The origin of sinners

[Autonomous]

3 hours ago, tana said:

Welcome to the board Autonomous. Thank you for the excellent post. So, along those lines, if this really is a testing station, the whole thing just seems so cluttered up and low quality. I mean, if one really wants to figure out the true nature of the souls hard wiring, is the carrot and the stick the best way to go about it? If I ever get to be in charge, I wouldn't have a veil in place, I wouldn't tell them it's a test. Let them think everyone is in. I think that would give one a better reading on the true quality of personality of the individual. Watch them when they think the aren't being watched.

Very kind of you to be welcoming.  I did grow up with Christian ideology and it never made sense.  

The idea of reincarnation almost works as a more fair test—living as rich and poor, healthy and sick, in war and peace—to live life after life after life to understand all perspectives. But even then, we’d perform differently in each life. I’ve changed within this life and will continue to; which version of me gets the final grade?  A different life would be a different person.

The idea of pre-karma dictating current situations- bad life needed to “refine” supposedly lower quality people justifies injustice, caste systems, turns into blaming innocent children for imagined past lives. Without remembering those lives, how can we learn or grow? And what of those who fail due to bad environments or unfair advantages? The end (if reached) can’t justify the means when gentler paths exist.

It’s better to trust natural laws and evolution than to imagine a vindictive, unjust system.  Circumstances are not a curse or blessing- just roll of dice, just nature.  Growth comes in form of evolution, adapting and changing.  Value in scarcity  - life ends when we die, though memories live on, we're all forever part of the causative web.  

It's better to dance with nature, than believe some are purposefully cursed or unjustly blessed in unfair tests.

 

[manol]

On 11/29/2024 at 10:30 AM, Autonomous said:

The problem of evil is why I (and many others) are atheist. 

 

14 hours ago, Autonomous said:

The idea of reincarnation almost works... to live life after life after life to understand all perspectives

 

14 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Growth comes in form of evolution, adapting and changing.

 

The concept that currently works the best for me comes from the account of a near-death experiencer:

She found herself in the presence of a vast multitude who had gathered, and she "downloaded" her earth life experience to all the individuals in that multitude, such that they could each know and re-live her earth life experience as vividly as she had lived it.  This was voluntary, and there was no judgment in the traditional religious sense of being shamed or punished or banished for mistakes.  

Extrapolating from this, perhaps our experiences not only "work together for our good", but for the good of all.  Even the bad experiences. 

 

14 hours ago, Autonomous said:

... we’d perform differently in each life. I’ve changed within this life and will continue to; which version of me gets the final grade? 

 

Along the lines of John Archibald Wheeler's One Electron theory, maybe there's really only one of us. 

The LDS Church has a scripture in the Book of Mormon wherein Christ says, "What manner of men [and women] ought you to be?  The same as I am." 

I think that is the version of us who gets "the final grade".  I think we have absolutely nothing to fear, but we do each still have a lot of growing, evolving, adapting, and changing yet to do.   I think we each have our contribution to make, and I think it is not my place to judge anyone else's contribution. 

And... welcome!

Edited November 30, 2024 by manol

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

She found herself in the presence of a vast multitude who had gathered, and she "downloaded" her earth life experience to all the individuals in that multitude, such that they could each know and re-live her earth life experience as vividly as she had lived it.  This was voluntary, and there was no judgment in the traditional religious sense of being shamed or punished or banished for mistakes.

This is how I have imagined it is going to work for quite sometime.  It allows for maximum learning with minimum actual suffering in one sense while everyone ‘suffers’ the same in another and it hooks into how the hard of heart, those who lack empathy, etc could get a chance to repent and change with the most relevant ‘punishment’ ever, a true “eye for an eye” punishment in a sense as they experience the pain from the POV of the person they have hurt.  

I believe we will continue in that vicarious experience in some fashion until we fully comprehend  and accept it….this may take longer for the wicked.  Plus they are not accepting the experience with love and oneness with others as those who have repented and accepted the gospel do, which support is what makes the sharing possible to happen in a positive, uplighting way no matter what the experience is.  The repentant experience paradise because they are one while the unrepentant experience hell because they are alone, refusing support.

Thus who refuse the gospel, refuse some form of oneness with God experience the others’ experiences as if they were still mortal since they have isolated themselves from others.

