USU78 Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said: Not in the slightest. If you support the Lord telling Nephi to slice off Laban's head, it follows you should support the destruction of the Canaanites as well as the Fancher-Baker train. Whatever, Schicklgruber. You crossed a bright red line there. We all get frustrated at times. You're entitled to be frustrated with the difficult issues of devotional sacrifice at the highest levels. They're supposed to challenge us and break our hearts. They're also supposed to make us kind.
Meadowchik Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 This was always a tough scenario to contemplate. Theoretically, we'd all like to think that we'd heed the Lord's voice when it comes, especially at a very important moment. However, it's not difficult to see that people might be sincerely convinced that they are heeding God's voice, when they are not. Surely we can agree it happens. To me, it leads to this conclusion: such voices can come and our belief in them can be sincere, but that sincerity is not the deciding factor of whether the voice is correct. It makes me want more information than a voice in a moment, especially before making such an important decision. I've never had a voice tell me to hurt someone or break the law, though. 1
RevTestament Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: This was always a tough scenario to contemplate. Theoretically, we'd all like to think that we'd heed the Lord's voice when it comes, especially at a very important moment. However, it's not difficult to see that people might be sincerely convinced that they are heeding God's voice, when they are not. Surely we can agree it happens. To me, it leads to this conclusion: such voices can come and our belief in them can be sincere, but that sincerity is not the deciding factor of whether the voice is correct. It makes me want more information than a voice in a moment, especially before making such an important decision. I've never had a voice tell me to hurt someone or break the law, though. Are you implying that killing Laban was breaking the law? Actually, it was following the law. The punishment for attempted murder was death. Did you read my post on the prior page? The Lord was following the law of justice by commanding Laban to be slain. Is it fair for other attempted murderers to die, but Laban to live while stealing almost all Lehi's wealth? The Lord was applying the law justly or even-handedly.
JamesBYoung Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, USU78 said: Whatever, Schicklgruber. You crossed a bright red line there. We all get frustrated at times. You're entitled to be frustrated with the difficult issues of devotional sacrifice at the highest levels. They're supposed to challenge us and break our hearts. They're also supposed to make us kind. I am not Hitler and you are not Hess the first Grammar Nazi, so step back. Clean up your act. We are discussing whether we should really think God commanded things like Laban's assassination, the destruction of the Canaanites, which leads us to the Fancher-Baker Train. Laban is not a story of devotional sacrifice; it is a story of murder. The Canaanites is a story of genocide. MMM is a story of mass murder. Two questions arise in the latter case: one, did the Priesthood command it, and two, are we obligated to support it. I agree the acts break our hearts. But it does not make us kind to the defenders of it. Edited July 10, 2020 by JamesBYoung
JamesBYoung Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: Are you implying that killing Laban was breaking the law? Actually, it was following the law. The punishment for attempted murder was death. Did you read my post on the prior page? The Lord was following the law of justice by commanding Laban to be slain. Is it fair for other attempted murderers to die, but Laban to live while stealing almost all Lehi's wealth? The Lord was applying the law justly or even-handedly. Whose law was it following? Not the Mosaic law, at all. You are saying that Nephi was being commanded by the Lord, and several of us are telling you we don't think so. Your 'fairness' analogy is a fallacy of false equivalency.
RevTestament Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 14 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said: Whose law was it following? Not the Mosaic law, at all. You are saying that Nephi was being commanded by the Lord, and several of us are telling you we don't think so. Your 'fairness' analogy is a fallacy of false equivalency. I don't really care if several of you think otherwise. Perhaps you should read the Mosaic law. It covers attempted murder. The punishment is death. Is it fair for the punishment to be waived? Or handed out unevenly? What did Laban do to deserve forbearance of the punishment? In my view nothing. He was guilty and therefore, under the Mosaic law his death was a just sentence by the Lord. How is that a fallacy?
