Crossing a line

[Avatar4321]

9 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.

 

president nelson made it fairly clear that the policy was revelation from the Lord. Those who oppose it have made it clear its not because of revelation to the contrary but because of unbelief. What exactly do you want otherwise?

[CA Steve]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

1. 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. 

2. 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

Hi BD, I added numbers to your quote so it is clear to which statement and question I am responding.

1. We baptize children at 8 and we baptize all sorts of people from all walks of life of all ages without concern as to what they might encounter elsewhere. (FWIW I am also opposed to the same restriction on children of polygamous families nor do I think that is exactly the same situation since they are doing it for many different reasons than the example I am using.)  Additionally members run the gamut  as far as being sinners with no one at the perfect end. Why is it so difficult to understand that someone who does not fully live the laws of the gospel might want their children to be different? Why is it difficult to understand that others see Mormonism in somewhat the same light we see other religions, as having something to offer but not a complete package? Perhaps they think we have a lot to offer but are lacking in other areas. Perhaps they see us as the best alternative but not perfect. I do not know how my niece envisioned the actuality of raising children within the church, but certainly she did not envision it  as including herself being defined as an apostate. So maybe she wants to attend a less than perfect church because she sees or knows nothing better?

2. To your second question. As I explained in the example of my niece, she now, as a direct result of this revelation sees no way for her children to be part of the church. If being part of the church in this life does not have eternal consequences, what does?

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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

and yet the scriptures teach clearly both were good and from God.

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

did God tell nephi and Abraham to do something wrong?

did Christ tell the people something wrong?

If the stories of Nephi and Abraham are true the answer to your question is yes.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

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

Because it is an example of the stupid things people can do when they think God is telling them to do something.

[Teancum]

9 hours 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

God needs to be consistent and follow his own rules.  If not such a being should not be followed.  But really the problem is not so much God but the ones who claim God is speaking through them.  

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

well when you find a method of obtaining eternal life while disobeying God, than let me know and we can discuss it. Until then ill follow the Lord

[Teancum]

7 hours 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???

It's called rational thought and reason.

[Avatar4321]

What is rational about not trusting an all knowing and good Father in Heaven?

And how can our Father help us grow if He can't ask more from us than we are initially willing to give?

[Calm]

12 hours ago, CA Steve said:

2. To your second question. As I explained in the example of my niece, she now, as a direct result of this revelation sees no way for her children to be part of the church. If being part of the church in this life does not have eternal consequences, what does?

Eternally speaking and mortally for that matter, it is not sufficient to have the ordinance performed.  A certain level of correct understanding must be present.  It is not good imo in many situations on incorrect or incomplete understanding to go ahead and make a covenant or encourage others one has great influence over to make covenants that one then, perhaps quite unintentionally, works against fully keeping it.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

and yet the scriptures teach clearly both were good and from God.

Those are particular teachings that require special interpretation. All scripture is a human product, after all, and subject to error.

[Avatar4321]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Those are particular teachings that require special interpretation. All scripture is a human product, after all, and subject to error.

what exactly needs interpretation? The scriptures clearly teach God commanded them to do it. It also clearly teaches they were blessed doing so.

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

what exactly needs interpretation? The scriptures clearly teach God commanded them to do it. It also clearly teaches they were blessed doing so.

The scriptures don't give us access to God, only to what different religious communities and writers believed about God at certain points in time.

I don't think the divine command model of morality works out that well. It tends to lead people to dark places. Better to have moral standards based on good principles. 

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

well when you find a method of obtaining eternal life while disobeying God, than let me know and we can discuss it. Until then ill follow the Lord

A serious question, Avatar:

Will you "follow the Lord" if you believe he has told you to kill a defenseless man?

 

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

what exactly needs interpretation? The scriptures clearly teach God commanded them to do it. It also clearly teaches they were blessed doing so.

Nephi was not blessed.

Actually, Nephi was cursed as the most miserable person in the Book of Mormon, for he saw the destruction of his race in vision.