Edited November 30, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

On 11/28/2024 at 7:11 PM, Nofear said:

While it is possible, even encouraged, to learn many truths that extend beyond the corpus of revealed truths by the revelators of the Church, but, it is entirely inappropriate to tell others of such. That's not to say one can't share learned things (sometimes, depends) but one may not represent them as revealed truth. Were one to do so it would betray the confidence given him or her and future revelation would be witheld.

I think there is an issue with this statement as it relates to this discussion. The truth has already been communicated. There is no beginning. But that truth cannot be understood, grasped, perceived, etc. without the aid of the divine. I think the original sentiment expressed was similar to what I was trying to express in part of my post earlier in the thread. The concepts discussed here literally have no words to convey satisfactory answers to the topic being discussed. Even if God were replying to this thread He would be unable to communicate the answer. The soul needs to be touched by the Divine in order to understand eternal concepts, and that understanding only lasts for as long as the soul is being touched. Our brains just can't handle it, we can only see a beginning and an end.

[JVW]

On 11/29/2024 at 9:30 AM, Autonomous said:

The problem of evil is why I (and many others) are atheist.  

I do not think the problem of evil can be sidestepped by theories like panspermia or the notion of an eternal, uncreated universe. Such ideas might shift the question of origins, but they leave untouched the deeper issues of moral and experiential inequality. Evil isn't merely about its existence; it's about its persistence—how it embeds itself in systems and circumstances beyond individual control. Unequal access to opportunities, shaped by culture, geography, and upbringing, highlights the constrained nature of human agency. A person born into privilege has vastly different choices compared to someone born into hardship, and neither can simply "choose" the other's path. I have not yet found a theological explanation that satisfactorily confronts and justifies the problem of evil, nor group who is able to confront the tangible injustices that perpetuate suffering in the here and now.

There is no problem of evil if you are an atheist. If morality is subjective there is no evil, there is only your perception of evil which is entirely dependent on the time, culture, society in which you dwell. But your perception could be wrong.

[Autonomous]

2 hours ago, manol said:

 

Along the lines of John Archibald Wheeler's One Electron theory, maybe there's really only one of us. 

 

Telling myself - that's just me in a different life - is a way to decrease anger when needed, although it feels egotistical to think like that.  I'm not familiar with John Wheeler, but the concept is an old one -pratītyasamutpāda  (Buddhist interdependence), the Brahman (I think Hinduism is oldest to propose unity concepts), and of course The Tao.  We're herd animals, gregarious, all the different groups out there - I don't see God as the unifying factor, its a groupthink unity that happens - one hive of bees similar to another, one religious group or one family similar to others.  I do think the best groups are interdependent rather than hierarchical or codependent.  

One of my kids recently ended a relationship with someone who really really liked them.  Their old partner still comes around to my office, still heart broken, still trying to find ways to get back together.  He was/is codependent - based emotional/physical/educational well being - would not do anything for himself, it was all for her, dependent on someone else directing, validating, approving.  For a lot of students who grew up in communal daycares, similar - need excessive direction, validation, affirmations from others, are united - communal, can't get through a test on their own, and I give them multiple opportunities and set things up to minimize stress (heading into finals week now haha).  I tell them - before you can play in the orchestra, you have to play on your own.  I know everyone likes the group, wants to be united, communal - but that group/unity doesn't work unless you are first independent - first have to learn to play the violin/cello/guitar - have to choose your instrument, and learn how to play it before you can join the group.  

For just as the body is one and has many members - good parable, each member has to be both individual, unique, independent before joining with others in a meaningful and stable way.  

[Autonomous]

54 minutes ago, JVW said:

There is no problem of evil if you are an atheist. If morality is subjective there is no evil, there is only your perception of evil which is entirely dependent on the time, culture, society in which you dwell. But your perception could be wrong.

 

Which horn of the Euthyphro dilemma do you hold?  Is something considered good because God commands it, or if God commands something because it is already inherently good.

I subscribe to "it is already inherently good" (with our without God ;).... I mean God would cease to be God if.... haha

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

For a lot of students who grew up in communal daycares, similar - need excessive direction, validation, affirmations from others, are united - communal, can't get through a test on their own, and I give them multiple opportunities and set things up to minimize stress (heading into finals week now haha). 

