'Better That One Man Should Perish Than That a Nation Should Dwindle and Perish in Unbelief'

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

You have probably answered this before, but my memory isn’t that great. What is spirituality for an atheist? (Actual question, not a challenge)

I can only answer for myself.

But I would say that my spirituality is my inner-life interaction with my own existence and the world. Rebuilding after believing Mormonism, I think I continue some of its concepts in the form of believing in the value of life and kindness.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

That's right Meadowchik, keep that God door open.  You're a fraud.

You're too kind.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, use your words and make the point yourself, because this is a conversation.  I don't "ignore the pooled intelligence of all mankind" by not accepting your request to go Google as a valid argument. I did not "demand no use of sources," either, and you did not offer a source. 

 

If the Book of Mormon has valuable knowledge, I would think that knowledge would be found through genuine analysis, not uncritical acceptance of everything in it. 

"Genuine analysis" of metaphors- IF they ARE metaphors?

Can knowledge be found in fictional books?  In the works of Shakespeare?   Again this does not mean the BOM IS fiction- the point is that knowledge can be "found" with OR without "genuine analysis" even if that term was definable, which it is not.

That's a fine phrase, "genuine analysis", because it means nothing and therefore can mean anything you like.

Edited July 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Genuine analysis" of metaphors- IF they ARE metaphors?

Can knowledge be found in fictional books?  In the works of Shakespeare?   Again this does not mean the BOM IS fiction- the point is that knowledge can be "found" with OR without "genuine analysis" even if that term was definable, which it is not.

That's a fine phrase, "genuine analysis", because it means nothing and therefore can mean anything you like.

Well if you'd like clarification, I just mean analysis without the foregone conclusion that it's correct.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The built-in assumptions that stand out to me are that God exists and that revelation exists

Without these two points there seems to be little common ground to build upon. 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Without these two points there seems to be little common ground to build upon. 

Okay. In case it can help now or in future topics, I'll share some of what we might have in common. From my reply to Calm above:

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Rebuilding after believing Mormonism, I think I continue some of its concepts in the form of believing in the value of life and kindness.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Meadowchik

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Okay. In case it can help now or in future topics, I'll share some of what we might have in common. From my reply to Calm above:

 

 

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Rebuilding after believing Mormonism, I think I continue some of its concepts in the form of believing in the value of life and kindness.

That's a good thing, life and kindness have tremendous value.  But if there is no God and no revelation then the Book of Mormon may as well have been written by Dale Carnegie or one of the modern self-help gurus.  Probably it has even less value than one of those books as I see little value in a book whose purpose if to teach faith in Christ if there is no Christ.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

That's a good thing, life and kindness have tremendous value.  But if there is no God and no revelation then the Book of Mormon may as well have been written by Dale Carnegie or one of the modern self-help gurus.  Probably it has even less value than one of those books as I see little value in a book whose purpose if to teach faith in Christ if there is no Christ.

Well I largely agree with that, but even if it has little intrinsic value, the BOM still affects me through its impact on my loved ones.

Also it inevitably affects me now through the way it formed my mind and actions when I believed in it. For example, here's another concept I still value, from 2 Nephi 2: we as human beings need more than--what Satan promised Eve--knowledge of good and evil; rather we need as much as we can get of knowledge distinguishing good from evil. The BOM describes the latter as redemption through Christ. I would say that if there is any such thing as a secular redemption, it would likewise be characterized by the latter.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Meadowchik

[InCognitus]

On 7/14/2020 at 6:10 AM, pogi said:

Welch uses Exodus and Numbers to try to argue that Nephi's killing would have been equivalent to an accidental homicide, with the legal consequence of exile to a city of refuge.  His arguments varies from other Biblical commentators on those verses, and it also varies from the Jewish Encyclopedia in that he tries to argue that if it was not premeditated then he was not culpable of criminal homicide but was "justified" manslaughter.   The Jewish Encyclopedia argues, however, that even non-premeditated killings can be considered culpable and criminal homicide.  Welch neglects to consider the application of culpable homicide, which is neither premeditated murder nor accidental, but is done by choice. 

"Outlaw", meaning not "protected manslaughter" nor "justified", but "culpable" and "criminal".

 

You say "His arguments varies from other Biblical commentators on those verses".  Which verses and which commentaries do you have in mind?