JamesBYoung Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I don't really care if several of you think otherwise. Perhaps you should read the Mosaic law. It covers attempted murder. The punishment is death. Is it fair for the punishment to be waived? Or handed out unevenly? What did Laban do to deserve forbearance of the punishment? In my view nothing. He was guilty and therefore, under the Mosaic law his death was a just sentence by the Lord. How is that a fallacy? I don't really care if you disagree. The Mosaic Law did not allow a peron to take into his own hands the execution of a senseless drunk man in the street. Is it fair not too follow the law. Nephi should have taken Laban to the authorities instead of acting as a vigilante. Laban deserved the action of the Law. Your view is immaterial. It just does not count. What counts is that Nephi should have followed the Law and turned Laban over to the authorities. Edited July 10, 2020 by JamesBYoung
RevTestament Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 18 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said: I don't really care if you disagree. The Mosaic Law did not allow a peron to take into his own hands the execution of a senseless drunk man in the street. Is it fair not too follow the law. Nephi should have taken Laban to the authorities instead of acting as a vigilante. Laban deserved the action of the Law. Your view is immaterial. It just does not count. What counts is that Nephi should have followed the Law and turned Laban over to the authorities. The "authorities" were supposed to do what the Lord wanted. Nephi didn't need the authorities, because the Lord sat as judge, and is the ultimate authority. The Lord was following the law despite your attempts at digression. The Lord told Moses what to do. Why is the situation different for Nephi according to you?
Meadowchik Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 36 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Are you implying that killing Laban was breaking the law? Actually, it was following the law. The punishment for attempted murder was death. Did you read my post on the prior page? The Lord was following the law of justice by commanding Laban to be slain. Is it fair for other attempted murderers to die, but Laban to live while stealing almost all Lehi's wealth? The Lord was applying the law justly or even-handedly. I'm contemplating the personal application of scripture. No, I did not read all the other posts. I am responding to the general OP topic. I just now found your post however: Quote I used to have a problem with it. When I first read the BoM, it did bother me. But further study has shown that the Mosaic law covered this situation. Ex 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to aslay him with bguile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. I realized that Laban came "presumptuously" upon Nephi and his brothers to slay them. He was guilty of attempted murder, and the Lord knew his heart, so there was no need for a trial for the Lord to command Nephi to slay Laban. It seems a sticky-wick, but it is not under the Mosaic law. This certainly does not justify Nephi by Mosaic law, in my view. Laban was unconscious and not seeking sanctuary at the altar. In any case, in terms of personal application, of course The Book of Mormon is written as if Nephi believed it to be the voice of the Lord commanding him to kill. Yet at any similar scenario in real life it would be dangerous to draw that conclusion. I resist the idea that anyone could receive a voice to kill someone, especially under such circumstances. I dislike the notion that a person can use an unverifiable voice for such a purpose of being judge, jury, and executioner and it, to me, is a shaky foundation. 1
JamesBYoung Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: The "authorities" were supposed to do what the Lord wanted. Nephi didn't need the authorities, because the Lord sat as judge, and is the ultimate authority. The Lord was following the law despite your attempts at digression. The Lord told Moses what to do. Why is the situation different for Nephi according to you? The authorities would do what they thought the Lord would want not what you think they should have done. Or what Nephi thought they should have done. You do not speak for the Lord, RevTestament. All we can do is put the situation into the format of that day. You are digressing from what happened. Why are you doing that? Meadowchik seems to have the handle on this "sticky wicket" situation and I appreciate that. Edited July 10, 2020 by JamesBYoung
RevTestament Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I'm contemplating the personal application of scripture. No, I did not read all the other posts. I am responding to the general OP topic. I just now found your post however: This certainly does not justify Nephi by Mosaic law, in my view. Laban was unconscious and not seeking sanctuary at the altar. The Lord was saying that there is no sanctuary for this offense. It matters not whether Laban was seeking it. He was guilty. Quote In any case, in terms of personal application, of course The Book of Mormon is written as if Nephi believed it to be the voice of the Lord commanding him to kill. Yet at any similar scenario in real life it would be dangerous to draw that conclusion. I resist the idea that anyone could receive a voice to kill someone, especially under such circumstances. I dislike the notion that a person can use an unverifiable voice for such a purpose of being judge, jury, and executioner and it, to me, is a shaky foundation. Presentism. I concede that men often give heed to seducing spirits. It is of course a concern. However, Moses did much the same as you complain about. You would seem to have a problem with much of the OT. Would you have taken your only son to sacrifice him like Abraham? It sounds like you would not. Scrub that story from the book of Meadowchick.... Edited July 10, 2020 by RevTestament