Do you have studies on this as I am quite interested or is this based on your personal experience (not discounting, just hoping there is also research).

I find comparisons between schooling and care styles fascinating.

I have noticed that some homeschooled kids had a real problem with deadlines. One didn’t bother to show up for a required test to get admitted to university apparently assuming he could take it in his own schedule (of course such things can be avoided if a parent sets up a schedule and sticks with it).  

Edited November 30, 2024 by Calm

[Autonomous]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you have studies on this as I am quite interested or is this based on your personal experience (not discounting, just hoping there is also research).

I find comparisons between schooling and care styles fascinating.

I have noticed that some homeschooled kids had a real problem with deadlines. One didn’t bother to show up for a required test to get admitted to university apparently assuming he could take it in his own schedule (of course such things can be avoided if a parent sets up a schedule and sticks with it).  

We had a pro-dev on generational differences.  Gen-X was latch-key, first gen with working moms but no real daycare set up yet, so we tend to be... pretty independent and self-reliant  :).  

The day-care kids grew up in very structured environment,  everyone doing activities together  - ok kids, time for snacks, time for arts and crafts, everyone walking in line to small chained outdoor area ... 

They grew up with computers too... 

 

I feel old haha.

 

[JVW]

On 11/30/2024 at 1:22 PM, Autonomous said:

 

Which horn of the Euthyphro dilemma do you hold?  Is something considered good because God commands it, or if God commands something because it is already inherently good.

I subscribe to "it is already inherently good" (with our without God ;).... I mean God would cease to be God if.... haha

That's a good question. I think I lean more towards the former, that something is good because God commands it. Assuming God is perfect and the embodiment of good then the legal framework of morality that He's established enshrines everything that is good as morally good. I'm not a very good judge of what is good though. My biggest example of this was when I was in a car accident 10-15 years ago and my neck was broken as a result of it. At the time I thought it was the worst thing that ever happened to me and I asked God many times some version of "why me?". In retrospect I view the event as one of the best things that ever happened to me. So as I experience things in life I'm very slow to determine if I think something is good or not. The easy ones to recognize as good are the ten commandments and the covenants members make via priesthood ceremonies.

[Autonomous]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

That's a good question. I think I lean more towards the former, that something is good because God commands it. Assuming God is perfect and the embodiment of good then the legal framework of morality that He's established enshrines everything that is good as morally good. I'm not a very good judge of what is good though. My biggest example of this was when I was in a car accident 10-15 years ago and my neck was broken as a result of it. At the time I thought it was the worst thing that ever happened to me and I asked God many times some version of "why me?". In retrospect I view the event as one of the best things that ever happened to me. So as I experience things in life I'm very slow to determine if I think something is good or not. The easy ones to recognize as good are the ten commandments and the covenants members make via priesthood ceremonies.

How to know "God" commanded it is up for debate.

I tend to go with engineering definitions of ethics, https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

#1 as paramount for good/evil, "Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of... everyone."

Yes, ill turns into lessons learned which creates future progress, yin/yang mixed together.  - Reminds me of the little Chinese story - 

The Chinese Farmer Story

Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.”

The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.”

The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.”

The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.” (picture showing lazy son at home doing no work haha)

Edited December 2, 2024 by Autonomous
Question added.

[JVW]

5 hours ago, Autonomous said:

How to know "God" commanded it is up for debate.

I tend to go with engineering definitions of ethics, https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

#1 as paramount for good/evil, "Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of... everyone."

Yes, ill turns into lessons learned which creates future progress, yin/yang mixed together.  - Reminds me of the little Chinese story - 

I like that Chinese story, I've heard it before and it's good.

I don't think applying human ethical codes works when trying to determine what is good. Each of these can be viewed as wrong depending on the context and when faced with reality.

1) I don't think God cares as much about our physical health as much as He cares about our relationship with Jesus Christ, and in many cases I think He allows/causes harm to befall someone in order to motivate them to draw nearer to Him. A direct example of something God did that didn't hold paramount the public welfare was when He caused the Great Flood.

5) It was deceptive, as a German, to lie to the authorities when asked if housing a Jew. So context matters here. In the scriptures we have Abraham apparently being commanded to lie to the Pharaoh about his wife being his sister.