It appears to me that your disagreements with Welch are more over semantics than anything else, because he is certainly not arguing that Nephi is not culpable of any crime in the matter.  As Welch put it, there are factors that would "substantially reduce Nephi's guilt or culpability", but not remove it, and he would not have been allowed to walk the streets of Jerusalem again (according to Welch).  And he is clear in saying that there is plenty of room for argument (i.e. "But if an action had been brought
against Nephi, early biblical law appears to have recognized two types of killings-excusable and inexcusable-and the slaying of Laban arguably falls quite specifically into the excusable category.")

Welch was making the case against the idea that Nephi committed "voluntary" homicide.   I'm going to quote the same section of the Jewish Encyclopedia that I quoted earlier, but I've broken it down into numbered points below (the only editing I did was to break the paragraph into numbered points and statements).  The chapter references are to Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19:

Quote

The criteria of voluntary homicide are the following:

1. enmity, hatred () on the part of the perpetrator (Num. l.c. 20, 21; Deut. l.c. 11);
2. lying in wait, ambushing (; ib.);
3. guile, premeditation (; Ex. l.c. 14);
4. the procuring of the instrument or means calculated to produce fatal results (Num. l.c. 16-20; comp. Ex. l.c. 20).

Where these or any of these indices are present the killing, according to the Bible, is to be considered voluntary and felonious.

On the other hand, where there is neither lying in wait nor premeditation, neither enmity nor a deadly weapon or other means calculated to prove fatal, the killing is to be adjudged involuntary or accidental (Ex. l.c. 13; Num. l.c. 22; Deut. l.c. 4). 

The three verses referenced in the last statement regarding "involuntary or accidental" homicide might apply to Nephi's situation, and are quoted here:

Exo 21:13  And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
Num 35:22  But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Deu 19:4  And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

I don't see how this goes against anything Welch was saying in his argument.  Which of the numbered points (that I added) for voluntary homicide did Nephi violate?

Edited July 16, 2020 by InCognitus

[USU78]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

You say "His arguments varies from other Biblical commentators on those verses".  Which verses and which commentaries do you have in mind?

It appears to me that your disagreements with Welch are more over semantics than anything else, because he is certainly not arguing that Nephi is not culpable of any crime in the matter.  As Welch put it, there are factors that would "substantially reduce Nephi's guilt or culpability", but not remove it, and he would not have been allowed to walk the streets of Jerusalem again (according to Welch).  And he is clear in saying that there is plenty of room for argument (i.e. "But if an action had been brought
against Nephi, early biblical law appears to have recognized two types of killings-excusable and inexcusable-and the slaying of Laban arguably falls quite specifically into the excusable category.")

Welch was making the case against the idea that Nephi committed "voluntary" homicide.   I'm going to quote the same section of the Jewish Encyclopedia that I quoted earlier, but I've broken it down into numbered points below (the only editing I did was to break the paragraph into numbered points and statements).  The chapter references are to Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19:

The three verses referenced in the last statement regarding "involuntary or accidental" homicide might apply to Nephi's situation, and are quoted here:

Exo 21:13  And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
Num 35:22  But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Deu 19:4  And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

I don't see how this goes against anything Welch was saying in his argument.  Which of the numbered points (that I added) for voluntary homicide did Nephi violate?

And what if Nephi's a soldier in enemy territory on a mission from his commander charged with retrieving from the enemy critical personalty in enemy hands? Let's suppose further that our soldier encounters the custodian of said personalty as described while on clandestine mission. Is a soldier not authorized to take such actions as are reasonably necessary in aid of his mission, including killing to protect the integrity of the mission?

The Lehite nation was established upon the building of the altar and performing sacrifice three days outside Judahite polity. If sin there was, it was a sin such as nations are burdened by. Not soldiers.

Judgy judginess just judgy.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

The Lehite nation was established upon the building of the altar and performing sacrifice three days outside Judahite polity.

That kind of reminds me of this from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well if you'd like clarification, I just mean analysis without the foregone conclusion that it's correct.

Impossible.      There is no such thing as "objective analysis".  Analyzing anything always includes a purpose for the analysis which brings in a world of assumptions with it.

But I bet you would agree with the idea that "analysis" without the foregone conclusion that it is NOT"correct"  ( whatever that means, since defining "correct" already carries assumptions with it-) is just fine. 

That is my perception of your position- it cannot be "objective" any more than I can be objective, or any human activity can be objective.

Even science is based on topics within its assumptions (no God, no purpose, no emotion and supposedly "objectivity") and very much based in the values of the "researchers". 

The hottest topic with the most grant money suddenly has the highest priority.  Who will be the first to get the best Covid treatment/vaccine right now will be guaranteed fame and fortune for a lifetime, for example.   

