let’s roll Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: On the contrary I think there is some sense in it. It's essentially a rewording of the idea: "True wisdom is knowing what you don't know," an idea which in my opinion has stood well the test of time For mortals perhaps. But God is true wisdom and there is nothing He doesn’t know. Thus there is wisdom in tapping into the only source of infinite wisdom. The fact that so many try to tell us what God would tell us shouldn’t dissuade us. The source is readily available to those with open and willing hearts. 1
Meadowchik Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, let’s roll said: For mortals perhaps. But God is true wisdom and there is nothing He doesn’t know. Thus there is wisdom in tapping into the only source of infinite wisdom. The fact that so many try to tell us what God would tell us shouldn’t dissuade us. The source is readily available to those with open and willing hearts. Our conceptions of God are mortal, they're inseparable from us. We may want to tap into the divine, we may sincerely believe we have done so, but we cannot know for certain. I think that being aware of that limitation is important for anyone who wants to seek God, or seek Truth in general.
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Anijen said: Here is the opening Abstract from Welch's article. I am in agreement it would have been murder if today's laws were applied. The important thing to remember is if we compare the laws of Nephi's time to our time that is presentism. To best understand this issue is to understand the laws in Nephi's time. --This article marshals ancient legal evidence to show that Nephi’s slaying of Laban should be understood as a protected manslaughter rather than a criminal homicide. The biblical law of murder demanded a higher level of premeditation and hostility than Nephi exhibited or modern law requires. The terms of Exodus 21:13, it is argued, protected more than accidental slayings or unconscious acts, particularly where God was seen as having delivered the victim into the slayer’s hand. Various rationales for Nephi’s killing of Laban include ancient views on surrendering one person for the benefit of a whole community. Other factors within the Book of Mormon as well as in Moses’ killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2 corroborate the conclusion that Nephi did not commit the equivalent of a first-degree murder under the laws of his day I finished reading his article yesterday. The limitations of his article are that other Biblical scholars don't agree with his interpretations of these verses. I have researched all of the Biblical evidence he provides and no commentator that I have found agrees with his interpretations of these verses. Edited July 13, 2020 by pogi
smac97 Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, pogi said: I finished reading his article yesterday. The limitations of his article are that other Biblical scholars don't agree with his interpretations of these verses. I have researched all of the Biblical evidence he provides and no commentator that I have found agrees with his interpretations of these verses. CFR, please. I would like to read these other commentators' disagreement with Welch. Thanks, -Smac
Anijen Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, pogi said: I finished reading his article yesterday. The limitations of his article are that other Biblical scholars don't agree with his interpretations of these verses. What other Biblical Scholars? Could you please link these articles from biblical scholars disagreeing with Welch's interpretations? Quote I have researched all of the Biblical evidence he provides You have researched "all of the Biblical evidence he provides" (emphasis mine)? That is quite impressive especially for just finishing reading the article yesterday. Quote and no commentator that I have found agrees with his interpretations of these verses. Who are these commentators you are referring to? If you are referring to those in references , i.e., Dan Fuller, Fred Essig, FARMS, Bernard S. Jackson, Moshe Greenberg, James B. Pritchard, many other experts in their fields of study. Why did Welsch use them in his citations if they do not support his interpretations?
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: CFR, please. I would like to read these other commentators' disagreement with Welch. Thanks, -Smac I have already posted some. You will have to wait for others. I am just posting in-between calls and don't have time to dig into stuff right now. Edited July 13, 2020 by pogi
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Anijen said: You have researched "all of the Biblical evidence he provides" (emphasis mine)? That is quite impressive especially for just finishing reading the article yesterday. His argument is based entirely on 3 or 4 Bible verses.
let’s roll Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Our conceptions of God are mortal, they're inseparable from us. We may want to tap into the divine, we may sincerely believe we have done so, but we cannot know for certain. I think that being aware of that limitation is important for anyone who wants to seek God, or seek Truth in general. Saying we can’t know for certain places a limit on what God can share with us and how it is shared. I’m not aware of any evidence He has accepted that limitation. To the contrary, I believe there’s evidence that there is no such limitation. 1
Meadowchik Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, let’s roll said: Saying we can’t know for certain places a limit on what God can share with us and how it is shared. I’m not aware of any evidence He has accepted that limitation. To the contrary, I believe there’s evidence that there is no such limitation. God may share with us, but it is our ability to discern that is limited.