6) I'm out of time but I feel like Nephi murdering Laban while he was passed out drunk was not honorable, responsible, ethical, or lawful. That story probably hits a few of these points, but I think it's one of the most beautifully symbolic stories in the book of Mormon. I think that in that story Laban, as a type of Christ, is pretty difficult to top.

[Autonomous]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

...I think He allows/causes harm to befall someone in order to motivate them to draw nearer to Him. ....

 

Are you familiar with Munchausen syndrome by proxy (or  Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another in the DSM-5). It is where a caregiver, often a parent, intentionally causes an illness or injury of a child (or another dependent) in order to gain attention, sympathy, or a sense of purpose from being seen as a caretaker. The parent may enjoy the role of the "nurturing" caregiver and feel a sense of control or validation from taking care of the child, even at the child's expense. This behavior is considered abusive and can lead to significant harm or even death for the child.

Another condition, relationships with cycles of abuse followed by periods of reconciliation and affection – the intermittent positive reinforcement creates unhealthy attachment of victim to abuser when someone believes their abuser is the only one who cares for them. 

 

Can you please explain how your statement of “He allows/causes harm to befall someone in order to motivate them to draw nearer to Him.”  Does not fall under the above categories? 

Your examples of "good" do not appear to be good to me at all.

[Nofear]

14 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Can you please explain how your statement of “He allows/causes harm to befall someone in order to motivate them to draw nearer to Him.”  Does not fall under the above categories? 

Surgeons cause harm all the time. But the point of the harm is to repair another harm and allow healing.
Also, you might read D&C 95:1, "whom I love I also chasten". One doesn't necessarily feel loved when they are chastened.
Ether 12:27 is also problematic for many who don't like the idea of a Divine Parent doing His job.

[JVW]

17 hours ago, Autonomous said:

 

Are you familiar with Munchausen syndrome by proxy (or  Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another in the DSM-5). It is where a caregiver, often a parent, intentionally causes an illness or injury of a child (or another dependent) in order to gain attention, sympathy, or a sense of purpose from being seen as a caretaker. The parent may enjoy the role of the "nurturing" caregiver and feel a sense of control or validation from taking care of the child, even at the child's expense. This behavior is considered abusive and can lead to significant harm or even death for the child.

Another condition, relationships with cycles of abuse followed by periods of reconciliation and affection – the intermittent positive reinforcement creates unhealthy attachment of victim to abuser when someone believes their abuser is the only one who cares for them. 

 

Can you please explain how your statement of “He allows/causes harm to befall someone in order to motivate them to draw nearer to Him.”  Does not fall under the above categories? 

Your examples of "good" do not appear to be good to me at all.

I can see where you're coming from but I'd like to point out one glaring thing you are missing when making this argument. We are all born terminal. We are all going to age and die. In the vast majority of cases it will be painful. In many cases it will be unexpected. We acknowledge that God created us. That He loves us and cares about what we do during our lives. He wants a relationship with us. Yet the bodies He gave us are terminally ill. The youngest among us has ~100 years or less of life left in them. If one believes that "God is love" then they must also believe that it is a loving thing that God has given us a terminal condition called mortality.

On the other hand, it's very easy to view God as evil. What cruel being would do that to anyone? I recommend that anyone with an issue about God creating us to die should take it up with Him and hash it out in prayer maybe with some yelling, cursing, vulnerability, and intensity. I think He wants to hear from people about their frustrations and confusion. God's ways are not our ways; His thoughts are not our thoughts. 

Because God has all power, whether He specifically does it, allows it to happen due to "nature", or allows the devil to do it, God is aware of all that happens and ultimately everything can be pinned back on Him. Because I believe that God is love, then I also believe that everything He allows to happen, or causes to happen, is the most perfectly loving thing He could do, and the one with the problem is me. It's my perception that's wrong, not God's. And it takes a lot of work and a broken heart and crushed spirit to work through a lot of this crap He gives us.

On the other hand, one could argue that it is Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Lastly (I really need to go pick up my kid) I want to point out that God, Himself, has accepted responsibility for all suffering, harm, wrongs, evil, sins, etc. Any pain and sorrow and death. God took all of it upon Himself forever. He suffered an eternal punishment, and if we turn to Him we can be relieved of our burdens and He will carry them. Jesus Christ is the answer.