An argument can (and has) been made that Nephi's curse is the direct result of his killing Laban.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Nephi was not blessed.

Actually, Nephi was cursed as the most miserable person in the Book of Mormon, for he saw the destruction of his race in vision.

An argument can (and has) been made that Nephi's curse is the direct result of his killing Laban.

I have never heard this argument before.

Where is that called a curse, and how is Nephi more 'cursed' than Mormon, Moroni, or Ether?

And lastly, if seeing the destruction of your race is a curse for murder, what innocent person did those other men kill to deserve the same fate?

 

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Hi BD, I added numbers to your quote so it is clear to which statement and question I am responding.

1. We baptize children at 8 and we baptize all sorts of people from all walks of life of all ages without concern as to what they might encounter elsewhere. (FWIW I am also opposed to the same restriction on children of polygamous families nor do I think that is exactly the same situation since they are doing it for many different reasons than the example I am using.)  Additionally members run the gamut  as far as being sinners with no one at the perfect end. Why is it so difficult to understand that someone who does not fully live the laws of the gospel might want their children to be different? Why is it difficult to understand that others see Mormonism in somewhat the same light we see other religions, as having something to offer but not a complete package? Perhaps they think we have a lot to offer but are lacking in other areas. Perhaps they see us as the best alternative but not perfect. I do not know how my niece envisioned the actuality of raising children within the church, but certainly she did not envision it  as including herself being defined as an apostate. So maybe she wants to attend a less than perfect church because she sees or knows nothing better?

2. To your second question. As I explained in the example of my niece, she now, as a direct result of this revelation sees no way for her children to be part of the church. If being part of the church in this life does not have eternal consequences, what does?

Thanks CA for a longer explanation. 

For #1....I don't know if your first sentence is necessarily true. For people who are coming out of extreme circumstances (such as drug dealing or prostitution) I've heard there's a waiting period to make sure their past is largely that. When certain circumstances are found, extra interviews from the MP or even the FP may be needed for approval. For people converting from Islam there can be a hold, depending on the country and their familial/social environment. In Africa, they've refrained from baptizing/proselyting in certain rural areas because there isn't the structure in their villages to support their religious conversion and concerns that correct doctrine will be lost, particularly considering literacy problems. And of course there's polygamous families.  Even where I've seen more complex family situations (like a cohabitating couple on my mission with a complex legal barrier toward marrying who's kids were actively in the ward) the steps for baptism often include making sure that there are ways to support the child in their covenants. We don't care a lot of the time...but we often very much do. And the reasons when baptism is delayed or withheld doesn't necessarily reflect on the righteousness of the individual seeking baptism. It's more about assuring, that when unique circumstances are involved the purpose for baptism is maintained and their capacity to live up to their covenants is maximized.

for your series of  questions following in 1....honestly I don't know or have even heard of enough situations to gauge their reasoning. To me the one example I did hear, where the couple did have kids who were participating and a number baptized...it also somewhat indicated to me why they decided on this course of actions. To me, the reasons sound more of an emphasis on a cultural rite than a religious commitment. To me if I believed it in a sense that I see other faiths that are worthwhile to expose my kids to, I can do so without having my children become members. I love midnight mass and find the rituals in catholicism interesting, some of my brothers attended a catholic pre-k. Others went to a baptist day-camp for a summer. None of them needed to become members to fellowship. That's how I interact with entities that I enjoy but don't necessarily believe have a "complete package." For me, the ordinances of the gospel entail more than a casual or cultural participation, though they certainly have cultural ritual surrounding them. To me they have serious religious commitments to Deity involved. Ones that are meant to prepare them for even further covenants to Deity that we're commanded to take in vain.