stemelbow Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 The Nephi killing Laban story is suspect on about 100 levels. It'd be impossible for someone to cut off another's head, put the victims clothes on, blood soaked, pretend to be that victim and get some of his regular acquaintances, at the very least, to believe you are the victim. It's silly we believe something like that ever really happened. Another issue with the story is, we only have Nephi's word that Laban was trying to kill them. As we've learned in many instances claims of self-defense are simply justifications, created afterwards. Feelings of the Holy Ghost influencing someone to do something is problematic, particularly if its about murdering or killing someone. But I really like the point raised in the OP--it never really provided the benefit Nephi claimed it was supposed to.
pogi Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, RevTestament said: I used to have a problem with it. When I first read the BoM, it did bother me. But further study has shown that the Mosaic law covered this situation. Ex 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to aslay him with bguile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. I realized that Laban came "presumptuously" upon Nephi and his brothers to slay them. He was guilty of attempted murder, and the Lord knew his heart, so there was no need for a trial for the Lord to command Nephi to slay Laban. It seems a sticky-wick, but it is not under the Mosaic law. No commentary I have read on this passage frames this as attempted murder, but actual murder. It is distinguishing between premeditated-intentional murder and accidental manslaughter in the prior verse. See commentaries here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/21-14.htm I have searched high and low for anything suggesting that attempted murder in ancient Israel was punishable by death. I can find nothing - with one exception - if you attempt to kill your parents, you are guilty of death. Edited July 10, 2020 by pogi
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 This is embarrassing but what was on the plates of brass exactly? Lineages?
ksfisher Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Tacenda said: This is embarrassing but what was on the plates of brass exactly? Lineages? 10 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the aplates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. 11 And he beheld that they did contain the five abooks of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents; 12 And also a arecord of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; 13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of aZedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of bJeremiah. 14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the aplates of brass a bgenealogy of his cfathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of dJoseph; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/5.10,14,18,19?lang=eng&clang=eng#p10,14,18,19 1
Bob Crockett Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 3 hours ago, USU78 said: Schicklgruber. I saw that.
ksfisher Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, stemelbow said: But I really like the point raised in the OP--it never really provided the benefit Nephi claimed it was supposed to. The OP ignores all the instances in the Book of Mormon where people exercised faith in Christ unto salvation. Edited July 10, 2020 by ksfisher 3
JamesBYoung Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: The Lord was saying that there is no sanctuary for this offense. It matters not whether Laban was seeking it. He was guilty. Presentism. I concede that men often give heed to seducing spirits. It is of course a concern. However, Moses did much the same as you complain about. You would seem to have a problem with much of the OT. Would you have taken your only son to sacrifice him like Abraham? It sounds like you would not. Scrub that story from the book of Meadowchick.... You seem to have problem with disagreement and make assumptions not based on the evidence. Would you support MMM? Would you have taken your son to sacrifice like Abraham? Do you think that is admirable? I don't, and I wonder if others here, accept you as an authority on these matters. Edited July 10, 2020 by JamesBYoung
stemelbow Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ksfisher said: The OP ignores all the instances in the Book of Mormon where people exercised faith in Christ unto salvation. I don't think so. He mentioned that it may have benefitted an extremely tiny portion of humans throughout history, in the long run. I think he was saying 99.9% of the people remain unbenefited, if there really is benefit at all. What nation did not dwindle in unbelief? I thought they all did. The quoted passage does not suggest that one man must die so a few people can exercise faith in Christ unto salvation. Edited July 10, 2020 by stemelbow
Meadowchik Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 54 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Presentism. Presentism what? would you like to use the word in a complete sentence?