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, JVW said:

... I'm out of time but I feel like Nephi murdering Laban while he was passed out drunk was not honorable, responsible, ethical, or lawful. That story probably hits a few of these points, but I think it's one of the most beautifully symbolic stories in the book of Mormon. I think that in that story Laban, as a type of Christ, is pretty difficult to top.

No offense, but ...

Oh ...

My ...

Goodness!

Just when I think I've heard it all!  

Laban is the perfect type of Christ, because Christ stole other people's gold, silver and precious things; Christ tried to kill those people when they attempted to get their gold, silver, and precious things back; Christ tried to hoard the law [Brass Plates] so that people couldn't keep the commandments according to the Law of Moses, which was then in effect; and so on.

Yep!

Perfect!

P.S.: I'd like to post some articles containing what I think are vital perspectives on Nephi's slaying of Laban, but, unfortunately, they have been "memory holed" by the uber illuminati at the latest incarnation of the Maxwell Institute.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[Autonomous]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Surgeons cause harm all the time. But the point of the harm is to repair another harm and allow healing.
Also, you might read D&C 95:1, "whom I love I also chasten". One doesn't necessarily feel loved when they are chastened.
Ether 12:27 is also problematic for many who don't like the idea of a Divine Parent doing His job.

If the end is to justify the means, we must first ask: can we demonstrate that there is no other way? As we look to the vast array of human experience, it becomes clear that many different paths can lead to the same destination. Take, for example, the advancements in medicine: what was once a painful and invasive procedure, like open heart surgery, has been replaced by minimally invasive techniques that allow for quicker recovery and less trauma.

Similarly, consider the ways in which children are raised. While some may have been disciplined harshly, others, raised with love and care—without punishment—have turned out just as well, if not better. This suggests that the means we choose to achieve a goal are not as fixed as we might think. We are not confined to one method.

In all areas of life, whether it's healing or teaching, we have the capacity to choose methods that cause less harm. The "carrot" approach—fostering kindness, understanding, and patience—often leads to more enduring and meaningful results than the "whip" of force or coercion. It reminds us that the most compassionate and effective ways to reach our ends are often those that respect the dignity and well-being of others. Healing can be created without harm.

[Autonomous]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I can see where you're coming from but I'd like to point out one glaring thing you are missing when making this argument. We are all born terminal. We are all going to age and die. In the vast majority of cases it will be painful. In many cases it will be unexpected. We acknowledge that God created us. That He loves us and cares about what we do during our lives. He wants a relationship with us. Yet the bodies He gave us are terminally ill. The youngest among us has ~100 years or less of life left in them. If one believes that "God is love" then they must also believe that it is a loving thing that God has given us a terminal condition called mortality.

On the other hand, it's very easy to view God as evil. What cruel being would do that to anyone? I recommend that anyone with an issue about God creating us to die should take it up with Him and hash it out in prayer maybe with some yelling, cursing, vulnerability, and intensity. I think He wants to hear from people about their frustrations and confusion. God's ways are not our ways; His thoughts are not our thoughts. 

Because God has all power, whether He specifically does it, allows it to happen due to "nature", or allows the devil to do it, God is aware of all that happens and ultimately everything can be pinned back on Him. Because I believe that God is love, then I also believe that everything He allows to happen, or causes to happen, is the most perfectly loving thing He could do, and the one with the problem is me. It's my perception that's wrong, not God's. And it takes a lot of work and a broken heart and crushed spirit to work through a lot of this crap He gives us.

On the other hand, one could argue that it is Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Lastly (I really need to go pick up my kid) I want to point out that God, Himself, has accepted responsibility for all suffering, harm, wrongs, evil, sins, etc. Any pain and sorrow and death. God took all of it upon Himself forever. He suffered an eternal punishment, and if we turn to Him we can be relieved of our burdens and He will carry them. Jesus Christ is the answer.

 

As an atheist, I do not believe in a divine creator, but rather see our existence as the result of a long series of evolutionary steps, shaped by chance, environment, and the lessons passed down through generations. For me, it is the laws of nature—guided by the principles of physics—that govern our lives, our experiences, and our surroundings. This understanding offers me a sense of comfort: there is no grand design or intentional force behind the challenges we face.  (Consider something like cancer compared to something like being physically attached by an intentional person, cancer is much easier to deal with as there is no intention, no malice behind it). There is no divine being to blame or praise for our pain; it is simply a part of nature's unfolding - this is more comforting to me, just nature.

