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

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Every single Nephite and Lamanite dwindled in unbelief? 

No need to depend on anyone's personal opinion.  The Lord said what he said. Sounds like some people have trouble distinguishing a nation from the individuals who are part/citizens of it.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I saw that.

😈

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

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.

USU78, you don't get to hide behind pretending to be a paragon of virtue.  You are accusing me of nothing that I have done.  (1) I ascribed no "unforgivability", that is your silly word.  (2) Isaac, Laban, the Canaanites, and the Fancher-Baker immigrants all inhabit the same moral world.  Wickedness does not excuse wickedness. And I will point that it is asinine to suggest that the MMM was a 'wartime atrocity'; the immigrants were innocent individuals completely outside of the stupidity of the 1857 war, and the commanders and members of the Iron County Brigade that committed murder most foul will answer for it before the tribunal of God.  (3) You are trying to deflect from the real kernel of truth here: these all were murderous and inexcusable actions.  (4) Ad homming merely reveals the weakness of your argument.  Go to, fellow.

I wonder how many here served in the combat arms of the US military or other countries' armed forces for that matter.

You are defending murder.

Edited July 10, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[stemelbow]

47 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

Not sure I'm following this, Ahab.  If we as a human race only have belief among us because of the BoM, then perhaps you have a point.  But can people not believe without the BOM at all?  

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Every single Nephite and Lamanite dwindled in unbelief? 

Not sure what you're asking.  

"It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief"

It's not talking about individuals who dwindle and perish in unbelief, but whole nations.  Did not the whole nation of the nephites and Lamanites dwindle and perish in unbelief?  Or shall we take the scripture to suggest that the small enclave of believers who followed Nephi in his lifetime did not dwindle and perish in unbelief--and that small group is who the words were meant to talk about? 

Maybe someone needs to explain what dwindling and perishing in unbelief is.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That's it.

Thread over.

 

B-b-b-b-but...

[JamesBYoung]

 

What a great thread this has been.

Edited July 10, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's it.

Thread over.

 

So...all that, for a book that *need not be historical?*

*Doesn't that describe your position on BOM historicity?*

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

We do expect them to ditch some convictions, though.  How else can you describe it when the church excommunicates someone who has a conviction that they should live plural marriage?  The message is, ditch that conviction or lose blessings.   

We don't expect them to ditch every conviction--we do differentiate between ones that 'matter' and ones that 'don't'--but convictions aren't treated like sacred cows in our religion, that can't be challenged or even flat out called wrong.  We very much teach and adhere to the idea that convictions can be wrong, and that following wrong convictions leads to bad things and a need to repent.

You asked "If we teach our people to follow their convictions, shouldn't we teach other people to follow theirs?"  The answer is that we don't teach our people to follow all of their convictions and we also shouldn't teach other people to follow all of theirs.  Convictions don't exist in a vacuum.  They must be measured against other things to see if they stand up to the scrutiny, and if you measure them against the wrong stuff, you can't still be led astray.

Quote

 

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. 

 

From my perspective, that is a different topic than what we are talking about.  The 12th article of faith isn't teaching that people should be encouraged to follow all their convictions regardless of what they are.  It's talking about the legal right to believe whatever you want, even if it's wrong.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So...all that, for a book that *need not be historical?*

*Doesn't that describe your position on BOM historicity?*

 

Huh?

I was commenting on the fact that "dwindling in unbelief" is a problem in each generation.  That is why the BOM is so valuable in our lives and apply it to us personally.  Are we personally dwindling in unbelief?   Should we do something about it?

All this nonsense about some grand Hegelian view of humanity generally dwindling in unbelief is certainly irrelevant to my life- how about yours?   I am the only person I can really do much about.

And why the asterisks?  Trying to be cool I guess, but as far as I know there is no style form defining them

And yes of course no scripture in any religion needs to be historical to convey its spiritual power any more than any poem or the wisdom found in Shakespeare. 

That does not mean they are NOT historical, however- historicity and spiritual content are independent language games.  

Edited July 10, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Did not the whole nation of the nephites and Lamanites dwindle and perish in unbelief? 

No, the whole nation... comprised of individual Lehites and Ishmaelites and Zoramites who were later referred to as Nephites and Lamanites and still later as Native Americans who then mixed with Vikings and Spaniards and other Europeans... did not dwindle in unbelief.  Many of those individuals became and continued to be righteous people until the day each of them died, and there are still some from those ancestors still among us who continue to be righteous people.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Or shall we take the scripture to suggest that the small enclave of believers who followed Nephi in his lifetime did not dwindle and perish in unbelief--and that small group is who the words were meant to talk about? 

We could.  I shall.  You can believe whatever you want to believe.