I remember the deification of Jonas Salk when the polio vaccine was created.

Get a Nobel Prize and you become a science god.   Remember Watson & Crick?

Who's going to study butterflies when one can study sharks and make movies that will make you famous? 

< cue Jaws music  > 

 

[pogi]

On 7/16/2020 at 12:34 AM, InCognitus said:

 

You say "His arguments varies from other Biblical commentators on those verses".  Which verses and which commentaries do you have in mind?

It appears to me that your disagreements with Welch are more over semantics than anything else, because he is certainly not arguing that Nephi is not culpable of any crime in the matter.  As Welch put it, there are factors that would "substantially reduce Nephi's guilt or culpability", but not remove it, and he would not have been allowed to walk the streets of Jerusalem again (according to Welch).  And he is clear in saying that there is plenty of room for argument (i.e. "But if an action had been brought
against Nephi, early biblical law appears to have recognized two types of killings-excusable and inexcusable-and the slaying of Laban arguably falls quite specifically into the excusable category.")

Welch was making the case against the idea that Nephi committed "voluntary" homicide.   I'm going to quote the same section of the Jewish Encyclopedia that I quoted earlier, but I've broken it down into numbered points below (the only editing I did was to break the paragraph into numbered points and statements).  The chapter references are to Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19:

The three verses referenced in the last statement regarding "involuntary or accidental" homicide might apply to Nephi's situation, and are quoted here:

Exo 21:13  And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
Num 35:22  But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Deu 19:4  And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

I don't see how this goes against anything Welch was saying in his argument.  Which of the numbered points (that I added) for voluntary homicide did Nephi violate?

My disagreement is not a matter of semantics.  I am pointing out the limitations of his argument. He presents a dichotomy of potential choices that might apply in Nephi's situation, and doesn't explore (or even mention) the full extent of the law that might apply to Nephi. That is a huge limitation and blind spot.  Can you show me where Welch addresses the rabbinic system of homicide which is classified as 1) Justifiable, 2) misadventurous, 3) accidental, 4) culpable, or 5) felonious?  

Quote

and he would not have been allowed to walk the streets of Jerusalem again (according to Welch).

This is where his argument breaks down for me.  He is applying exo 21:13 to Nephi here.  Every bible commentary I have read interprets exodus 21:13 to apply to accidental homicide only.  I don't think that passage applies to Nephi at all.    I am agreeing with you that according to the Jewish encyclopedia, Nephi best fits under "culpable homicide".  I am confused as to why you don't view that as "criminal" however.

Quote

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) [Welch argues that Nephi killed Laban to prevent a would-be criminal action against Nephi for taking the plates]; 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). [[Welch also argues that this applies to Nephi (see below explanation)]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 [Welch argues that because it was not premeditated, it is not criminal - this shows that it still can be criminal homicide even if it wasn't premeditated]; and the law concerning accidental homicide can not be applied to them [exodus 21:13, which Welch tries to apply to him, don't apply], because the slaying was either the result of criminal negligence or the consequence of choice [clearly applies to Nephi]; 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. 

Nothing but culpable homicide seems to apply to Nephi.  It fits perfectly.  Do you disagree?  Nephi clearly killed a "would be criminal without attempting any other means of prevention". - Welch argues that he killed him to prevent him from hunting them down.   Welch also argues that Nephi believed that he "had a right to do it" and used legal reasoning to legally justify the killing, even "before his judicial conviction".  That clearly falls under culpable homicide.  No question.  That makes Nephi a "criminal" and an "outlaw".   Welch argues that it was "not a criminal homicide" however.  I don't see how he can justify his position after learning about culpable homicide, which he neglects to even consider in his paper.  This encyclopedia gives solid reason to believe that he was a criminal 

Edited July 17, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Impossible.      There is no such thing as "objective analysis".  Analyzing anything always includes a purpose for the analysis which brings in a world of assumptions with it.

But I bet you would agree with the idea that "analysis" without the foregone conclusion that it is NOT"correct"  ( whatever that means, since defining "correct" already carries assumptions with it-) is just fine. 

That is my perception of your position- it cannot be "objective" any more than I can be objective, or any human activity can be objective.

Even science is based on topics within its assumptions (no God, no purpose, no emotion and supposedly "objectivity") and very much based in the values of the "researchers". 

The hottest topic with the most grant money suddenly has the highest priority.  Who will be the first to get the best Covid treatment/vaccine right now will be guaranteed fame and fortune for a lifetime, for example.   

