1 Nephi 4:11

[HEthePrimate]

The way I look at it, the more mental gymnastics it takes to justify doing something, the less likely it is to be right.

HEP

[TruthSeekerToo]

I just found this fascinating quote from the King Follett Discourse given by Joseph Smith.

I advise all of you to be careful what you do, or by-and-by you may find that you have been deceived. Stay yourselves; do not give way. You may find that someone has laid a snare for you. Be cautious; await! When you find a spirit that wants bloodshed--murder--the same is not of God but is of the devil.

[Maxel]

That doesn't work with me Maxel.

Saying shut up and don't ask questions is not even a rebuttal. Besides which, I am not either advising God or asking questions of God. I am discussing the logical implications of what is accepted as scripture.

My apologies if I appeared I was trying to say "shut up". Such was not my intention. However, what you are doing does violate scriptural advice- "such-and-such a course of action doesn't make sense to me- God should have done it this way to support my own belief of Him". I encourage asking questions- but those questions need to be done in an honest fashion, must build upon received knowledge (that "the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the planet"- Joseph Smith), and must cease once an answer is found. Skepticism is healthy; cynicism is destructive to one's own soul.

God, I believe, represent truth and logic and all things from God are therefore true and logical. Trying to understand reason and truth in scripture is a noble cause.

Yes, it is. However, the framework in which we ask our questions must follow the revealed plan for asking questions and receiving answers:

D&C 9:7-8

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

D&C 8:2-4

2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

4 Therefore this is thy gift; apply unto it, and blessed art thou, for it shall deliver you out of the hands of your enemies, when, if it were not so, they would slay you and bring your soul to destruction.

I would just like to point out that the same spirit that brought Moses and Israel through the Red Sea also closed said sea on the Egyptians, killing them.

If you are trying to convince me that God orders his followers to murder innocent women and children and kill sheep and donkeys, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I'm sorry- I thought I was talking to someone who believed in the revealed scriptures, in which He clearly does command his followers to do so. Perhaps you would have us believe that the scriptures are fundamentally incorrect in some areas and need to be approached in the fashion that you yourself have discovered? Is there some sort of common, external authority we can agree on, other than your personal feelings of what is right and wrong? If we can't than further discussion is useless.

The God I believe in is just and benevolent.

Mine too. The hard truth is that some people violate covenants and live in such an awfully wicked way that the time comes when they must be removed from the planet. Perhaps you don't believe those at Sodom deserved death because of God's benevolence? Conversely, that vile sinners- all of us- won't receive eternal life because of God's justice?

Not so. If I assassinated the President and claimed God told me too, I wouldn't get no temple recommend period, the end - no matter what who I claimed made me do it.

The real question is: did God really command you to do it? If He did- than what state is the government and world in in which the Lord must give assassination orders to His faithful followers? Why was Ehud called a "deliverer" "raised up" to Israel (Judges 3:15) who then, through deceit, slew the leader of the land and then fled the guards (Judges 3:15-21, 26)? Why was this Ehud "raised up" specifically in response to the people's prayers (Judges 3:15)? Would you have us believe that this is another falsified or skewed account- as are the accounts of Nephi and Laban, the many accounts of Moses directly or indirectly causing death to various groups of Israelites, Joshua and Jericho (and the rest of the Caananites), David and Goliath... the list goes on?

Ever wonder why God only used to order murder thousands of years ago but doesn't any longer?

I think it has something to do with following the law of the land, and turning to established law when able. You'll notice that commanded killings only happened when the government had failed the people, or in times of war when the people of God were fighting a hardened people. If I follow the general tenor of your posts, however, I think your answer would be along the lines of "God never really did those things". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Snow, the fact that you only interact with the story of Jericho and then back your defense up with the dogmatic claim that God doesn't order His followers to kill the wicked because "God is just and benevolent" shows that you know, somewhere deep inside, that your position is shaky. I have nothing against you, but you are dead wrong, and are proven wrong in the eyes of anyone who believe in the entirety of the Holy Scriptures . I notice you don't interact with the argument about how Nephi's slaying of Laban didn't constitute murder but was a justified killing; you don't interact with the fact that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac; you don't interact with the fact that Exodus 21:13 clearly states that if God shall deliver another into a man's hand that the killer shall be appointed a place to flee- you choose one argument (which apparently is the weakest, by your own standards of emotional reasoning) and ignore the rest. I never thought I'd see such blatant straw-manning from you- or such a blatant disregard for the revealed word of God. Then again, you've made your real stance perfectly clear- you are "discussing the logical implications of what is accepted as scripture", except you overlook (or do not state) the fact that your conclusions condemn ancient scripture while simultaneously raising your own understanding above the appointed prophets of God who lived and died so that we could receive said scripture.