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe someone needs to explain what dwindling and perishing in unbelief is.  

I already did that but you could try to do it too.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

I was commenting on the fact that "dwindling in unbelief" is a problem in each generation.  That is why the BOM is so valuable in our lives and apply it to us personally.  Are we personally dwindling in unbelief?   Should we do something about it?

All this nonsense about some grand Hegelian view of humanity generally dwindling in unbelief is certainly irrelevant to my life- how about yours?   I am the only person I can really do much about.

And why the asterisks?  Trying to be cool I guess, but as far as I know there is no style form defining them

And yes of course no scripture in any religion needs to be historical to convey its spiritual power any more than any poem or the wisdom found in Shakespeare. 

That does not mean they are NOT historical, however- historicity and spiritual content are independent language games.  

The point you seemed to be agreeing with was that reconciliation to the OP lies "in the timing" of the generations lasting long enough to produce the Book of Mormon.

Asterisks were used so that I could paraphrase points I think you've made in the past, and then comment on them. 

Generally, there is an overall irony in the ostensible purpose of Nephi slaying Laban to take the plates, when (1) the plates were not really used to produce the Book Mormon and (2) especially if historical value isn't necessary for spiritual value.

So Nephi killed Laban to take the plates which preserved the people who made more plates which Joseph didn't really need for the Book of Mormon which really isn't essential as an historical evidence but only as a spiritual witness of truth that God can give us independent of material proof.

It's an interesting meandering, I grant you!

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We do expect them to ditch some convictions, though.  How else can you describe it when the church excommunicates someone who has a conviction that they should live plural marriage?  The message is, ditch that conviction or lose blessings.   

We don't expect anyone to live contrary to their convictions.  The thought makes me pale.  We are about conversion not coercion.  We convert convictions to be in alignment.  Living the convictions of an institution before your own convictions is soul slavery and cultish.  We expect people to act and not to be acted upon.  We expect people to evaluate their convictions and we try to persuade them to align their convictions with ours.  There is a difference.  Teaching people to live their convictions is not the same as condoning all of their actions.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

but convictions aren't treated like sacred cows in our religion

Being true to our convictions is the heart of everything LDS. Living contrary to our convictions is the opposite of integrity.  We expect people to live a life of integrity.  This is engrained in primary.  It is Mormonism 101:

Quote

 

Daniel was willing to die for his beliefs. He went from slave to ruler in the king’s court, interpreting the dreams of the king. When he was given the choice to stop praying to God or be cast into a den of lions, he chose the lions (see Daniel 6). Daniel stood firm when his integrity was tested.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were commanded by the king’s decree to kneel down and worship a golden idol, but they refused. Enraged, the king threatened to throw them into a fiery furnace if they did not comply. The young men expressed their faith that God would deliver them and then added, “But if not, … we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Daniel 3:18). They demonstrated integrity because they would not compromise their beliefs and were even willing to sacrifice their lives if the Lord did not deliver them.

Although it is unlikely that we will be thrown into a den of lions or a fiery furnace, our integrity is challenged every day. We can choose to stand up for our beliefs no matter what.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/04/integrity?lang=eng

 

Quote

"People of integrity and honesty not only practice what they preach, they are what they preach. And the Savior stands as the finest example."
--Elder David A. Bednar, "Be Honest," New Era, Oct. 2005, 7

Quote

"The rewards of integrity are immeasurable. One is the indescribable inner peace and serenity that come from knowing we are doing what is right; another is an absence of the guilt and anxiety that accompany sin. Another reward of integrity is the confidence it can give us in approaching God. When virtue garnishes our thoughts unceasingly, our confidence is strong in the presence of God." 
--Joseph B. Wirthlin, "Personal Integrity", Ensign, May 1990, 30

Can one live in inner peace if they are living a non-integrous life and living contrary to what they believe (or even "know") to be right, good, and true?   Do we truly expect people to abandon their convictions and live in that tension as puppets to another man's convictions?  No, we don't.  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You asked "If we teach our people to follow their convictions, shouldn't we teach other people to follow theirs?"  The answer is that we don't teach our people to follow all of their convictions and we also shouldn't teach other people to follow all of theirs. 

I 100% disagree. I think we do teach people to follow their convictions, but we warn of consequences for breaking commandments. 

Quote

Convictions don't exist in a vacuum.  They must be measured against other things to see if they stand up to the scrutiny, and if you measure them against the wrong stuff, you can't still be led astray.

Ultimately, however, it is your conviction to measure them against other things that guides you - it is a process of self conversion.  This is not the same as living contrary to your convictions - what you describe is a process of conversion.  To abandon your convictions, rather than being converted, would lead to inner turmoil and moral slavery, and would extinguish the inner soul.   