I remember the deification of Jonas Salk when the polio vaccine was created.

Get a Nobel Prize and you become a science god.   Remember Watson & Crick?

Who's going to study butterflies when one can study sharks and make movies that will make you famous? 

< cue Jaws music  > 

 

No, on the contrary, imo, a critical analysis would not not have a foregone conclusion as a premise either way.

Anyhow I am of course familiar with this frequent refrain of yours and I still disagree. We are all subjective as human beings, yes, but that does not make some extent of objectivity impossible.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, on the contrary, imo, a critical analysis would not not have a foregone conclusion as a premise either way.

Anyhow I am of course familiar with this frequent refrain of yours and I still disagree. We are all subjective as human beings, yes, but that does not make some extent of objectivity impossible.

I'd like to see you or anyone else provide an example of an objective summary of something... any topic or issue, take your pick.

I think I might be able to do it but I'd like to see what another person comes up with as an example.  I'm thinking I would need to avoid making any final conclusions and leave that to the individual.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, on the contrary, imo, a critical analysis would not not have a foregone conclusion as a premise either way.

Anyhow I am of course familiar with this frequent refrain of yours and I still disagree. We are all subjective as human beings, yes, but that does not make some extent of objectivity impossible.

"That does not make some extent of objectivity impossible"?

That does not inspire confidence in objectivity to me.  As always we have some crucial definitions missing.

[JamesBYoung]

I disagree with most of you, but the best answer for me has been Chapter 4 "Laban's Death" in 1st Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction by Joseph M. Spencer.

[CV75]

On 7/16/2020 at 1:18 PM, pogi said:

Nothing but culpable homicide seems to apply to Nephi.  It fits perfectly.  Do you disagree?  Nephi clearly killed a "would be criminal without attempting any other means of prevention". - Welch argues that he killed him to prevent him from hunting them down.   Welch also argues that Nephi believed that he "had a right to do it" and used legal reasoning to legally justify the killing, even "before his judicial conviction".  That clearly falls under culpable homicide.  No question.  That makes Nephi a "criminal" and an "outlaw".   Welch argues that it was "not a criminal homicide" however.  I don't see how he can justify his position after learning about culpable homicide, which he neglects to even consider in his paper.  This encyclopedia gives solid reason to believe that he was a criminal 

This is a modern term/concept and its definition and meaning is specific to the jurisdiction using it. Within the universe of the Book of Mormon, "kill" and "slay" are treated very differently than "murder" (never justified). They are are used to describe the taking of life in conflict, and only once (in the case of Nehor who slew Gideon by the sword in an argument) was a slaying punished as a crime. The slaying of Laban was the result of a deadly / potentially deadly conflict.

Nephi's reticence to kill was the result of neither a legal nor moral analysis, but a more practical emotional reaction to having to perform an awful task without what he said was the necessary experience: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him." He finally understood the reason to slay Laban was a practical one as well.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is a modern term/concept and its definition and meaning is specific to the jurisdiction using it. Within the universe of the Book of Mormon, "kill" and "slay" are treated very differently than "murder" (never justified). They are are used to describe the taking of life in conflict, and only once (in the case of Nehor who slew Gideon by the sword in an argument) was a slaying punished as a crime. The slaying of Laban was the result of a deadly / potentially deadly conflict.

Nephi's reticence to kill was the result of neither a legal nor moral analysis, but a more practical emotional reaction to having to perform an awful task without what he said was the necessary experience: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him." He finally understood the reason to slay Laban was a practical one as well.

None of this addresses the fact that his actions are best described as culpable homicide in the old Jewish Encyclopedia.  Even your comment demonstrates this by saying that the slaying of Laban was to prevent  a "potentially deadly conflict". 

Quote

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).

You are describing culpable homicide. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by pogi

[JamesBYoung]

Well there is no question that the possession of the plates was important to Nephi and his people. What other possibilities did Nephi have to acquire the plates without Nephi having to kill Laban?  I believe a better suggestion must exist.  Even if Nephi had legal justification to slay Laban, which I don't see,

And even if Nephi was technically in legally justified does that mean that he was morally in ethically justified in killing Laban. Is killing Laban a challenge of God the equivalent to Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son?

The nature of God is at the core of the two situations. 

Some may argue that the religious command is greater than the ethical concern.

I am not so sure.  I would think the ethical would be the equivalent of the religious.

