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

[teddyaware]

6 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Nonsense.  You sound exactly like my evangelical friends in the South, rather bloodthirsty.  So you believe that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was justified?

Answer the questions directly or I’ll conclude what I already have good reason to believe — that you have been proven to be in error and don’t want to admit it.

[Islander]

On 7/8/2020 at 12:41 PM, The Unclean Deacon said:

Nephi is told by the spirit when he resists killing Laban that "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."

Yet these tribes did just that.  They ended up dwindling in unbelief.  And add that to the fact that 99.9% of the human population dwindles in unbelief in regards to the brass plates today ..... and it seems killing Laban was practically useless and deeply ineffective.

Thoughts on reconciling this?  

I replied to your OP previously rather from the angle of God preserving the plates "for a wise purpose" as it is noted in the BoM. I also wanted to address your position from the aspect of the sovereignty and omniscience of God. The God of the universe knows everything. For Him there is no past present or future for He moves and acts outside of time and space all things have already happened in His mind. We also know that EVERYTHING He does is right and His judgement on peoples and nations is ALWAYS righteous. It is rather absurd for us, mere humans, to attempt to judge the actions of a Holy, Almighty, All-knowing God with our puny, finite, flawed and insignificant minds. Who can know the mind of God and gasps the deep mysteries of His ways? That has been the quest of the ages (cf. Deu 29:29, Rom 11:34, 1 Cor 2:11,16). 

To inject 21st century morality, thought and values into an ancient events constitute and anachronism. History is what it was, in its time and context, which many times we can not fully appreciate for lack of understanding. Critics of the BoM and the Old Testament claim that God ordered the killing of peoples and/or whole tribes in Canaan and elsewhere, typically neglect the reason expressly stated in the text itself; those peoples and tribes were depraved beyond redemption (Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:21-30; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:29-31; etc.). According to the Old Testament, for example, the Canaanites and other tribes in the land widely practiced child sacrifice, incest, bestiality, and other behaviors that almost everyone in history, including today, rightly regard as unspeakably, grossly immoral. Laban was a thief and a murderer. The Lord ordered that killing with full knowledge and awareness. It is us whom are left to contemplate and look at the story as it unfolded. And see how those plates (or part thereof), ended up in another continent 25,000 miles away, across two millennia, translated into hundred of languages and becoming yet another testimony of Jesus Christ and the instrument of conversion for millions. I dare you to try and calculate the statistical probabilities associated with those events. But God knew.

What say ye?

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Immaterial only because my comments totally. blow your case to smithereens. Please answer the following question: Was Abraham guilty of attempted murder? Also, should the children of Israel have disobeyed God when he commanded them to utterly destroy the inhabitants of the land of Canaan and leave not a single soul alive?

Killing in the name of God is a troubling issue.  

Should a person kill if they claim to know that God commanded it?   What it they are so convinced of their convictions that they are willing to lay down their own life to accomplish it?

If the answer is yes, then you condone extremist Muslim attacks on America and the crusades, etc.  If the answer is no, then Israelite history is terribly problematic, as is Nephi.  If you say that it depends on your personal convictions, then shouldn’t you condone others in following their conscience and conviction towards God?  If you say “it depends on if God truly commands it”, then the extremist Muslim will full heartedly agree, and you are on the exact same page as terrorists in justifying your actions.  Do you truly want to be associated with that line of thinking and justification that is responsible for such carnage throughout history? 
 

Something to munch on,

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by pogi

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Answer the questions directly or I’ll conclude what I already have good reason to believe — that you have been proven to be in error and don’t want to admit it.

You will conclude what you will, that's obvious.  It's obvious that you support the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Nephi committed murder and would have been executed if he stayed in Jerusalem.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Killing in the name of God is a troubling issue.  

Should a person kill if they claim to know that God commanded it?   What it they are so convinced of their convictions that they are willing to lay down their own life to accomplish it?

If the answer is yes, then you condone extremist Muslim attacks on America and the crusades, etc.  If the answer is no, then Israelite history is terribly problematic, as is Nephi.  If you say that it depends on your personal convictions, then what is to stop any else from following theirs?

