• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lucread

  1. Why don't you ask God. Its so hard for us to understand because I suspect most have asked God. Had our own revelation on it.

    And there's the holier than thou BS...


    "Oh, you don't understand it the way I do so you must be a confused child with little or no testimony who needs to do more research."

    Your arrogance is astonishing... speaking for others when its only you who are having such a hard time understanding something... you're either freakishly closed-minded or incredibly lacking in comprehension. Stop dealing in absolutes, and never be so prideful as to speak down to another.

    You assume I've not asked God or had a personal revelation, when in fact I have done so more whole heartedly than many in the church would even think possible, and have had personal revelation on many varying occassions about various things. But I am not prideful, and would not stick it in another's face, as you have been since your first post in this thread. I'm sorry, but people like you are my biggest problem with the LDS church, and as I previously said, are one of the key reasons I left 7 years ago.

    ~honestly... you're making me sick~

  2. No, Elgama... THATS NOT MY LOGIC!!! You're missing the whole point!

    I wasn't saying you shouldn't listen to God, I was saying that maybe... JUST MAYBE... God didn't tell Nephi to kill Laban!!!

    I'm not saying God never spoke to Nephi... and I'm definately not saying God doesn't speak to people.


    *thanks for deleting the post this was in reference too /sigh

  3. Your right I haven't got the foggiest how you can believe Nephi was honest about anything else if he lied about this.

    Have you ever lied in your life? Of course you have!

    So with your logic, how can I possibly believe you're honest about anything else you've ever said?

    Maybe you don't have a daughter... maybe you didn't leave the church for a year... maybe you're a 12 year old little boy trolling an LDS website. Do you see where this is going? Believing someone lied isn't the same as believing they never spoke any truth... quite contrary, its believing that someone is human... as humans lie...

    ... why do I suddenly feel like Dr. House... "EVERYBODY LIES!!!"


  4. The question for you then is if one believes God told Nephi to take his head while he was sleeping, is it still murder?

    If you are commanded by your boss to kill someone while they're sleeping, is it murder? If you're an assassin for the CIA, and its your job to carry out strategic killings, is it still murder? If someone has wronged you every day of your life, and one day you find them sleeping, and you kill them, is it still murder? If God commands you to kill someone when there are other ways of succeeding in your goal, is it still murder?

    Yes, yes, yes, and yes... justifications don't change the act. Regardless, though, thats not the argument that was presented. The argument presented was whether or not Nephi was actually commanded to commit murder, or if he just claimed he was as a justification for his actions. It was probing the humanity of the author and the likelihood of God actually commanding someone to break the commandments he set down for everyone to follow (thus the opposing commands).

    But regardless, my argument was resolved a while ago (as you would see if you actually looked back and read the thread).

    Even then, the commandments were given to men. God can take life as freely as He gives it. That is not contradictory to His commandment for us.

    No, but God didn't kill Laban... Nephi did... and THAT is contradictory to the commandment given us.

  5. Dude... you're like... completely misunderstanding the whole argument.

    You're assuming a series of absolutes that are not present. I never said Nephi didn't recieve revelations from God, rather that this one instance MAY HAVE BEEN an authorial excuse. Furthermore, I have not once claimed the Book of Mormon to be false, and have quite the contrary affirmed my belief in it. Quite simply... you've just completely misunderstood the discussion.

    Posted Image

  6. I never said, or even suggested, that he was mislead by Satan... I did say he may have sinned of his own accord, and then lied about it... regardless, neither of the two state, or even hint, that I wouldn't think God could commune with us directly... in fact the former (though not something I ever said) would suggest that he could, since Satan clearly can't do anything God can't...

    ... so, I'm still kinda confused where you got that from.

  7. Hello hello

    Hello hello!

    We welcome you today. hello!

    Hello hello!

    Hello hello!

    We're glad you came this day,

    To share with us in our forum say,

    And discuss the church in a very special way.

    Hello hello!

    Hello hello!

    We welcome you today!

  8. Concerning this topic, Joseph Smith said:

    God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted-by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. . . .

    . . . As God has designed our happiness-and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has-He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 256-57

    Very good... thank you for that. However why I love this so much is not going to go over well with some, either.