The way I look at it, the more mental gymnastics it takes to justify doing something, the less likely it is to be right.

Couldn't agree more. However, which is really more mental gymnastics:

-God ordered Nephi to kill Laban because of the following facts:

-The Spirit (i.e., 'God') had commanded Nephi to slay Laban

-The Lord had delivered Laban into Nephi's hands; Laban had sought to slay Nephi.

-Laban would not hearken unto the commandments of God

-Laban had robbed Lehi of his property

-Again the Spirit commands Nephi to slay Laban (that's twice now)

-Nephi is given divine insight into the workings of the Lord, namely that the Lord "slayeth the wicked to bring about His righteous purposes" and that it is "better that one man should perish than a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief"

-Nephi's previous revelations from the Lord were brought to Nephi's mind, namely the fact that Nephi's seed would prosper only if they followed the Lord's commandments- and they could not have the Lord's commandments if they did not have the record.

-The record was on the Plates of Brass.

-Laban had been delivered into Nephi's hands- as the Spirit had told him.

OR

-God did not order Nephi to kill Laban but Nephi only thought he was commanded. This would mean that after the fact Nephi still defended his unrighteous action and even wrote his personal defense into his scriptural account. Later, when the Book of Mormon was being edited by Mormon, this unjustified self-defense which teaches false doctrine was not removed, nor was it removed when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, nor has it been removed since then. This, of course, means that scripture isn't reliable- even scripture that has been preserved by the Lord specifically for this age and generation, and the Lord's so-called 'appointed' (prophets, apostles, etc.) are perpetuating this dastardly lie. We should turn to people like Snow and HEthePrimate who really know about God's justice and benevolence for the answers to life, and lean on their own understanding.

In terms of "gymnastics", the latter is much more astounding, as in one train of logic one goes from not accepting this one story in the Book of Mormon to denying the prophets of God! Quite a mental gymnastic feat. I am quite sure you will say "I don't disbelieve in the prophets, and saying I do is absurd and dishonest" or something similar, but come now: it is the only truly logical conclusion, given the import given to the Book of Mormon- the "keystone of our religion".

You have to realize that, if this account is falsified in any way, it makes the scriptures wholly unreliable and opens the door to selective belief; pick-and-choose religion where we follow some tenets of the Gospel but not others because they are not convenient for us, nor easy for us to understand. This is heresy.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification

[HiJolly]

Oh - care to explain it? It's easy to say "yes."

Not to you, Snow.

It's quite another thing to reconcile am instruction to murder with a benevolent, just God. Care to try?

Nope. You asked the question. I answered.

Oh, and Snow --- logic only works if you can get all applicable premises identified and 100% flawlessly expressed. Good luck with that when dealing with what God would or wouldn't do. (...and the problem doesn't lie with God.)

HiJolly

[Snow]

Not to you, Snow.

Nope. You asked the question. I answered.

Oh, and Snow --- logic only works if you can get all applicable premises identified and 100% flawlessly expressed. Good luck with that when dealing with what God would or wouldn't do. (...and the problem doesn't lie with God.)

HiJolly

You didn't need to actually respond. I knew that you couldn't explain it.

[HEthePrimate]

Couldn't agree more. However, which is really more mental gymnastics:

-God ordered Nephi to kill Laban because of the following facts:

-The Spirit (i.e., 'God') had commanded Nephi to slay Laban

-The Lord had delivered Laban into Nephi's hands; Laban had sought to slay Nephi.

-Laban would not hearken unto the commandments of God

-Laban had robbed Lehi of his property

-Again the Spirit commands Nephi to slay Laban (that's twice now)

-Nephi is given divine insight into the workings of the Lord, namely that the Lord "slayeth the wicked to bring about His righteous purposes" and that it is "better that one man should perish than a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief"

-Nephi's previous revelations from the Lord were brought to Nephi's mind, namely the fact that Nephi's seed would prosper only if they followed the Lord's commandments- and they could not have the Lord's commandments if they did not have the record.

-The record was on the Plates of Brass.

-Laban had been delivered into Nephi's hands- as the Spirit had told him.