In my experience, no one has taken away my pain—not God, not anyone. I have felt every moment of suffering, just as countless others have. Those who endure the horrors of war, the weight of personal loss, or the daily struggles of life, we all feel it. Our pain is ours alone, and even if others share in similar experiences, it does not erase the depth of what we've gone through.

Pain, unfortunately, does not always heal. It often leaves lasting scars—PTSD, brain injuries, and mental health struggles that affect countless individuals. Many who suffer are left with conditions that do not make them stronger, but instead cause them to wrestle with enduring, invisible wounds. Pain is not a tool for growth; it is an experience to be lived through, and sometimes, it just remains, a reminder that life does not always offer the solace of healing. In a world shaped by nature, we must learn to navigate this reality without the need to rationalize suffering as a means to a greater end. It simply is.

[Nofear]

16 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

If the end is to justify the means...

Well, the means must always be justified by the ends. If the means aren't justified by the end, they aren't worth doing. What we mean by this is that can an end justify any means. To that, the answer is clearly no. The ends do not justify any means. God is very clearly limiting his behavior to respect our moral agency, for example. I am quite convinced that God's efforts are "minimally invasive". But, some people take any effort/effect/action/intervention as being too invasive. /shrug
For my part, I welcome and invite as much of the Lord's involvement in my life as I can. I fully trust that he does nothing but that it is for my benefit.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No offense, but ...

Oh ...

My ...

Goodness!

Just when I think I've heard it all!  

Laban is the perfect type of Christ, because Christ stole other people's gold, silver and precious things; Christ tried to kill those people when they attempted to get their gold, silver, and precious things back; Christ tried to hoard the law [Brass Plates] so that people couldn't keep the commandments according to the Law of Moses, which was then in effect; and so on.

Yep!

Perfect!

P.S.: I'd like to post some articles containing what I think are vital perspectives on Nephi's slaying of Laban, but, unfortunately, they have been "memory holed" by the uber illuminati at the latest incarnation of the Maxwell Institute.

Please consider the following for context.

1) When Christ suffered in the garden of Gethsemane. Although He was sinless, He was treated as if He was the ultimate, eternal, worst sinner to ever exist. He took on the consequences and pains of every sin to ever be committed in perpetuity stretching from eternity to eternity. Christ was way worse than Laban during the time in which He suffered in the garden.

2) The imagery Christ uses to convey his suffering in the garden is drinking from a bitter (poisoned) cup with the Father as the cupbearer who gave it to Him.

3) In order to return to the presence of the Father we need to have Christ's image in our countenances. In the covenants we make we progressively take upon us more of Christ's image in our preparation to return to the Father.

4) Christ was slain (one man) so that the world might be saved. He also chose to die and could only be slain by His own power.

Now let's look at the story of Laban. Consider Laban as Jesus, and Nephi as any of us as disciples of Christ.

Quote

1 Nephi 4:

5 And it was by night; (Christ's garden experience was by night)

7 - ... as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine. (Jesus drank the entire cup, even the dregs, and had fallen to the Earth. He was drunken with sin.)

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof... (God endows us with power)

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him. (I think this is in the realm of what Godly sorrow feels like. Christ suffered and died for me. If I was the only one that would be impacted by His eternal sacrifice, He still would have done it. And if He had to do it again, He would. It's my fault that Christ died and I shrink when I consider the gravity of that.)

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. (Jesus was delivered into the hands of the wicked.)

13 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. (One Man perished that the world might be saved, and during the atonement Jesus could be reasonably regarded as the ultimate sinner, though He was innocent.)

17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments. (God is the Word. All of scripture, all of creation even, points to the sacrifice, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword. (Christ was the penultimate and last sacrifice that God gave us. We each need to remember His sacrifice and use His blood to cover our sins. He could not have died unless He gave people power to slay Him.)