    I can take this and forgive all things mentioned here in this thread... from the Nephi/Laban event to all the other commands to kill. However, this would then lead to the idea, and belief in a seemingly unperfect God. A God who allows contradictions of his own words to perpetuate the need... a HUMAN persona, if you will.

    And now I take this, and as I think on it... it actually makes a great deal of sense, especially with the LDS belief structure of God and the eternal cycle. Our Father in Heaven was once like us... somewhere, sometime, very long ago. This would inherently mean that he was, at one point, human. Now regardless of spiritual wholeness, and temporal being, personality, in essence can't possibly be that gravely different. So being once a human, and later becoming a God, as we believe is the way in our faith, then our God would have to be, at some level, who he was when he was within his own test. Therefore, a God who says one thing, then does another, is compeltely feesible, and entirely supported by our beleifs.

    Geeze... my head is racking now with answers and further ponderings. How oculd I have never thought to apply that explanation to such blatant contradictions? Thank you, Justice... thank you very much! I'm going to have to go back study some more... I haven't done much study with non-scriptual LDS work for a couple of years now (even though I have since sheepishly found my way back into the fold).

    When you continuosly seek answers from church to church, you tend to continue forward, putting many things behind, as you've already been there... but then you fall victim to that which I have... you forget. And by doing so, you drop a piece of the puzzle you're trying to put together, and when you find the piece that connects it, you're left with just another piece, rather than the whole you should have been prepared to place together.

    /blah ... THANKS AGAIN! :twothumbsup:

  9. Nephi didn't lie. The Book of Mormon contains the truth, Lucread. I don't have the time or energy to read every post on this thread, but it boils down to the following:

    -GOD is the master of life and death.

    -The Book of Mormon is scripture, translated by the gift and power of GOD. Therefore, if it is grievously wrong then GOD has prepared, preserved, and perpetuated a falsehood.

    -Obedience to the word of GOD is righteousness; disobedience is sin.

    Brother, I implore you to reconsider your position on this. Search your soul and ask yourself WHY you feel that there is a contradiction here, and then seek the real reason you doubt the scriptures.

    GOD bless and good luck.

    No offense, Matt, but heavy handed, closed minded, absolute, "you are wrong" statements, such as makes up the bulk of your post, were the reason I left the church 7 years ago.

    I ask questions and feed discussions for debate. I do not shut myself down and swallow without question, and I feel doing so is a naive perspective to have about anything, especially when it comes to theology.

    For the record, I am not saying God did anything wrong, in fact, I'm defending him from being seen as a fickle Lord who arbitrarily decides to command his children to break the rules he, himself, laid down for them. Neither am I saying that the Book of Mormon is not scripture, or that it was not translated by the power of God. I am not saying and have not said anywhere that the Book of Mormon is "grievously wrong."

    All I am saying is that Nephi was human (this is a fact), and am presenting that it is a possibility that he, being human, did something that is inherently human, and fudged the details of his story to vindicate himself from a sin he knew he commited (or even possibly that Mormon fudged the facts, giving Nephi an excuse during his abridgement, if Nephi, himself, did not... because, you know... Mormon was also human).

    As for the whole obedience and disobedience thing... huh? Where did that come from?

    Are you implying that I'm being a disobedient sinner becasue I'm presenting a question?

    Because if thats the case... well... I won't finish that sentence becasue I don't want to get into personal attacks as such are against site rules, and aren't exactly "christian" in nature, so I'll just back away and let your imagination fill in the gaps.

    But take note that I am offended by your post.

    I just think you should know that.

  10. The point is that the Lord can make exceptions and as such, killing is not always a sin.

    My assertion is that being "commanded of God" is an excuse utilized more than once, but using the Nephi/Laban story as a focus.

    As for this...

    evidence against you're assertion that "The Ten Commandments are the "ground rules" (which no scripture anywhere substantiates)

    Uhhhhh... actually... thats exactly what they are, as they were asserted as such. If you don't think any scripture substantiates this, you need to reread Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5... more potently Deuteronomy 5 for its first 3 verses (mostly the first verse), all listed below:

    1. And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

    2. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

    3. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.