Edited July 10, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

I was commenting on the fact that "dwindling in unbelief" is a problem in each generation.  That is why the BOM is so valuable in our lives and apply it to us personally.  Are we personally dwindling in unbelief?   Should we do something about it?

All this nonsense about some grand Hegelian view of humanity generally dwindling in unbelief is certainly irrelevant to my life- how about yours?   I am the only person I can really do much about.

And why the asterisks?  Trying to be cool I guess, but as far as I know there is no style form defining them

And yes of course no scripture in any religion needs to be historical to convey its spiritual power any more than any poem or the wisdom found in Shakespeare. 

That does not mean they are NOT historical, however- historicity and spiritual content are independent language games.  

unbelief isn't dwindling nor perishing.  Its thriving and living.  Belief is a bit o' a set of chains wrapped around ya.  

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, the whole nation... comprised of individual Lehites and Ishmaelites and Zoramites who were later referred to as Nephites and Lamanites and still later as Native Americans who then mixed with Vikings and Spaniards and other Europeans... did not dwindle in unbelief.  Many of those individuals became and continued to be righteous people until the day each of them died, and there are still some from those ancestors still among us who continue to be righteous people.

We could.  I shall.  You can believe whatever you want to believe.

 

I already did that but you could try to do it too.

Thanks Ahab.  I'm fascinated by the defense of this story.  It seems more reasonable to take it as inspired fiction.  How could regular acquaintances mistake someone else as me?  it'd be impossible, particularly if that other person put on my clothes that were on me when my head was cut off.  I got a brother that looks a bit like me, acts like me ,and sounds like me, but I doubt he'd be able to walk among my acquaintances, attempt to act like me, with my bloody clothes on and get away with it.  A complete stranger pull off the feat?  Not a chance.  

Also if nations don't really ever dwindle in unbelief then why did God say that they apparently do?  

Edited July 10, 2020 by stemelbow

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

We don't expect anyone to live contrary to their convictions.  The thought makes me pale.  We are about conversion not subservience.   We expect them to evaluate their convictions and try to  persuade them to align their convictions with ours.  There is a difference.  Teaching people to live their convictions is not the same as condoning all of their actions.

Being true to our convictions is the heart of everything LDS. Living contrary to our convictions is the opposite of integrity.  We expect people to live a life of integrity.  This is engrained in primary.  It is Mormonism 101:

Can one live in inner peace if they are living a non-integrous life and living contrary to what they believe (or even "know") to be right, good, and true?   Do we truly expect people to abandon their convictions and live in that tension as puppets to another man's convictions?  No, we don't.  

I 100% disagree. I think we do teach people to follow their convictions, but we warn of consequences for breaking commandments. 

Ultimately, however, it is your conviction to measure them against other things that guides you.  To abandon your convictions, rather than being converted, would lead to inner turmoil and moral slavery, and would extinguish the inner soul.   

To be fair, I had to denounce the prophets and leave the church to follow my convictions. Never have I gotten the impression from church leaders that this choice to follow my convictions was spiritually acceptable. In fact, it can be grounds for excommunication.

I wonder what spiritual and psychological impact, if any, results from accepting what Nephi did to get the plates. What happens to our brains if we believe that we might have to do such a thing to remain faithful?

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To be fair, I had to denounce the prophets and leave the church to follow my convictions. Never have I gotten the impression from church leaders that this choice to follow my convictions was spiritually acceptable. In fact, it can be grounds for excommunication.

If someone teaches you to follow your heart and be true to your convictions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to approve of all your choices; nor does it mean that you are going to be free of consequences. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

If someone teaches you to follow your heart and be true to your convictions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to approve of all your choices; nor does it mean that you are going to be free of consequences. 

Well, sure. In the past I would have argued that even if Nephi was honest in his actions believing he was heeding God, his conscience might have been clear before God but he still might have been expected to pay the price of executing Laban himself. 

One must be willing to pay the price of their convictions, especially if they're expecting others to pay, too.

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How could regular acquaintances mistake someone else as me?  it'd be impossible, particularly if that other person put on my clothes that were on me when my head was cut off.  I got a brother that looks a bit like me, acts like me ,and sounds like me, but I doubt he'd be able to walk among my acquaintances, attempt to act like me, with my bloody clothes on and get away with it.  A complete stranger pull off the feat?  Not a chance.  

I think you are either a very unusual person or you're just not giving enough thought to how someone could possibly act like another person well enough to give the impression that they are acting like that other person acts.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Also if nations don't really ever dwindle in unbelief then why did God say that they apparently do?  

I don't think God meant what you think God meant.  I think God was simply giving Nephi the idea that people who read scripture are more likely to believe in him than people who don't read scripture or have any scripture to read.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well, sure. In the past I would have argued that if even if Nephi was honest in his actions believing he was heeding God, his conscience might have been clear before God but he still might have been expected to pay the price of executing Laban himself. 