19-21 And after I had smitten off his head with his own sword, I took the garments of Laban and put them upon mine own body; yea, even every whit; and I did gird on his armor about my loins. And after I had done this, I went forth unto the treasury of Laban. And as I went forth towards the treasury of Laban, behold, I saw the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury. And I commanded him in the voice of Laban, that he should go with me into the treasury. And he supposed me to be his master, Laban, for he beheld the garments and also the sword girded about my loins. (We take on Christ's countenance in order to enter God's kingdom. Please note here as well it uses the word garments.)

I hope next time you'll be a little less condescending in your responses towards people with different perspectives than you. I also hope you gained some sort of spiritual insight from this post. There is a lot more that can be gleaned from this story, but this is definitely enough commentary to get the ball rolling if someone is interested in pondering on it further.

[Kenngo1969]

55 minutes ago, JVW said:

... I hope next time you'll be a little less condescending in your responses towards people with different perspectives than you.

Thank you for your very kind invitation, but it is rather unlikely that I will take you up on it.  Rarely do I condescend, but when I believe condescension is called for ...   

55 minutes ago, JVW said:

I also hope you gained some sort of spiritual insight from this post.

As much as I appreciate, very much, your attempt to take it upon yourself to be my spiritual teacher, I might suggest, kindly and respectfully, that you stick to weeding your own garden.  I was here long before you got here, and I'm fairly certain, as long as the site continues to exist, that I'll be here long after you have lost interest.  For anyone else who might be interested, here are some resources that I have found invaluable in understanding Nephi's slaying of Laban:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1416&context=jbms&fbclid=IwAR3OlR4O0cdPlyE0wCfDxpC75Zurvsb8D8mvnXfJFn1dtsEa4hy7zHHkK8E

Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban

Tootles!*  

*I hope these links work!  Man, but finding and posting less recent content from the current incarnation of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship has become dang near impossible!  

Edited December 3, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[JVW]

45 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

As an atheist, I do not believe in a divine creator, but rather see our existence as the result of a long series of evolutionary steps, shaped by chance, environment, and the lessons passed down through generations. For me, it is the laws of nature—guided by the principles of physics—that govern our lives, our experiences, and our surroundings. This understanding offers me a sense of comfort: there is no grand design or intentional force behind the challenges we face.  (Consider something like cancer compared to something like being physically attached by an intentional person, cancer is much easier to deal with as there is no intention, no malice behind it). There is no divine being to blame or praise for our pain; it is simply a part of nature's unfolding - this is more comforting to me, just nature.

You call it nature, I call it God. The key difference seems to be that you don't believe that you can communicate with nature and that nature doesn't care about you. If it is comforting that everything that is happening to you is meaningless, wouldn't there be a considerable degree of more comfort if there was eternal meaning behind our interactions with natural processes?

45 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

In my experience, no one has taken away my pain—not God, not anyone. I have felt every moment of suffering, just as countless others have. Those who endure the horrors of war, the weight of personal loss, or the daily struggles of life, we all feel it. Our pain is ours alone, and even if others share in similar experiences, it does not erase the depth of what we've gone through.

The value proposition of turning to Jesus is that He can take away your pain. He can heal your soul, lift your burdens, relieve the weight that you carry in your heart, the weight that makes shoulders slouch. He is waiting to meet you in that secret place of your deepest pain. He has already traveled that path. All you have to do is kneel down, ask Him if He's there and if He is can He please heal you. He is, and He can. You don't need a Bible or a religion to have this experience. You just need to be willing to look like an idiot in private and talk to yourself out loud to what is probably nothing. There is peace that can be obtained that cannot be conveyed or shared with anyone else.

45 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

Pain, unfortunately, does not always heal. It often leaves lasting scars—PTSD, brain injuries, and mental health struggles that affect countless individuals. Many who suffer are left with conditions that do not make them stronger, but instead cause them to wrestle with enduring, invisible wounds. Pain is not a tool for growth; it is an experience to be lived through, and sometimes, it just remains, a reminder that life does not always offer the solace of healing. In a world shaped by nature, we must learn to navigate this reality without the need to rationalize suffering as a means to a greater end. It simply is.