Edited July 18, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[CV75]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

None of this addresses the fact that his actions are best described as culpable homicide in the old Jewish Encyclopedia.  Even your comment demonstrates this by saying that the slaying of Laban was to prevent  a "potentially deadly conflict". 

You are describing culpable homicide. 

Yes, according to the Talmud as referred to in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which was compiled long after the time of Nephi. It is like us using our own legal terms to describe his killing of Laban.

I said, "The slaying of Laban was the result of a deadly / potentially deadly conflict," not to prevent one. They had been engaged in conflict for who-knows-how-long (there may even be a back story).

I greatly appreciate the Jewish Encyclopedia as it does give us a good impression, or tone, for the mindset of Jewish law of earlier centuries. It is interesting that acts such as these (I assume there are more) "stand beyond the provisions of the penal laws" and the perpetrators are considered "outlaws in the broadest sense of the term". Broadest sense would allow for today's equivalent of scofflaws and misdemeanants.

I'm also wondering if here is a nuance to the term "outlaw" as I haven't found a Talmudic definition for it. In the Torah,   = "let loose," "outlawed" so there may be a "beyond the law" application under certain circumstances such as obeying God's law over man's, or, as in Habbakuk, 3, where the gentiles, refusing to observe them, were not to be covered or protected under Jewish law and made "outlaws" in that sense. Deuteronomy 33:2 shows how they refused it early on and thus bore these consequences. Lehi and his family may well have been cut off by the Jewish hierarchy (disowned by Laban?) and were already outlaws in this sense.

Edited July 18, 2020 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Is killing Laban a challenge of God the equivalent to Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son?

Yes. It's like a parable. Or God sacrificing his own Son for the most noble cause. That's what is being missed.

Quote:

"The nature of God is at the core of the two situations. "

Major exaggeration. Take it as if it is a parable 

Q:

" I would think the ethical would be the equivalent of the religious."

Nah, the ethics are man made, God makes his own rules  and man interprets through the lens of his culture 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[JamesBYoung]

Nothing at all is being missed is the point.

[Meadowchik]

On 7/17/2020 at 7:13 AM, mfbukowski said:

"That does not make some extent of objectivity impossible"?

That does not inspire confidence in objectivity to me.  As always we have some crucial definitions missing.

You use words and their agreed-upon definitions. So I think you agree that some extent of objectivity in human thought and communication is possible. Is that accurate?

[teddyaware]

On 7/18/2020 at 8:54 AM, JamesBYoung said:

Well there is no question that the possession of the plates was important to Nephi and his people. What other possibilities did Nephi have to acquire the plates without Nephi having to kill Laban?  I believe a better suggestion must exist.  Even if Nephi had legal justification to slay Laban, which I don't see,

And even if Nephi was technically in legally justified does that mean that he was morally in ethically justified in killing Laban. Is killing Laban a challenge of God the equivalent to Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son?

The nature of God is at the core of the two situations. 

Some may argue that the religious command is greater than the ethical concern.

I am not so sure.  I would think the ethical would be the equivalent of the religious.

This discussion distills down to one simple fact, which is that you refuse to believe the Book of Mormon’s testimony that God commanded Nephi to slay Laban.

The obvious difference between my perspective and yours is that I believe Nephi was a godly man of unquestioned honesty and integrity who told the truth when he testified that God commanded him to slay Laban. Meanwhile it’s clear you don’t believe Nephi’s account of the slaying of Laban to be truthful, which leads me to wonder if it’s possible that you doubt the divine authenticity of the entire Book of Mormon? Doesn’t it stand to reason that if you doubt Nephi’s testimony that it was God who commanded him to slay Laban, wouldn’t in be logical to conclude that you would also likely lack confidence in many of the other things the prophet Nephi testified to in his account?

Ultimately it appears that yours, either wittingly or unwittingly, is nothing less that an attack on the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It seems to me you may be attempting to place the proverbial camel’s nose of destruction under the doctrinal tent by first persuading members to disbelieve Nephi‘s testimony concerning his slaying of Laban; and then, after your targets are persuaded to disbelieve Nephi, the camel is then able nudge in just a little further until he gains sufficient leverage to stand and knock over the entire theological tent.

Question: Based on the evidence presented in the Book of Mormon, do you believe that if it could be proven at trial that Laban was guilty of grand theft and attempted murder that he might justly be judged as being worthy of death?

Another question that I hope you’ll answer forthrightly: Are there other portions of the Book of Mormon that you don’t believe to be true? 

Edited July 20, 2020 by teddyaware