One must be willing to pay the price of their convictions, especially if they're expecting others to pay, too.

Absolutely. 

[teddyaware]

On 7/9/2020 at 5:51 PM, 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 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,

 

Do you believe God commanded Nephi to slay Laban?

If so, do you believe Nephi did right by obeying God?

Isn’t the account of Laban’s demise in the Book of Mormon all about the true and living God actually commanding one of his obedient servants to slay someone?

When God commands his destroying angels to cleanse the earth of the wicked at the time of the Second Coming, should they refuse to obey him because what they’re being asked to do looks too much like an extremist Muslim attack?

Because the God of the Latter-Day Saints IS associated with repeated instances of mass carnage that he has either willed or commanded to take place, should we choose to either a) expunge all references to such things from the scriptures because such conduct is totally unbecoming of an authentic supreme being? Or b) should we give up on the God of the Latter-Day Saints, and the religion set up in his name, because no real God would ever approve of mass carnage carried out in his name?

Edited July 10, 2020 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think you are either a very unusual person or you're just not giving enough thought to how someone could possibly act like another person well enough to give the impression that they are acting like that other person acts.

It's quite believable that another person can act like another and that onlookers will be able to notice that someone is trying to act like another.  

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Do you believe God commanded Nephi to slay Laban?

If so, do you believe Nephi did right by obeying God?

Isn’t the account of Laban’s demise in the Book of Mormon all about the true and living God actually commanding one of his obedient servants slay someone?

When God commands his destroying angels to cleanse the earth of the wicked at the time of the Second Coming, should they refuse to obey him because what they’re being asked to do looks too much like an extremist Muslim attack?

Because the God of the Latter-Day Saints IS associated with repeated instances of mass carnage that he has either willed or commanded to take place, should we choose to either a) expunge all references to such things from the scriptures because such conduct is totally unbecoming of an authentic supreme being? Or b) should we give up on the God of the Latter-Day Saints, and the religion set up in his name, because no real God would ever approve of mass carnage carried out in his name?

I could see Chad/Lori Daybell using that same line of thinking with Alex Cox. 

I think you are demonstrating my point by asking what I believe.  Does it just boil down to what we believe?  Is it ok to slaughter people so long as we really, really believe God commanded it?  They are just zombies after all, right?

I could see extremist Muslims using your exact same logic.  Do you believe...?  Should we expunge all references in the Quaran of ____?  Sould we give up on the God of Islam...?  

For me, that it is a difficult dilemma.

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The point you seemed to be agreeing with was that reconciliation to the OP lies "in the timing" of the generations lasting long enough to produce the Book of Mormon.

Asterisks were used so that I could paraphrase points I think you've made in the past, and then comment on them. 

Generally, there is an overall irony in the ostensible purpose of Nephi slaying Laban to take the plates, when (1) the plates were not really used to produce the Book Mormon and (2) especially if historical value isn't necessary for spiritual value.

So Nephi killed Laban to take the plates which preserved the people who made more plates which Joseph didn't really need for the Book of Mormon which really isn't essential as an historical evidence but only as a spiritual witness of truth that God can give us independent of material proof.

It's an interesting meandering, I grant you!

 

IF it is not historical, then it is all a parable, and using parables was Christ's prime way of teaching.  On this view, Joseph needed the plates because he thought he needed them- his purpose from the beginning was digging for treasure of one kind or another.   Arguably even he at first at least needed an historical crutch.   Yet in most D&C revelations he was able to know the Lord's voice and dropped the need for plates or papyri 

Taking your words and "translating them correctly" into secularese, this is my translation:

"So in the story, Nephi kills Laban to take the plates which preserved the spiritual principle that even in the case of Christ himself, it is necessary that one man sometimes perish to save many - which principle, if they were able to understand,-  they would see as self evident, without the need for historical evidence since only as a spiritual witness of truth that God can give us independent of material proof is necessary."

Don't worry.

In a hundred years, when everyone sees text as post post-post modern, (since we are already post-postmoderns) whatever they call it, they will understand the need for stories and literature that give life meaning, even if they never "happened", and even history itself will be seen as "his-story" and "her-story"

Stories conflict.   People get stuff wrong, even on the internet. 

It's ok, we'll get through it. 

It's been going on forever.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think you are either a very unusual person or you're just not giving enough thought to how someone could possibly act like another person well enough to give the impression that they are acting like that other person acts.

You see imitations of Trump every night and you don't even know who they are lampooning, right?

Sorry I was just going by the words, not the context.  I have no dog in this fight!

Edited July 10, 2020 by mfbukowski