do you have scriptures or the benefit of a modern day prophet and revelation to back up you assertions???

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

For example I have a niece who lives in the north east and is in a gay marriage who, even though she is in such a marriage, had hopes of raising children within the church. I think she looked so fondly upon her own upbringing that even though there are some very direct conflicts with her lifestyle she wanted the same childhood for her own children. Now any such children would have to wait until they were 18 to make that choice, a choice that will have long been made for them due to a complete lack of any positive LDS influence. In a case like this, can't such a person believe that eternal risks are at hand?

 

While baptism is not possible (and therefore a few activities) attendance and participation is still possible, is it not?  Just as those younger than eight can be raised in the Church without baptism, so can those older than eight.  I had nieces that were refused baptism by their divorced father.  Their mother still raised them in the Church for as long as she wanted to.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

How would a wise and erudite learned man such as yourself properly use these stories, (other than how the Church abuses them)?

With the greatest of caution.

And never to try to get others to agree with something I said that is fundamentally objectionable.

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

CFR on your first two. Do you have scriptures or the benefit of a modern day prophet and revelation to back up you assertions???

Why should I?

I have the oldest book in my heart, and that is the Holy Ghost.

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

While baptism is not possible (and therefore a few activities) attendance and participation is still possible, is it not?  Just as those younger than eight can be raised in the Church without baptism, so can those older than eight.  I had nieces that were refused baptism by their divorced father.  Their mother still raised them in the Church for as long as she wanted to.

Hi Calm,

 

I want to give BD a more in depth answer but lack time at the moment so Ill skip to your question. I cannot answer directly for my niece since I have not had an in depth discussion with her regarding this issue. I have only seen a few FB posts in which she expressed her dismay at the recent changes, so my guess is that she feels the environment within the church will be significantly more difficult for her, her spouse and any potential children, especially given the new policy statement defining gay marriage as apostasy for members. I can only guess at what a shock it might have been for her to read that change. Given that she lives in the north east, her future children would have significantly less exposure than say out here in the west, which would be another factor in her case.

 

I don't think the case you bring up is applicable. No one pays much attention to a single parent attending church with their children, while, in my opinion, we have just drawn a bulls eye on the back of any married gay person wanting to bring their own children to church. I find those that might argue that such people would be welcome at church in direct opposition with the expressed reason the church itself has given for not wanting to cause conflict within the families of married gay people by baptizing their children. Either such a baptism creates such a conflict or it doesn't. Where is the most obvious place such a conflict is going to happen or be generated if not during church attendance?

 

So I think the gap between what is possible and what is probable regarding the attendance and participation was widened significantly as a result of these recent changes.

 

[BlueDreams]

33 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

BD, You must also remember that Laman and Lemuel actually saw an angel not too far into their journey which should have pretty much answered their questions about their "visionary" father. I do find it interesting that some LDS now are trying to revise scriptures or rather give us their version of how those scriptures were wrong to fit their own paradigms. Sort of like some Christians that are telling us that Judas Iscariot was just misunderstood.

From personal experience that was not as drastic, I can feel how at times seeing an angel isn't enough to curb all doubts or fix all problems or concerns. It gave an answer to the moment while continuing several other problems. I'm not saying they were justified in their actions. I just think that when we distance ourselves so much from sin and poor choices...or just the "bad guys" in a story, it becomes easier to blind ourselves from our own faults.

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

CFR that anyone has said "don't obey the prophets when they speak the Word of the Lord." All I've seen is advocacy to disobey because, on this point, they are not speaking for the Lord.

As to Nephi, I believe he was a stressed teenager in a tough situation who killed in the heat of the moment and 30 years later, in writing a formative narrative history for his posterity, said that he was inspired to do the killing. It's not too different from the OT authors who say there were commanded by God to commit genocide. I don't personally judge Nephi; not my role. But I also don't believe in a God who commands us to kill. Particularly when there are much less fatal means to accomplish the same goal. The spirit could have just put Laban in a coma for 2 months - thereby preserving his probationary state with allowing the Nephite nation to have the brass plates.

I also think Abraham was wrong. Rather give a lengthy explanation, I just refer you here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2016/01/11/abrahamic-tests/  The scriptures (OT in particular) are full of notions we now reject - such as God turning Pharoah's heart bad, or God siding with Israel's enemies for a time to spite Israel. Abraham's story is another in this line.

As to Christ, I hope I would have continued to follow and that I would have asked more questions about his doctrine. 

As for today's issues, again, I haven't heard anyone say "don't follow God." Rather, they've said to follow God instead of the instruction from church leaders. If you really want to understand them, you'll have to contemplate the possibility that church leaders don't always get God's will correct, despite their sincerity.

 

Buckeye, your post bothers me on a number of things. And I can't name why exactly so bare with me as I try to exlain. I'm not naturally a rule abider. I prefer to run my life as I see fit...and do....a lot. So in some ways doing something my way instead of another's just because they deem it right already goes right up my ally. But to me, these interpretations feels just as problematic as is assume inerrancy from church leaders (particularly prophets/apostles). And I think it's because it a) sets up a false dichotomy of god v church leaders and b) has little to no checks on the individual for error. In short it feels like its propping to individual as prophet for the church....rather than the prophet. And to me that's not okay. It also limits God's capacity to correct or act in a way that pushes us beyond our comfort zones and even our own sense of correct for His. Just as in the bycommonconsent article was worried about letting others guide one's moral compass...I was worried about such an ideal making it near impossible for anyone to have influence to not. 