OR

-God did not order Nephi to kill Laban but Nephi only thought he was commanded. This would mean that after the fact Nephi still defended his unrighteous action and even wrote his personal defense into his scriptural account. Later, when the Book of Mormon was being edited by Mormon, this unjustified self-defense which teaches false doctrine was not removed, nor was it removed when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, nor has it been removed since then. This, of course, means that scripture isn't reliable- even scripture that has been preserved by the Lord specifically for this age and generation, and the Lord's so-called 'appointed' (prophets, apostles, etc.) are perpetuating this dastardly lie.

Is it so hard to believe that the "unjustified self-defense" was not later removed? You believe what he said, after all--why wouldn't Moroni, et al.?

We should turn to people like Snow and HEthePrimate who really know about God's justice and benevolence for the answers to life, and lean on their own understanding.

No, you should use your own brain, think the issues through, examine your conscience, and pray about it.

In terms of "gymnastics", the latter is much more astounding, as in one train of logic one goes from not accepting this one story in the Book of Mormon to denying the prophets of God! Quite a mental gymnastic feat. I am quite sure you will say "I don't disbelieve in the prophets, and saying I do is absurd and dishonest" or something similar, but come now: it is the only truly logical conclusion, given the import given to the Book of Mormon- the "keystone of our religion".

You guessed right--I am saying that "I don't disbelieve in the prophets." However, I do believe that in addition to being prophets, they are also humans, and subject to error just like the rest of us. If you don't believe the prophets are error-prone, you either haven't read, or don't believe, the scriptures. We LDS need to get over our "prophet worship" and accept them for who they are--people who occasionally receive messages from God to convey to people and inspiration in leading the Church. Heck, the prophets themselves have said that we need to pray about everything they say to see if it really is from God, not just blindly accept it. The surest way to be sure you're doing the right thing is follow the advice of the prophets and pray--have direct communication with God yourself.

You have to realize that, if this account is falsified in any way, it makes the scriptures wholly unreliable and opens the door to selective belief; pick-and-choose religion where we follow some tenets of the Gospel but not others because they are not convenient for us, nor easy for us to understand. This is heresy.

No, it doesn't mean the scriptures are "wholly unreliable." It means they are not any more perfect than the people who wrote them. The scriptures are of great value.

You talk about picking-and-choosing. News bulletin: Everybody picks and chooses what they believe from the scriptures! With all the contradictions and problems in the scriptures, you kinda have to.

If believing that God does not order people to commit murder or genocide is heresy, then I proudly claim the title "heretic." And here Christians and even LDS have the nerve to talk about crazy Muslim fundamentalists who believe in killing for religion...

HEP

[threepercent]

its not that hard of an answer. you just need to understand law. It was not murder any more than putting a murder to death or defending yourself or a solider in war is murder. it was justified under law by LABANS actions.

If someone is trying to kill you, or your family, you are required to defend yourself. in this easy to see situation it is the person who is attacking you that has under LAW brought their life into your hands as they have sought yours. That is the law of JUSTICE. that you are returned to your own.

All this was was LABAN getting returned to his own by HIS OWN CHOICE, and by the person who he OFFENDED by law.

if the angel, or God, had taken Labans life to "preserve a nation" then by the law of JUSTICE satan would be able to take a life to "preserve his nation"

.... so..... God had the person, who under law had the power to condemn, take his life, thus preserving justice.

its not near as difficult as you all make it out to be, it was not evil, it was not unjust, it was not murder. even under Israeli law, it would have been Nephi to "throw the first stone"

Laban sealed his fate when he sought to take the life of Nephi and his brethren for his possessions and accused them of robbery. by simple justice, Labans life was at that moment forfeit to Nephi and his brethern because he had declared that robbers were to be put to death (and he DID seek their lives) and yet he chose to be a robber! . LABAN CHOSE THE LAW HE WOULD ABIDE AND LIVE BY.

this is the law of the kingdoms.

see this simple statement:

kingdom of glory man inherits will be determined by level of law he abides.

under law in Index of D&C.

Edited April 21, 2009 by threepercent

[Snow]

My apologies if I appeared I was trying to say "shut up". Such was not my intention. However, what you are doing does violate scriptural advice- "such-and-such a course of action doesn't make sense to me- God should have done it this way to support my own belief of Him". I encourage asking questions- but those questions need to be done in an honest fashion, must build upon received knowledge (that "the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the planet"- Joseph Smith), and must cease once an answer is found.

I know that YOU are not telling me to shut but you are resorting to the very flimsiest of rebuttals... don't question God.