    Sure the words "these are the ground rules" are never said, but thats as close to a biblical declaration thereof that you could hope for.

  11. If Nephi is going to be so self-serving in his account, why doesn't he simply omit the fact that Laban was passed out and drunk? Come to think of it, why does he need to mention Laban's actually dying--or dying by Nephi's hand--at all?

    Good argument. :)

    But its flawed... see, he would have had to tell his family what he did, having commited an act that would obviously not be a secret for very long, as Laban's body would without question be found. Thus an excuse becomes a more likely (and logical) lie than a complete account of having say... just stumbling upon the plates ungaurded, taking them and making a run for it.

    If Nephi fudges part of the account, then we really can't guarantee he hasn't made the whole thing up. In which case, the only semi-logical explanation for the presence of this story (other than historicity) would seem to be that Nephi as an author is deliberately trying to challenge us.

    If that is indeed the case, then simply dismissing the story as fiction dodges the issues that Nephi wants us to confront head-on.

    This execution of the story would actually make sense in a way... much as the Old Testament was put together as parables and stories based on truth with holy implications throughout, why could Nephi, or Mormon, even, have entered a story of half truths in order to teach us and/or challenge us in our faith.

    I don't think I could really ever subscribe to such being the case with this story, however, I can see the validity of the argument (whether you meant such to be a valid point or not).

    To say that Nephi lied seems unreasonable.

    Perhaps... but to say that Nephi never lied seems outrageous... so where do you draw the line? Where CAN you draw the line?

    (heh, my persona of the ever questioning, ever challenging theologian is cropping up... boy did my parents name me right)

  12. Good afternoon Lucread. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)

    Hello!!! :D

    I think it's important to define what you mean by murder. What is murder? More importantly, how does God define murder?

    Not to put to fine a point on it, but your argument is circular. You are defining Nephi's actions as murder, therefore proving that Nephi was commanded to murder. Instead, you need to prove that Nephi's action is murder. Asserting that it is murder, is insufficient.



    Murder is the act of killing someone who is not placing you in any particular harm. Killing as a last resort to a necessity I wouldn't honestly quantify as an act of murder, much as it would be in self-defense given no other out. Nephi's actions fall under this category inasmuch that he was presented with a sleeping man, and rather than figure out a less violent way to get what he needed from him, he took up the man's own sword and cut of his head. This was not a necessity, he could have gotte nthe plates through other means, and even if he had to resort to murder, cutting the dudes head off was still pretty extreme... unless Laban was an immortal, and Nephi either knew how to kill an immortal or was also one himself... in which case, where's the verse about the quickening he recieved?!

    As for what God considers murder... this has been the plague of humanity for centuries. Killing other people became common place, so the definition of murder was slightly different from place to place throughout the dark and middle ages. Regardless, however, the punishments for murder were almost always (in European society) set forth as God's will. Clearly this wasn't an accurate display of what God meant, but it is something that has even remained until this day, with people on death row being given their last rights before they are executed. But all of that is beside the point.

    If we take the commandment as to meaning murder, then we are left without precise definition of what constitues murder in God's eyes simply because we do not have a verse where he, himself, explains it. Therefore we are left to discern for ourselves what constitutes the act of "murder." By revelation we should believe as our lands believe. "Abiding by the laws of the land" would indicate what murder is for you given where you are, so the term would be justifiably varied from country to country, as would the temporal punishment for such an act.

    But bringing it all back to Nephi... I think a better question would be how is it that someone can justify killing a sleeping person who is unaware of your pressence, be you them justified in their purpose or not, as NOT being an act of murder?

    It's fine you feel that way. However I wonder would you listen and break the commandments if revelation said if you didn't your children would be in danger?

    That was what Nephi was facing. Also would you seriously put the ten commandments before God Himself?

    To address the latter question first; I believe that if I were commanded by a spiritual being to break one of the ten commandments, that it wouldn't be through God... if you catch my drift.

    As for the first question... unlike as I am meant to as church teachings persist (placing God above all else), I would freely break a commandment to save my children... but thats me. And like I said, thats not what we're SUPPOSED to do. We actuallly had a discussion about this sort of thing in Elder's Quorom recently, and it made me realize how little I hold to the proper order of things.