Here's a dumb example: on my mission I didn't kneel and pray for months. It wasn't how I ever prayed growing up. I often prayed outside my house, walking and talking to god, or sitting on the grass, or laying in bed. So it seemed dumb to me. I had an exchange where the sister commented and I said nope, I'm good the other way, siting in my chair. My companion wondered and wanted to do so kneeling.  I remember one example was of Christ kneeling and I would point out he also prayed on a cross and I wasn't about to do that (yeah, I'm that stubborn). At some point (fairly quick, but still) I was concerned because I felt it messing with our unity, which was far more important to me. Still, I hate doing something just because someone tells me to...which entailed then studying up all references to prayer and references to kneeling to see why this would be important. And it did help...I gained a testimony to the idea of kneeling prayers as symbols of humility. I felt more united to my companion and soon after I remember a very special experience that included several kneeling prayers.

To this day I still only sometimes pray kneeling….usually when it’s something more important. So it wasn’t that I was outright wrong on everything. But I think it’s pertinent to learn and even incorporate things outside our comfort or even moral structure because our prophet/apostles state so…or even other local leaders (I’m a little more judicious about that one though). When I read your description of Nephi, it feels more like making someone in our image of right than letting their story just stand. To me, one of the immediate benefits would include not having such an odd assertion as your last two sentences.

Besides, we can be morally wrong or have moments that entail incorporating something that is in most circumstances not ok. I know, cuz I’ve had to do so (luckily it was not murder :P). And if that’s not up for debate, then to me that limits God’s capacity to be the authors in our lives. Ourself have become our God

Edited January 13, 2016 by BlueDreams

[rongo]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

With the greatest of caution.

And never to try to get others to agree with something I said that is fundamentally objectionable.

That doesn't answer my question. Can you please give an example of how you would use those stories "with the greatest of caution?" Without the use you are putting the stories towards not being "fundamentally objectionable?"

In a way that differs from the Church's "abusive" use of them?

Thanks!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I don't think the case you bring up is applicable. No one pays much attention to a single parent attending church with their children, while, in my opinion, we have just drawn a bulls eye on the back of any married gay person wanting to bring their own children to church. I find those that might argue that such people would be welcome at church in direct opposition with the expressed reason the church itself has given for not wanting to cause conflict within the families of married gay people by baptizing their children. Either such a baptism creates such a conflict or it doesn't. Where is the most obvious place such a conflict is going to happen or be generated if not during church attendance?

So I think the gap between what is possible and what is probable regarding the attendance and participation was widened significantly as a result of these recent changes.

My opinion is the conflict was always there, just that some were attempting to ignore it.  I don't see the policy as changing much, just making what was there explicit?  Previous to the policy, the Church doctrine was that same sex relationships (sexual) were sins.  That is the current doctrine.  The children would be taught the same thing about their parents' relationship.  The only difference is that this rejection of church doctrine is now officially labeled an apostasy.  While there is some church doctrine that outright rejection and violation of does not, imo, fall into apostasy, I personally felt this was significant enough to merit it, mostly be ause I saw it as similar to plural marriage but having the additional burden of behaviour that was not acceptable in any context at its core.

I get that some were okay with bringing their children up in the Church as long as the conflict wasn't front and center, but I don't understand why they would be unless they saw the Church as a cultural resource and not a faith one (in the sense it is what it claims to be).  If they weren't put off by the teachings that same sex relationships are sinful and the marraige is invalid in the eyes of God and the Church prior to the labeling of this position as apostasy, I really don't see why they would be put off just because a label was attached to a position that was always present.

If it is the lack of baptism for their children, it makes me wonder how they see baptism and I believe that it is most likely they do not see baptism in the same way as the Church sees it and therefore should not participate in it.  I am willing to change my mind in individual cases, but have not seen any yet, even among those claiming they were okay with their kids being baptized (because certain aspects of what that meant weren't dealt with imo).

I am not sure I explained this clearly, sorry if so.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Did Nephi cross  line when he killed Laban? Should he have left Labanthere alive?

Was Abraham crossing a line when he offered up Isaac? Was he wrong to do so?

 

Starting with the assumption that those things really happened, then yes. They crossed a line. 

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have done a good job of grouping together the three most abused stories in the standard works.

Nephi killing defenseless Laban, Abraham commanded to kill his defenseless son, and Peter not leaving Jesus after the body and blood sermon in John's Gospel, instead asking where else he could go to seek the words of life.

All of these are powerful and dramatic stories, but must be used with care.

The reason they must be used with care is because they can be used to justify any behavior by any religion, no matter how reprehensible.

Just because these stories are in the scriptures does not give carte blanche for Church leaders to do or say anything they want.

Nor does it bind members of the Church to accept whatever Church leaders do or say, regardless of what the individual conscience attests and the Holy Ghost testifies.

law of witnesses. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob undeniably asks things of us that sometimes we might morally disagree with.

and yet here we have multiple critics of the church acting as though a policy, which has many precedents in this dispensation alone, has crossed some sort of moral line. Why? Because some people need to wait on the Lord for an ordinance? And yet this line wasn't crossed with other commands.

when the people left Christ after He announced they would need to eat His flesh and drink His blood, did He immediately clarify what He meant so they would return? Or did He let them leave?

where else will we obtain eternal life?

[consiglieri]

47 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

law of witnesses. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob undeniably asks things of us that sometimes we might morally disagree with.

and yet here we have multiple critics of the church acting as though a policy, which has many precedents in this dispensation alone, has crossed some sort of moral line. Why? Because some people need to wait on the Lord for an ordinance? And yet this line wasn't crossed with other commands.

when the people left Christ after He announced they would need to eat His flesh and drink His blood, did He immediately clarify what He meant so they would return? Or did He let them leave?

where else will we obtain eternal life?

Through some method that does not require us to violate the conscience God gave us.