InCognitus Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 55 minutes ago, pogi said: 2 hours ago, Anijen said: Here is the opening Abstract from Welch's article. I am in agreement it would have been murder if today's laws were applied. The important thing to remember is if we compare the laws of Nephi's time to our time that is presentism. To best understand this issue is to understand the laws in Nephi's time. --This article marshals ancient legal evidence to show that Nephi’s slaying of Laban should be understood as a protected manslaughter rather than a criminal homicide. The biblical law of murder demanded a higher level of premeditation and hostility than Nephi exhibited or modern law requires. The terms of Exodus 21:13, it is argued, protected more than accidental slayings or unconscious acts, particularly where God was seen as having delivered the victim into the slayer’s hand. Various rationales for Nephi’s killing of Laban include ancient views on surrendering one person for the benefit of a whole community. Other factors within the Book of Mormon as well as in Moses’ killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2 corroborate the conclusion that Nephi did not commit the equivalent of a first-degree murder under the laws of his day I finished reading his article yesterday. The limitations of his article are that other Biblical scholars don't agree with his interpretations of these verses. I have researched all of the Biblical evidence he provides and no commentator that I have found agrees with his interpretations of these verses. It looks to me like Welch's article matches up with the analysis of what constitutes "homicide" in the old Jewish Encyclopedia (bold text added for emphasis): Quote —In Rabbinic Law: By the rabbinic system homicide is clearly classified as (1) justifiable, (2) misadventurous, (3) accidental, (4) culpable, or (5) felonious. When Justifiable. (1) Homicide is justifiable when it is committed in obedience to duty, as in executing a condemned criminal (Lev. xx. 2; Deut. xvii. 5, 7; xxii. 24); or in defense of human life or chastity (Sanh. viii. 7, 73a; see below); or even in killing the thief who breaks in at night (Ex. xxii. 2; see Burglary), whether the killing is done by the proprietor of the premises or by a stranger (Sanh. viii. 6, 72b; Maimonides, "Yad," Genebah, ix. 7). (2) Homicide is misadventurous () when the killing is the result of pure chance; as when, in the Biblical example quoted above, the head of the ax, instead of slipping from the helve swayed by the hewer, rebounds from the block and kills (Mak. ii. 1, 7b; comp. "Yad," Roẓeaḥ, vi. 15); or when one throws a missile on his own premises, and a stranger, without the proprietor's knowledge or consent, just then intruding, is struck and killed by such missile (Mak. l.c. 2, 8a; B. Ḳ. 32b). In such cases no blame attaches to the unfortunate slayer; therefore no punishment of any kind is incurred by him, not even at the hands of the redeemer of blood, the "go'el" (Mak. l.c.; B. Ḳ. l.c.; "Yad," l.c. 3). Accidental Homicide. (3) Homicide is accidental () when it is the effect of constructive negligence, but entirely free from felonious intention; as when an officer of the court, in chastising a convict (Deut. xxv. 2, 3), by mistake administers more than the number of stripes awarded in the sentence, and thereby causes the death of the culprit (Mak. iii. 14, 22a; B. Ḳ. 32b); or when one throws a missile on his own premises, and a visitor just then entering by permission is struck and killed by the missile (Mak. ii. 2, 8a; "Yad," l.c. vi. 11). This species of homicide, although not attended by premeditation or malice, savors of negligence, and is therefore not altogether free from blame and consequent punishment, which latter is exile (; Mak. ii. 1, 2, 7a; see above), or the risk of being killed by the go'el (Mak. l.c. 7, 12a; "Yad," l.c. v. 9, 10). However, the accidental manslayer is not subject to exile, unless the victim dies immediately after the accident. If the victim survives the accident even a single astronomical day, no exile is imposed (Yeb. 120b; Giṭ. 70b; "Yad," l.c. v. 2). Culpable Homicide. (4) Homicide is culpable () when it is the result of actual negligence on the part of the perpetrator; as when one engaged in razing a structure near a thoroughfare thoughtlessly lets some of the material fall on a passer-by, killing him (B. Ḳ.33b; Mak. ii. 2, 8a); or when one endeavoring to prevent the commission of murder or of rape (see above) intentionally kills the would-be criminal without attempting any other means of prevention (Sanh. 74a; "Yad," l.c. i. 13); or when one commits homicide in the belief that he has a right to do it (see Hatra'ah), e.g., when one kills a criminal before his judicial conviction (Mak. 7b, 9b). In all such cases the perpetrators are outlaws in the broadest sense of the term: they are criminals, but stand beyond the provisions of the penal