 

A person should only kill if God actually commands it, but that's the rub. 

Crazy people believe God tells them to do all sorts of things.  And also sane people, who are wrong.  And also people who God really did actually tell to do something.  It's acknowledging and trying to mesh the existence of communication from God with false communication (not from God) that causes all the heartburn.  It's the nuances that matter, that make the difference between a Nephi and a Muslim extremist, but the very existence of nuance is what makes it so difficult a topic to discuss and come to any kind of conclusion about.

As for myself, I take a lot of comfort in knowing that in the thousands of years of scripture in our possession we have 2 instances (that I can think of off of the top of my head) of God telling someone else to kill another (and only one that isn't at the mercy of thousands of years of translations, changes, and some House of Israel nationalism)?  What that says to me is that if God does ever command someone to kill (and I believe that He did with Nephi) then it is such an incredibly rare event (such an incredibly rare exception) we don't really have to spend any effort gauging whether or not someone who says it today was actually commanded to do it, because they weren't. 

Because in general, precedent shows God does not do that except under specific and very very very very very rare circumstances.

[mrmarklin]

5 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

You will conclude what you will, that's obvious. 

Nephi committed murder and would have been executed if he stayed in Jerusalem.

It is very clear that any court anywhere would have convicted Nephi of a capital crime.  Even though Laban had threatened their lives previously, that threat was not imminent, so it's hard to see justifiable homicide or any other extenuating circumstances from a worldly point of view.

This is a difficult passage in the BoM and requires the faith of the reader to not immediately stop reading.  No one has discussed the kidnapping of Zoram, but that was likely a capital crime as well.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A person should only kill if God actually commands it, but that's the rub. 

Crazy people believe God tells them to do all sorts of things.  And also sane people, who are wrong.  And also people who God really did actually tell to do something.  It's acknowledging and trying to mesh the existence of communication from God with false communication (not from God) that causes all the heartburn.  It's the nuances that matter, that make the difference between a Nephi and a Muslim extremist, but the very existence of nuance is what makes it so difficult a topic to discuss and come to any kind of conclusion about.

As for myself, I take a lot of comfort in knowing that in the thousands of years of scripture in our possession we have 2 instances (that I can think of off of the top of my head) of God telling someone else to kill another (and only one that isn't at the mercy of thousands of years of translations, changes, and some House of Israel nationalism)?  What that says to me is that if God does ever command someone to kill (and I believe that He did with Nephi) then it is such an incredibly rare event (such an incredibly rare exception) we don't really have to spend any effort gauging whether or not someone who says it today was actually commanded to do it, because they weren't. 

Because in general, precedent shows God does not do that except under specific and very very very very very rare circumstances.

I was actually editing my post in anticipation for such a response when you posted this

Quote

 If you say “it depends on if God truly commands it”, then the extremist Muslim will full heartedly agree, and you are on the exact same page as terrorists in justifying your actions.  Do you truly want to be associated with that line of thinking and justification that is responsible for such carnage throughout history? 

I don't take much comfort in believing that it is rare, when other's don't believe the same way. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by pogi

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

It is very clear that any court anywhere would have convicted Nephi of a capital crime.  Even though Laban had threatened their lives previously, that threat was not imminent, so it's hard to see justifiable homicide or any other extenuating circumstances from a worldly point of view.

This is a difficult passage in the BoM and requires the faith of the reader to not immediately stop reading.  No one has discussed the kidnapping of Zoram, but that was likely a capital crime as well.

If Zoram were a slave, it would not have mattered if he told the court he went willingly with Nephi.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I was actually editing my post in anticipation for such a response when you posted this

 

Your edit doesn't address what I said though, because it ignores the difference between believing (being convinced, having a testimony of it, etc.) God told you to do something, and God actually telling you to do something.  

I'm not having a discussion about justifying our actions, I'm talking about whether or not our actions were justified.  Those are two very different things.  It doesn't matter if the muslim extremist agrees with 'it depends on whether or not God truly commands it,' it's still completely true.  

And heck yeah I want to be associated with that kind of reasoning, even if people can use it to do horrible things, because that's the only reasoning that works. 