    See, the line of importance presented by the church is thus: God/Christ> Self> Spouse> Children/Family> Church> so on and what not. This would indicated that God's commandments are greater than your children, your spouse, and even yourself... the church itself, not sso much, but God and his Son, Jesus Christ, most definately (and the commandments are an extension of God inasmuch as they are the basics... the Core Rulebook of life, if you will).

    I differ in this teaching by placing things of importance as thus: Children> Spouse> Rest of Family> God/Christ> Self> Church> so on and what not... so fundamentally my answer cannot play into your argument, as I do not hold to the standard of importance presented by the church.

    (I never said I was perfect.)

  13. The idea of justifiable murder, lying and other assorted acts is indeed a conundrum. We know we are not supposed to do those things and yet there they are in print. Killing a sleeping man with a sword, in cold blood, would get us the death penalty in Texas and Utah.

    In literature, there are always rogues who commit crimes that serve as a means to achieve some overall goal in the story line. Sometimes they are admirable like Robin Hood and sometimes they are loathsome like Gollum. In these stories there are lessons to be learned. They contain moral lessons and gems of wisdom that we can use in our existence. The important point is distinguishing the brigandry of the rogue characters from the moral to be learned. This can be hard if we take a literal stance on the story, rather than leaning back and looking at what it meant.

    Killing someone with a sword may strike the fancy of young lads dreaming of romanticized deeds of daring do by pirates or samurai on far away islands, but the action of murder still remains morally wrong.

    This is a good point, and very valid through literature... however within a story that is meant to be holy and true, such literary devices fundamentally should not exist. This is not a work of fiction meant to entertain. It is a work of scripture meant to teach. And what this story teaches is fundamentally in contradiction to what was established in a previous work of scripture.

  14. Lucread: Is this discussion helpful or are we making things worse?

    Niether, really... I like the discussion, but most of these conflicts are coming up as being told one thing and then another... none of them really conflict with the broad standard ten commandments given. I don't have a problem with God "changing his mind" persay, but I don't feel as though he would order someone to specifically break one of his ground rules.

    The ten commandments are the ground rules. Being commanded to preach and then do something else... these are differing commands, yes, but niether conflict with the solid ground rules set down during the time of Moses, and are therefore not something that are really comparable to the Nephi/Laban story.

    Being allowed to go to war in defense is the closest thing that has been brought up, imo (the stuff Wingnut posted I've similarly always taken as authorial liberties and justifications)... but even that seems more like a "don't let yourself be killed" sort of thing. Its not exactly a commandment to go kill their enemies... they just take it as such (another example of humanity)... war can be waged without a death toll, its difficult, but maming isn't against the commandments and would leave your enemies incapable of hurting you, or anyone, ever again.

    That said, it has also been mentioned that men of God have lied... so why then would it be hard to believe that Nephi did?

    THAT said, changed brought up a good point... and in actuality, in many religions, and in many modern translations of the bible, the commandment given is "you shall not murder," rather than "thou shalt not kill." Indicating a significant difference between the two... this would make the command of "going to war in defense" entirely legitimized... however, that would not change the original issue with Nephi.

    Taking a man's sword while he sleeps and smiting off his head can in no way be legitimized as anything but murder. So essentially, Nephi was commanded to murder Laban... and even that would still conflict with the commandment given (if you take the modern translation).

  15. I don't really know why I brought this up in another thread (part of a ramble, clearly, but still), but I did and it caught a couple of eyes. And looking over it again, I decided to take Maya's advice and start a thread about this (and I assume this is the appropriate forum).

    This particular discussion came up a lot in converations with non-members who were familiar with the Book of Mormon, or at least the early parts of it, and as such became the focus of a conversation I had with a friend of mine one night while we were closing the store we worked at (it was a Blockbuster Video, if that matters to you, but its not important). Through our conversation, his question rounded back to this very point, and he claimed it as the only problem he "really" had with the Book of Mormon (note that he was/is a temple worthy man, but this still bothered him).

    The issue: Why would (or even how could) God command Nephi to kill Laban?