For me the reason I said no, is because baptism, to me, isn't a magical assurance of salvation and delays do not effect one's eternal place. There have been entire swaths of people that, for no fault of their own, did not have the opportunity in this life. But we are given the particular promise that any who didn't receive an opportunity here can have it later. I also said no, because I've watched 3 of my siblings have their baptism delayed because 1 or both parents wouldn't approve of it. And another brother who had a temporary delay on his ordination to priest. And another who I think never was because of things he struggled with. I currently, through no fault of my own, am permanently "delayed" from being sealed to my family due first by my family structure (single mom) and then later family dynamics (complex blended family). In short, I'm used to seeing things be delayed and I've gained a strong testimony that the state of today doesn't necessarily translate to the state of eternity.

They can still attend a less than perfect church. Even though a line has been drawn I haven't seen a drastic change in attitude toward gays from those in my circles. The ones who were bigoted are still bigoted (and a shrinking group IMHO) and the ones who want to act in love for the gay friends/family, even if at times imperfectly, are still doing so (and are a growing portion....feasibly the majority in the younger educated gen).         

 

I think I may have inadvertently answered 2 in there as well. But if you feel I didn't, please tell me and I'll try to respond more fully.

With luv,

BD

[consiglieri]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have never heard this argument before.

Where is that called a curse, and how is Nephi more 'cursed' than Mormon, Moroni, or Ether?

And lastly, if seeing the destruction of your race is a curse for murder, what innocent person did those other men kill to deserve the same fate?

 

That may be because it is my theory. 

But here is the key passage:

 

Quote

 1 Nephi 15:5 And it came to pass that I was overcome because of my afflictions, for I considered that mine afflictions were great above all, because of the destruction of my people, for I had beheld their fall.

This finds an echo in Milton's Paradise Lost where Adam expresses himself similarly upon seeing the destruction of his posterity in the Flood.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

That may be because it is my theory. 

But here is the key passage:

 

This finds an echo in Milton's Paradise Lost where Adam expresses himself similarly upon seeing the destruction of his posterity in the Flood.

An infliction and a curse are not the same thing though. 

 

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

An infliction and a curse are not the same thing though. 

 

So why did God inflict this knowledge on Nephi, knowing it would make him the most miserable among all men?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So why did God inflict this knowledge on Nephi, knowing it would make him the most miserable among all men?

I don't know.  Sometimes we need to know things, even if they cause pain  

But it doesn't make sense to me to suggest that it was a curse. 

Otherwise, we would have to acknowledge that anytime God does anything that causes us great pain (like the death of a loved one, a disability or sickness, financial ruin, discovering the treachery of a spouse, etc. ) that He is cursing us. 

We don't believe that though. 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know.  Sometimes we need to know things, even if they cause pain  

But it doesn't make sense to me to suggest that it was a curse. 

Otherwise, we would have to acknowledge that anytime God does anything that causes us great pain (like the death of a loved one, a disability or sickness, financial ruin, discovering the treachery of a spouse, etc. ) that He is cursing us. 

We don't believe that though. 

Ah, but what if God showed us when and how somebody we love would die in the future?

That seems like unnecessary roughness. 

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Ah, but what if God showed us when and how somebody we love would die in the future?

That seems like unnecessary roughness. 

 

Or a huge blessing. 

One of the people I loved most died suddenly and I didn't get to say good bye.  I cried over that for months. How many people spend countless hours wishing they had known they would never see someone again?

Knowledge can be painful, but that doesn't mean it's not also a gift. 

[mnn727]

On 1/13/2016 at 10:24 AM, Avatar4321 said:

1.) did God tell nephi and Abraham to do something wrong?

2.) did Christ tell the people something wrong?

1.) Yes, asking Abraham to sacrifice Issac was inherently wrong. Asking Nephi to kill Laban was inherently wrong - Personally I don't believe either story as written

2.) I do not believe so.

[consiglieri]

On the general subject of "crossing the line," one of the most important elements in a spiritual journey is crossing the line from the known into the unknown.

This is why it is such an important scene in the Lord of the Rings when Frodo for the first time steps foot outside the Shire.

Fortunately, Pippin and Merry are being chased by Farmer Maggot to add some humor to the situation.