mfbukowski Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 On 7/8/2020 at 11:25 AM, CV75 said: The reconciliation is timing. The nation lasted long enough before dwindling (1,000 years!) to produce what became the Book of Mormon. That's it. Thread over. 1
Ahab Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 Just now, stemelbow said: I don't think so. He mentioned that it may have benefitted an extremely tiny portion of humans throughout history, in the long run. I think he was saying 99.9% of the people remain unbenefited, if there really is benefit at all. What nation did not dwindle in unbelief? I thought they all did. I think of "dwindling in unbelief" as a kind of circling the drain motion as things just keep getting worse and worse for people who do not believe in God or all that he has revealed. To "dwindle" means "to diminish gradually in size, amount, or strength". And the Lord said it was better for one man to die than for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief. Today, nowhere on this entire planet is any whole nation dwindling in unbelief. Is that because we have the Book of Mormon and other records of ancient scripture? Uh, maybe. Believe whatever you want to believe.
pogi Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, bluebell said: We don't teach our people to follow every conviction though. In fact, we excommunicate our people if they refuse to stop following certain ones. Our church is actually fairly good at making sure that certain convictions are not tolerated, regardless of how much someone is convinced that they are condoned by God. I think we still teach people to follow their convictions. If their convictions lead away from the church, we teach that is their right and privilege, and we don't expect them ditch their conscience in mindless subservience as puppets to the church. We teach people to follow their convictions while clearly outlining the consequences of wandering outside the boundaries of the commandments. Does the church really expect people to ditch their own convictions? Of course not! They try to help guide their convictions to align with the church through gentle persuasion. The very act of persuasion is proof that we respect conviction and don't expect people to ditch it. Quote We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Articles of Faith 1:11 (1842) We claim that privilege even for those who chose to be excommunicated in following their conscience in practicing polygamy, for example. That teaching of following your conviction is core and fundamental to who we are. If you lay aside your convictions, then what is left to guide you? Not even the Holy Spirit can guide you if you don't trust and follow your convictions. Edited July 10, 2020 by pogi 2
ksfisher Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What nation did not dwindle in unbelief? I thought they all did. Every single Nephite and Lamanite dwindled in unbelief?
USU78 Posted July 10, 2020 Posted July 10, 2020 2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said: I am not Hitler and you are not Hess the first Grammar Nazi, so step back. Clean up your act. We are discussing whether we should really think God commanded things like Laban's assassination, the destruction of the Canaanites, which leads us to the Fancher-Baker Train. Laban is not a story of devotional sacrifice; it is a story of murder. The Canaanites is a story of genocide. MMM is a story of mass murder. Two questions arise in the latter case: one, did the Priesthood command it, and two, are we obligated to support it. I agree the acts break our hearts. But it does not make us kind to the defenders of it. How useful to hide behind the faux sharing of "guilt" that is hidden in that there "us." We get to demonize even the perfectly innocent striver to understanding, pretend remorse for sharing in the guilty's guilt, while all the while ascribing unforgivability to those filthy others. Laban and Isaac are in completely different moral universes from the scouring of Canaan. Yet though Israel was wicked in scouring, those being scoured were wicked too, and the scouring is just as much G-d's punishment of the wicked as though it were by his own hand. And no, you don't get to escape being called out for calling a debate opponent a supporter of wartime atrocities by your bad faith deflection. It was and is wrong and you ought to apologize. 1
Recommended Posts