laws. The laws concerning murder (see below) can not be applied to them, because the slaying was not preceded by deliberation; and the law concerning accidental homicide can not be applied to them, because the slaying was either the result of criminal negligence or the consequence of choice; therefore the go'el may kill them at any time or place, exile not protecting them against him ("Yad," l.c. vi. 4).In the following cases, though they are even more criminal than those just mentioned, the homicide is likewise included among the culpable: Where a man is an accessory, e.g., hires others to do the deed (see Abetment); where the perpetrator is a principal in the crime, but the victim has a chance to avert fatal results, as where one wilfully throws another into a well which at the time is provided with a ladder, but the assailant removes the ladder and the victim is drowned (Sanh. 77b; "Yad," l.c. iii. 9); where the death is the result of miscarried felonious intent, as where one maliciously aims a deadly missile at a certain person, and it strikes and kills another (Sanh. ix. 2, 79a; B. Ḳ. 44b); where the missile, not deadly if striking the part aimed at, miscarries and strikes the intended victim in a more vital spot, with fatal results (Sanh. l.c.; "Yad," l.c. iv. 2); and even where none of the aggravating circumstances here detailed are present, but it is proved that the slayer had nourished enmity against the victim (Mak. ii. 3, 7b; Sifre, Num. 160). The penalty for the culpables, whom, as stated, exile does not protect against the go'el, depends on the exigencies of the times. If circumstances require exemplary rigor, the court may order the infliction of capital punishment; otherwise scourging and imprisonment (M. Ḳ. 16a; Sanh. 46a; "Yad," l.c. ii. 4, 5). To the category of culpable homicides excluded from the penal statute may be added the suicide. Murder. (5) Homicide is felonious when the act is the result of wilful and malicious deliberation (; see above and Hatra'ah). To establish it as such, there must be none of the mitigating circumstances attending any of the cases hitherto enumerated. It must be perpetrated by one man only, without the physical aid of others (see Abetment); but persuasion or threats (see Duress) will not be considered as an excuse for or extenuation of the crime (Sanh. 74b; Yeb. 53a). Where danger threatens the lives of two men, and one can save his life by increasing the danger of the other, the Rabbis lay down the ethical principle, "Thine own life takes precedence over that of thy neighbor" (B. M. 62a; comp. Yer. Hor. iii. 48b); but where one is threatened with the forfeiture of his own life unless he take that of an innocent party, the Rabbis argue, "There is no reason for supposing that thy blood is redder than that of the other"; hence one may not save his own life by spilling the innocent blood of another (Sanh. 74a). 2
Anijen Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, InCognitus said: It looks to me like Welch's article matches up with the analysis of what constitutes "homicide" in the old Jewish Encyclopedia (bold text added for emphasis): Good to know, thank you.
mfbukowski Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: On the contrary I think there is some sense in it. It's essentially a rewording of the idea: "True wisdom is knowing what you don't know," an idea which in my opinion has stood well the test of time Oh. That's very different. Nevermind. I like those words much better; when you get into truth and certainty, them's deep waters, and you never know what's lurking below. 1
smac97 Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: Quote Quote I finished reading his article yesterday. The limitations of his article are that other Biblical scholars don't agree with his interpretations of these verses. I have researched all of the Biblical evidence he provides and no commentator that I have found agrees with his interpretations of these verses. CFR, please. I would like to read these other commentators' disagreement with Welch. I have already posted some. You will have to wait for others. I am just posting in-between calls and don't have time to dig into stuff right now. Okay. I assume you are referring to this post: Quote 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. I admit I did not search "high and low." But I did do a google search and immediately found an article by Richard H. Hiers, a law professor at University of Florida, entitled "The Death Penalty and Due Process in Biblical Law." The money quote: Quote The Deuteronomic definition of intentional homicide likewise is more exact than its earlier counterpart, particularly with regard to the elements of subjective intent and planning: "{b}ut if any man hates his neighbor, and lies in wait for him," and attacks him, and wounds him mortally so that he dies.. ." (Deuteronomy 19:11), the murderer was to be executed. As read, Exodus 21:14 could