Can it be used for evil?  Sure.  I've heard people say the same thing about religion (and I've also been asked why anyone would want to be associated with religion when it is responsible for so much carnage throughout history).  That's how opposition in all things seems to work.  Name one thing that's good that satan can't (and hasn't) used for evil.   Satan uses all sorts of good things (every good thing I would argue) to get people to do evil but that doesn't mean we wouldn't want to be associated with those true principles or good things.   

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Your edit doesn't address what I said though, because it ignores the difference between believing (being convinced, having a testimony of it, etc.) God told you to do something, and God actually telling you to do something.  

That is the problem I am trying to point out.  We have to trust our convictions in that, right? .  It is through our convictions that we claim to know that God is actually telling us to do something.  Should we then condone people in following their convictions in regard to killing in the name of God?

Edited July 9, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

So we have to trust our convictions in that, right?  That is the problem I am trying to point out.  It is through our convictions that we claim to know that God is actually telling us to do something.  Should we then condone people in following their convictions in regard to killing in the name of God?

The bolded question comes across to me like the person who once tried to argue that our belief that kids who die before they turned 8 go to the Celestial kingdom means that all loving parents should kill their children when they are 7 to ensure they went to heaven.  Sure, I suppose that the doctrine could be interpreted in such an extreme way, but no reasonable Latter-day Saint parent with a knowledge of the gospel would ever interpret it like that.  It ignores to many other things that the parents also believe and understand to be true.

So, does the fact that we believe we have to trust our convictions mean that we must condone people who kill others because they are convinced that God told them to?  I suppose that idea could be interpreted in such an extreme way, but no reasonable person with an understanding of the gospel or God would ever do so.

That's why it's not really a problem.

Most people understand that some convictions are true and some are false.  We understand that just because someone is convinced God told them to do something, it doesn't mean it's true.  For that reason,  we don't have any trouble condoning things we believe God is likely to have told someone to do, and condemning those things that we believe He is unlikely to have commanded.  This is because our convictions, for most of us, don't exist in a vacuum.  They must also be measured against other truths, knowledge and teachings, and personal experience.  

As my last paragraph stated, in regards to God commanding killing another, it's not really a problem at all for the majority of us because if we believe that God has, in the past, commanded someone to kill another, we also understand that it's so rare of a thing as to statistically never ever be applicable in our lives.  The fact that you have to use the example of a muslim extremist to make the point shows how much of a non-problem it is for the majority of the religious world.  It's an extreme way to interpret God's dealings with man that isn't relevant to the majority of people who believe in God.

[strappinglad]

A thought. Maybe Nephi didn't kill Laban, he just cut off his head. Bear with me now. Maybe Laban died of alcohol poisoning, or had a heart attack or stroke. That could account for the lack of a lot of blood if the heart was no longer beating. 

The scenario leaves me with a couple of questions. A fellow like Laban should have had a body guard or two with him, knowing the dangers of narrow Jerusalem streets in the dark. Why was he alone ? Was this a habit with him ? Was he so abusive that his guard left , or were they sent away ? 

I guess I have watched too many detective stories .😔

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, does the fact that we believe we have to trust our convictions mean that we must condone people who kill others because they are convinced that God told them to?  I suppose that idea could be interpreted in such an extreme way, but no reasonable person with an understanding of the gospel or God would ever do so.

That's why it's not really a problem.

I consider myself a "reasonable person with an understanding of the gospel", and I do see what appears to me to be an obvious dilemma that I don't have an answer to.  We may blow it off because it seems obvious that they are wrong and we are right, but that is based on our conviction and not theirs, and it doesn't really get at the question - If we teach our people to follow their convictions, shouldn't we teach other people to follow theirs?  Nothing "extreme" about that question.  If not, then what?

 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

A thought. Maybe Nephi didn't kill Laban, he just cut off his head. Bear with me now. Maybe Laban died of alcohol poisoning, or had a heart attack or stroke. That could account for the lack of a lot of blood if the heart was no longer beating. 