    A valid question and argument, for all intents and purposes. And a very difficult one to answer. Such a command is in direct opposition with the sixth commandment, and while some may try to jusify it due to Laban being an exceptionally evil person, that explanation is flawed inasmuch that the commandment states "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not kill unless the guy is really evil and totally deserves it."

    Now, while the latter was technically the Catholic mentality during the Crusades, as has it been used in varying other wars throughout history, the fact is that it is not what God commanded, and is thus no excuse nor explanation. So this event, of Nephi killing Laban, becomes an issue.

    How do you explain it? How can you in strictly religious terms?

    I don't think you can, as I don't think its possible to do so.

    Due to this, and reading over the event and pondering about the issue at great length... I came to a conclusion for myself that resides within the humanity of Nephi. Now I know this isn't exactly going to be an explanation that goes over well with everyone, but its the only explanation I can see justified with any form of logic.

    Nephi lied.

    See... I refuse to believe that God would command anyone to break one of his own commandments as anything but a test (meaning he would stop them from actually commiting the act like he did with Abraham)... thus I find it much easier to believe in Nephi being an imperfect human being.

    So lets take at this altered series of event as a theory:

    Having been commanded to retrieve the plates, Nephi finds Laban upon the ground, grasping them tightly... trying to figure out how to get them away from him, he sees Laban's sword, and decides the easiest way would be to slay him. Commiting a grievous act of necessity, Nephi successfully retrieves the plates... but as a record of his actions, he gives himself an excuse, and claims that God commanded him to kill Laban.

    Like I said, I know this is not ever going to be the most popular explaination for his actions, but personally, I find it to be the most logical, and most coinciding with my belief in God.

    That said, I bring this here for discussion. What do you think on this matter?

    How do you justify Nephi's actions and/or God's contradicting command?

    Posted Image

  16. I think the Doctor Who television program began on the BBC back in 1965. That was before the majority of posters here were born.

    Yeah but it didn't end until 1989, and was then being run in America on the many PBS channels throughout the country, rerun and rerun throughout the 90's (though they began running it in the early/mid 80's, or at least that when my dad discovered the show). It became so popular in America through that that FOX decided to try and revitalize the series by bringing its production stateside and made a Pilot/TV Movie to be aired, so they could gage the rating to see if a series would work.

    FOX aired this film in 1996 (I still remember my whole family gathering in the family room that night to watch it)... it didnt get the rating they hoped for and htey scrapped the plans for a new series, but the reaired the movie again in 1996, and then another three or four times in 1997. Next, in 1999 BBCAmerica aired it to bring in the new year as its story took place and December 30-31 of 1999 with the new year playing a central theme in the plot. It was then later picked up by movie channels like the Encore family, then it got passed down to then "Sci-Fi" channel (now "SyFy") when they temporarily held American rights to the new series' American broadcasting (which would eventually be pulled back by BBCAmerica), and through this never saw a year without airing in the states somewhere on some channel.

    All the while the classic series was still be rerun on PBS... a compeltely different schedule than before, but still consistantly being run, until 2007 when PBS finally got the rights to air the 2005 "new" series, and haave pretty much since stopped airing the classic series, though BBCAmerican runs reruns of both classic and new Who on a regular basis.

    So yeah... I've never had a year in my life when Doctor Who wasn't being aired someone in the states at some point in time... and THATs why I'm always befuddled when someone has absolutely no experience with the series... make sense, now?


  17. You could talk to your bishop, if you want... I'm sure he would just say that you don't need counseling and that you just need to let the Lord forgive you, as repentance is between you and him... but this is one of those things that doesn't really need a confession to a bishop to be forgiven. If you feel it would help, sure, thats fine... but like I said... this falls into a category of "minor" sinful behaviour that only really requires you and God.

    You've taken heed to the fact that you did something "wrong."

    Thats the first step, now you need to pray, and ask for forgiveness.

    Then you must commit to not allowing such to go this far again.

    Just to clarify, making out isn't exactly bad... but allowing him into your chest and the sexual lust portrayed through the actions are what stems this particular "session" into a category that needs repenting. And please understand, having to repent is not really a "bad" thing... its normal, and thats what the gift is here for... just be sure that you're commited to the ideal that repentance represents, and do not allow yourself into such a situation again.

    Thats all the advice I can give on this subject.