include attempted murder. The Deuteronomic version specifies that in order for the offender to be liable, the intended victim must have died as a result of the premeditated assault. (Italics in the original, bold emphasis added.) This reading seems pretty plausible. "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die." Exodus 21:14 could refer to both murder and attempted murder. This verse speaks of intent and premeditation. It does not appear to require successful completion of the act. FWIW, the Church has apparently adopted, or at least allows for, Welch's construction of Exodus 21:14. See here: Quote It should be remembered that the Lord gave Laban at least two chances to part with the brass plates without requiring his life. Laban was a liar, a robber, and he had at least twice sought to murder. Stealing and attempted murder could both be punishable by death (see Exodus 21:14; 22:2; Deuteronomy 24:7). Also, if Nephi had committed murder, one of two unpardonable sins, I don't think the Lord would have let him keep his prophetic mantle. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2020 by smac97
Ahab Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: God may share with us, but it is our ability to discern that is limited. Limited in a limited sense, if that's what you meant, but not limited in the ultimate sense. Our ability to discern is not totally limited because we can continue to learn how to discern better and better until we know for absolutely certain the differences between communications to us from God and communications to us from Satan. Learning to discern the differences between God vs Satan...and good vs evil, and right vs wrong... is a big part of what this mortal experience is all about. We're here to gain knowledge of good vs evil in a more in depth way than we did before we became mortal, where whatever we do now is based on our desire to do either good or evil and follow either God or Satan, whether or not we realize who we are following. And at the end of this "test" we're going to find out how well we discerned good vs evil by our own actions in our own mortal experiences, or how poorly we did, at which point some of us are already going to know what some others of us have yet to discern. Some of us now believe that all of this religious stuff is just made up and there is no truth at all to it, while others have discerned more than that but still not as much truth as some others have discerned. Only a small percentage will have proven themselves as "valiant" regarding receiving the testimony of Jesus Christ and other aspects of truth that can only be known through testimony from the Holy Spirit. Not because some did not have a way to know the truth and discern good vs evil, but because some did not take full advantage of all of the blessings they could have received by simply opening their hearts to God and accepting what he tried to teach each of them personally, preferring instead to rely on others for guidance.
CV75 Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 On 7/8/2020 at 8:09 PM, pogi said: I am not yet convinced of his argument. He admits that he doesn't know for sure if his interpretation of the Mosaic law as outlined in Exodus is how it was understood and applied in 600 BC. I would like to see some other perspectives (non-Mormon preferably to eliminate any potential bias) of ancient Israel law in regards to murder before I come to any conclusions. Yes, I will read all 25 pages - patience geez! I just learned about it. The format of these forums is that you are expected to provide summary and main points of argument without requiring the other person to read the entire source before he understands the gist. Something to consider, and you can find this on various Jewish historical websites, and the parallel is in 3 Nephi 7, that "they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders." Disrupted and subservient governments such as those at the time of Laban and Nephi often placed adjudication of murder in the hands of the families, communities, etc. These websites also talk of the goel hadam ("avenger of blood"), a person charged with the duty of avenging the death of a relative who had been wrongly killed. Nephi sounds like he could have been trained for this role and there may be a backstory to Laban's deeds against Lehi. Nephi's reticence was not because he felt killing Laban was wrong or against the law or commandments, but simply that he had never killed a man before ("Never at any time have I shed the blood of man.). Laban's blood pressure in his condition could have been such as to minimize bleeding, especially if the head were positioned just-so and the executing blow carried out without full separation of the head from the body (decapitation can be internal). As I see mentioned above, the clothing could have been gotten from the corpse, taken off the body before the slaying, or a set obtained elsewhere nearby.