The scenario leaves me with a couple of questions. A fellow like Laban should have had a body guard or two with him, knowing the dangers of narrow Jerusalem streets in the dark. Why was he alone ? Was this a habit with him ? Was he so abusive that his guard left , or were they sent away ? 

I guess I have watched too many detective stories .😔

That is creative thinking, but then we are left with the dilemma of why would the spirit constrain Nephi to kill Laban if he was already dead?  It would have been so much cleaner and easier to simply slip off his clothes without the bloody mess. 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I consider myself a "reasonable person with an understanding of the gospel", and I do see what appears to me to be an obvious dilemma that I don't have an answer to.  We may blow it off because it seems obvious that they are wrong and we are right, but that is based on our conviction and not theirs, and it doesn't really get at the question - If we teach our people to follow their convictions, shouldn't we teach other people to follow theirs?  Nothing "extreme" about that question.  If not, then what?

 

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. 

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by bluebell

[strappinglad]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

It would have been so much cleaner and easier to simply slip off his clothes without the bloody mess. 

True, but maybe it was an " Abrahamic test "  Would Nephi follow through ( so to speak ) ? Laban's spirit could have been removed at any time right up until just moments before the blow that took his head. 

[Tacenda]

If God wants him dead, let God do the work, especially the story of Abraham being commanded to kill his son, let God do the dirty work. Because IMO, it's dirty and comes from men, not God.

[RevTestament]

On 7/8/2020 at 2:15 PM, smac97 said:

It wasn't murder.  Have you read Jack Welch's treatment of this issue?

If Nephi had, during the evening, been able to secure the plates and flee Jerusalem,  How much of a Head Start would he have had before Laban had sent his soldiers in pursuit the next day? After all, Nephi and his brothers had just been there asking for the plates. Then the plates go missing. Laban did not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what had happened.  

 Also, how would defy have been able to get the plates without Laban's clothing and sword? 

 Also, even assuming Nephi had been able to get Zoram to give him the plates, then he would have needed to leave Zoram.  The next morning, when Laban wakes up and discovers what Zoram did, what happens to Zoram?

Mostly, though, he was commanded to kill Laban.

It's a moral toughie, to be sure.

Not really. It was totally within the scope of Mosaic law to kill Laban since he had ordered Nephi and his brethren killed, and taken their wealth. The only thing missing is adjudication, but the Lord provided that.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If God wants him dead, let God do the work, especially the story of Abraham being commanded to kill his son, let God do the dirty work. Because IMO, it's dirty and comes from men, not God.

It's a good point.  I think the only reasonable answer is that Nephi could gain something from the experience that he couldn't gain if God took the ability to obey that commandment away.  Exactly what that might have been, I don't know.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Not really. It was totally within the scope of Mosaic law to kill Laban since he had ordered Nephi and his brethren killed, and taken their wealth. The only thing missing is adjudication, but the Lord provided that.

 I still think it is a challenging story to accept, all the more so since it is presented as having been commanded by God.   Presentism certainly plays a role in that difficulty.

[USU78]

5 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

It's obvious that you support the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Cheap shot.

[strappinglad]

Here's  a question that has been asked . If you had the ability to kill ______________( a notoriously evil murderer of millions ) a couple of months before he took power ,would you do it? This is a common ' time-traveler ' problem. God or no God ! 

We do get concerned if God orders the death of one man , yet we call the lads heroes who fire bombed Dresden or Tokyo or vaporized Hiroshima and killed many thousands on the orders of men. We hardly question it because they were protecting us from evil. God doesn't get that right. 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Here's  a question that has been asked . If you had the ability to kill ______________( a notoriously evil murderer of millions ) a couple of months before he took power ,would you do it? This is a common ' time-traveler ' problem. God or no God ! 

We do get concerned if God orders the death of one man , yet we call the lads heroes who fire bombed Dresden or Tokyo or vaporized Hiroshima and killed many thousands on the orders of men. We hardly question it because they were protecting us from evil. God doesn't get that right. 

I question it.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 I still think it is a challenging story to accept, all the more so since it is presented as having been commanded by God.   Presentism certainly plays a role in that difficulty.

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.

[JamesBYoung]

8 hours ago, USU78 said:

Cheap shot.

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.