Growth entails discomfort. Pain does not always result in growth, but growth always results in some degree of pain and/or discomfort. The bigger the growth, the bigger the pain. There are, in many cases, lasting scars that permanently weaken. But it is hard to predict how pain will impact any given individual. And pain that weakens at one time may serve to strengthen at another. There are people raised from childhood in the lap of luxury who end up committing suicide at a young age, or grow up to become homeless drunks. And there are others whose alcoholic father beat them every night, or they were trafficked as children, and grow up and create something beautiful and graduate magna cum laude and cure cancer. It's a strange thing to consider.

I tend to fall in the former part. I have tons of lasting scars from a lifetime of trauma. Even after learning about God I have been through incredibly traumatic experiences that wouldn't have happened if I didn't believe in God. In many cases, I feel like I'm very weak and less capable of living than I would be if I didn't have those scars. But as time goes on and I allow God to work on me, many of my scars have eventually become like the blemishes in marble. I have become more beautiful as a result of them and find some of them to be sweet treasures and sources of strength.

I'm reminded of this quote from A.W. Towzer

Quote

“Well, it is not to be wondered at. A real [believer] is an odd number anyway. He feels supreme love for One whom he has never seen, talks familiarly every day to Someone he cannot see, expects to go to heaven on the virtue of Another, empties himself in order to be full, admits he is wrong so he can be declared right, goes down in order to get up, is strongest when he is weakest, richest when he is poorest and happiest when he feels worst. He dies so he can live, forsakes in order to have, gives away so he can keep, sees the invisible, hears the inaudible and knows that which passeth knowledge.”

Throughout the scriptures God condemns rebellion, but treats weakness with love and grace. It is said many times that the only acceptable sacrifice to Him is a broken heart and a crushed spirit (see Psalm 34:18 as an example). Alone, the things that crush me leave me battered and bruised. But if I turn to God in that condition He gently and lovingly lifts me up and strengthens me with His power.

[JVW]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thank you for your very kind invitation, but it is rather unlikely that I will take you up on it.  Rarely do I condescend, but when I believe condescension is called for ...   

As much as I appreciate, very much, your attempt to take it upon yourself to be my spiritual teacher, I might suggest that you stick to weeding your own garden.  I was here long before you got here, and I'm fairly certain, as long as the site continues to exist, that I'll be here long after you leave.  

Tootles!  

What'd you think of the ideas I presented? Were they interesting at all? I'm curious about your thoughts about the Laban story after what I've suggested.

I should have written, as you did, "no offense" because it seems like you got offended and I didn't intend to offend. I just like to call out crap, just like you do. I assume your smiley face emojis mean that I needed to be treated in a condescending manner. Do I come across as an arrogant prick or something? I mean, I know that I am one, but I don't try to come across that way.

What does your length of time on this site have to do with anything? If you're going to act in a rude way then I'm going to call you out on it. Doesn't matter if you or I have been here for a day or 20 years.

You say that I was attempting to be your spiritual teacher. No. What I was attempting was to defend an interpretation I presented about Laban's story that you basically called the dumbest thing you've ever heard suggested. I wouldn't have written the post illuminating some of my thoughts about the Laban story if you didn't comment and call me an idiot.

[Autonomous]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Well, the means must always be justified by the ends. If the means aren't justified by the end, they aren't worth doing. What we mean by this is that can an end justify any means. To that, the answer is clearly no. The ends do not justify any means. God is very clearly limiting his behavior to respect our moral agency, for example. I am quite convinced that God's efforts are "minimally invasive". But, some people take any effort/effect/action/intervention as being too invasive. /shrug
For my part, I welcome and invite as much of the Lord's involvement in my life as I can. I fully trust that he does nothing but that it is for my benefit.

To me, challenges aren’t punishments or tests from a higher power—they’re simply the result of nature and circumstance. We are shaped by our environment and upbringing, (nature/nurture), not much agency - most is beyond our control. Instead of seeing struggles as divine condemnation, I view them as opportunities to grow and adapt, creating my own meaning and purpose without the weight of imagined judgment.  Personal responsibility, (have never seen the imagined God help anyone), change rather than endure, and not try to rationalize horrors as sent by god to "refine" (condemning all who hurt as being in need of a chisel).  It's a better mindset without God for me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Autonomous said:

While some may have been disciplined harshly, others, raised with love and care—without punishment—have turned out just as well, if not better

What if the eternal nature of our intelligence is a very tough nut to crack, to change and extreme measures are required?