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, InCognitus said: It looks to me like Welch's article matches up with the analysis of what constitutes "homicide" in the old Jewish Encyclopedia (bold text added for emphasis): Thanks for sharing. According to this definition, it seems that Nephi would be guilty of "culpable homicide". That is contrary to what Welch argues however. Welch argues that Nephi was "not culpable" and that the killing was completely "justifiable". Quote Nephi was completely surprised to find Laban. His deed was not preplanned and, therefore, not culpable. ...it is clear that culpable slayings under biblical law had to involve some preplanned, treacherous, or hateful state of mind and that such a requirement was lacking in Nephi's case. ...the killing was on both counts legally justifiable and religiously excusable Edited July 13, 2020 by pogi
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, smac97 said: Also, if Nephi had committed murder, one of two unpardonable sins, I don't think the Lord would have let him keep his prophetic mantle. Thanks, -Smac I can't address everything. But I do want to point out something. If the same deed was performed today, Nephi would have committed an unforgivable sin? Interesting how time changes things. Since when does the law of the land dictate if a sin is forgivable (or even a sin) or not? It is clear that the Lord can and does command contrary to the laws of the land on occasion (polygamy for example) and justifies the violator in doing so. (Side note - murder is not an unpardonable sin). Edited July 13, 2020 by pogi
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, CV75 said: Something to consider, and you can find this on various Jewish historical websites, and the parallel is in 3 Nephi 7, that "they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders." Disrupted and subservient governments such as those at the time of Laban and Nephi often placed adjudication of murder in the hands of the families, communities, etc. These websites also talk of the goel hadam ("avenger of blood"), a person charged with the duty of avenging the death of a relative who had been wrongly killed. Nephi sounds like he could have been trained for this role and there may be a backstory to Laban's deeds against Lehi. Nephi's reticence was not because he felt killing Laban was wrong or against the law or commandments, but simply that he had never killed a man before ("Never at any time have I shed the blood of man.). That is a fair consideration that we have no idea what the law was in the area and the time of Nephi. Even Welch fully acknowledges that we don't know for sure. That solidifies my point that we can't say "it was not murder". Quote As I see mentioned above, the clothing could have been gotten from the corpse, taken off the body before the slaying, or a set obtained elsewhere nearby. I have previously conceded that point.
mrmarklin Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Our conceptions of God are mortal, they're inseparable from us. We may want to tap into the divine, we may sincerely believe we have done so, but we cannot know for certain. I think that being aware of that limitation is important for anyone who wants to seek God, or seek Truth in general. Simply false. Many on this forum have a knowledge of the divine. They do know for certain. If there are limits on our knowledge of God, they are self-imposed. Edited July 13, 2020 by mrmarklin 1
mrmarklin Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 Back to the main theme, Nephi clearly had a revelation from God regarding Laban. Nephi was so hesitant to take a human life that God even went so far as to explain Himself. That's rare...……………………. Those of us that have faith can accept that there are exceptions to "normal" behavior when God commands us. There are other scriptural examples of this.
smac97 Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Also, if Nephi had committed murder, one of two unpardonable sins, I don't think the Lord would have let him keep his prophetic mantle. I can't address everything. But I do want to point out something. If the same deed was performed today, Nephi would have committed an unforgivable sin? I'll leave that to God. 14 minutes ago, pogi said: Interesting how time changes things. Since when does the law of the land dictate if a sin is forgivable (or even a sin) or not? It does not. 14 minutes ago, pogi said: It is clear that the Lord can and does command contrary to the laws of the land on occasion (polygamy for example) and justifies the violator in doing so. (Side note - murder is not an unpardonable sin). "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." (D&C 42:18) See also here: Quote Shedding of Innocent Blood Alma listed murder, the shedding of innocent blood, as the second most abominable sin. The Church defines murder as “the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life” (General Handbook 10–13). Alma indicated: “Whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness” (Alma 39:6). In this dispensation, the Lord gave further insight on the eternal condition of those members of the Church who commit murder. In giving the law of the Church, the Lord declared: “I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come” (D&C 42:18). This appears to contradict Alma 34:6, but it is important to note the Doctrine and Covenants section 42 is the Law of the Church, and in verse 18 the Lord specifically stated that he was speaking to the Church. Elder McConkie wrote: “We do know that there are murders committed by Gentiles for which they at least can repent, be baptized, and receive a remission of their sins” (New Witness 231; see also 3 Nephi 30:12). The light and knowledge that the murderer possesses will be a factor in determining his or her eternal condition. Elder Spencer W. Kimball wrote: Even among willful murderers there are grades and categories. There are those who kill in drunkenness, in rage, in anger, in jealousy. There are those who kill for gain, for power, for fear. There are those who kill for lust. They certainly will suffer different degrees of punishment hereafter. (Miracle of Forgiveness 129–30) The Lord Will Judge For persons not to receive forgiveness neither in this world nor in the world to come does not mean that they will be cast into outer darkness, for the sin of murder can be pardoned even though it is unforgivable. Joseph Smith taught: “A murderer, one that sheds innocent blood, cannot have forgiveness” (TPJS 339). The Prophet used David as an example. “David sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with tears, for the murder of Uriah; but he could only get it through hell: he got a promise that his soul should not be left in hell” (TPJS 339). President Joseph F. Smith indicated that this meant “even he [David] shall escape the second death” (434). Murder is unforgivable because of the nature of the sin. In order for a sin to be forgiven, the sinner must repent. If the sin is of such a nature that repentance cannot take place or if the sinner refuses to repent, then it remains “as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death” (Alma 11:41). President Harold B. Lee stated: One of the most serious of all sins and crimes against the Lord’s plan of salvation is the sin of murder or the destruction of human life. It seems clear that to be guilty of destroying life is the act of “rebellion” against the plan of the Almighty by denying an individual thus destroyed in mortality, the privilege of a full experience in this earth-school of opportunity. It is in the same category as the rebellion of Satan and his hosts and therefore it would not be surprising if the penalties to be imposed upon a murderer were to be of similar character as the penalties meted out to those spirits which were cast out of heaven with Satan. (“The Sixth Commandment” 88) Because of this rebellion, the fulness of the atonement of Jesus Christ is not effective in murderers’ lives. In order for the demands of justice to be met, murderers must pay the price themselves before they can enter into a kingdom of glory. Elder McConkie suggests that it appears that they “shall eventually go to the Telestial Kingdom” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 3:584). The fact that they will go to the telestial kingdom becomes apparent from comparing two scriptural verses. In describing the inhabitants of the telestial kingdom, the Lord told Joseph Smith: “These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers and whosoever loves and makes a lie” (D&C 76:103). This same wording is used in Revelation 22:15 except murderers and idolaters are added to the list. Peter taught the Jewish people that David did not resurrect with the Saints that came forth at the time of Christ’s resurrection: “For David is not ascended into the heavens” (Acts 2:34). Joseph Smith further explained David’s situation by stating that hisremains were then in the tomb. Now, we read that many bodies of the Saints arose at Christ’s resurrection, probably all the Saints, but it seems that David did not. Why? Because he had been a murderer. If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country, by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing. (TPJS 188–89) However, after paying the last farthing, murderers will reside in the Telestial Kingdom and thus be saved in the kingdom of God. Although the sin of murder is unforgivable as far as the atonement of Christ is concerned, the repentant murderer can still qualify for salvation in the Telestial Kingdom. Thus the sin of murder is different from the sin against the Holy Ghost and sexual sin. ... From Alma’s discussion with his son Corianton, we learn the three most abominable sins in the sight of God and the categories in which these sins fall. Those who commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost will not have the power of the Atonement of Christ, but will be cast out into outer darkness forever. The unforgivable sin of murder is unrepentable and the influence of the Atonement is limited. After the demands of justice have been fully satisfied, a murderer will come forth in a degree of glory and receive salvation in the kingdom of God. Thanks, -Smac
Meadowchik Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 33 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: Simply false. Many on this forum have a knowledge of the divine. They do know for certain. If there are limits on our knowledge of God, they are self-imposed. That is not knowledge. It is belief.
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." (D&C 42:18) And yet we see murderers being forgiven in the Book of Mormon: Quote 6 But the king said unto them: Behold, the Nephites will destroy us, because of the many murders and sins we have committed against them. 7 And Ammon said: I will go and inquire of the Lord, and if he say unto us, go down unto our brethren, will ye go? 8 And the king said unto him: Yea, if the Lord saith unto us go, we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves until we repair unto them the many murders and sins which we have committed against them. 23 And behold, we will set our armies between the land Jershon and the land Nephi, that we may aprotect our brethren in the land Jershon; and this we do for our brethren, on account of their fear to take up arms against their brethren lest they should commit sin; and this their great fear came because of their sore repentance which they had, on account of their many murders and their awful wickedness. 28 And they did look upon shedding the blood of their brethren with the greatest abhorrence; and they never could be prevailed upon to take up arms against their brethren; and they never did look upon death with any degree of terror, for their hope and views of Christ and the resurrection; therefore, death was swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it. Quote and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness. (Alma 39:6)
Ahab Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: That is not knowledge. It is belief. I have knowledge of things that other people do not have. I know things they don't know. Including whether or not a particular comment was written by the aid of inspiration from God. Many, many comments. If those other people do not know some things that I know, I will not fault them for that, other than to know they could find out God inspired those comments, if they really wanted to know. But they should not say I don't know when I do.
pogi Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 29 minutes ago, pogi said: And yet we see murderers being forgiven in the Book of Mormon: Addition: 3 Nephi 30: 2 Turn, all ye aGentiles, from your wicked ways; and brepent of your evil doings, of your clyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your dmurders, and your epriestcrafts, and your fenvyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be gnumbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.
Recommended Posts