I am not questioning God regarding anything. I am:

1. Responding to a poster who claimed that the ONLY solution was for Nephi to murder Laban.

2. Questioning the validity of scriptural accounts where God commands his followers to commit attrocities.

3. IF it it so that God commands violence, including violence against innocence, I am trying to find the logic in it.

I that Joseph Smith believe the BoM to be the most correct book and I believe that he may well be right but I think that refers to correctness in it's ability to convey true doctrine. I do not think it is the most correct science book, or history book or book of literature.

Skepticism is healthy; cynicism is destructive to one's own soul.

Read what you just wrote. You are saying that a belief that a just God does not command injustice and that a benevolent God does not command murder is cynical.

That's strange.

Yes, it is. However, the framework in which we ask our questions must follow the revealed plan for asking questions and receiving answers:

D&C 9:7-8

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

That's fine and dandy. I have no problem with revelation, and as it so happens, God has not revealed to me that he orders killings and murder of innocent (the women and children you mentioned, not Laban). And, as it so happens, I believe that the Glory of God is intelligence and that God has blessed me with the ability to reason that ultimately revealed truth with be reconciled with the divine (from God) reason I been given.

D&C 8:2-4

2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

4 Therefore this is thy gift; apply unto it, and blessed art thou, for it shall deliver you out of the hands of your enemies, when, if it were not so, they would slay you and bring your soul to destruction.

I would just like to point out that the same spirit that brought Moses and Israel through the Red Sea also closed said sea on the Egyptians, killing them.

Yeah - not very persausive. I suppose you are trying to say that the Spirit that supposedly killed the Egyptians might kill me but I just don't feel impacted by such an argument.

I'm sorry- I thought I was talking to someone who believed in the revealed scriptures, in which He clearly does command his followers to do so.

Tsk, tsk, tsk,

If you are trying to have a serious discussion with me, you only weaken your case when you adopt a petulant tone.

While I accept that doctrine from scripture is inspired, the Bible as a history or science book falls way short, demonstrably short.

Perhaps you would have us believe that the scriptures are fundamentally incorrect in some areas and need to be approached in the fashion that you yourself have discovered? Is there some sort of common, external authority we can agree on, other than your personal feelings of what is right and wrong? If we can't than further discussion is useless.

See what I mean about petulance? It really weakens your position and completely unnecessary. You do fine without it.

The answer to your sarcastically put question is obvious. Use your God given reason and study the evidence, where evidence exists - I am referring to the Bible here.

Mine too. The hard truth is that some people violate covenants and live in such an awfully wicked way that the time comes when they must be removed from the planet. Perhaps you don't believe those at Sodom deserved death because of God's benevolence? Conversely, that vile sinners- all of us- won't receive eternal life because of God's justice?

1. I don't think you are vile. You seem like a decent enough fellow.

2. While Laban might have deserved death - God has other methods available to Him besides ordering murder. - Not that he didn't order Laban's death - it just that no one has yet been able to offer a reconciliation of a just and benevolent God ordering attrocity - Laban is just a minor example.

The real question is: did God really command you to do it? If He did- than what state is the government and world in in which the Lord must give assassination orders to His faithful followers? Why was Ehud called a "deliverer" "raised up" to Israel (Judges 3:15) who then, through deceit, slew the leader of the land and then fled the guards (Judges 3:15-21, 26)? Why was this Ehud "raised up" specifically in response to the people's prayers (Judges 3:15)? Would you have us believe that this is another falsified or skewed account- as are the accounts of Nephi and Laban, the many accounts of Moses directly or indirectly causing death to various groups of Israelites, Joshua and Jericho (and the rest of the Caananites), David and Goliath... the list goes on?

Any rational person can assure you that if I murdered the govenor and claimed that God told me to, I couldn't get a recommend. Period. If the President (of the Church) had a private meeting with the President (of the USA) and emerged from a closed room with a bloody sword and the President's head, he would lose his recommend, regardless of what he had to say about it.

These days the only ones related to us that do such evil and insane things are fundamentalist whack job sects - and we all agree that those dudes are nutty sinners, regardless of claims that God made em do it.

I think it has something to do with following the law of the land, and turning to established law when able. You'll notice that commanded killings only happened when the government had failed the people, or in times of war when the people of God were fighting a hardened people. If I follow the general tenor of your posts, however, I think your answer would be along the lines of "God never really did those things". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Simple justification Maxel. Do you have anything else?

Snow, the fact that you only interact with the story of Jericho and then back your defense up with the dogmatic claim that God doesn't order His followers to kill the wicked because "God is just and benevolent" shows that you know, somewhere deep inside, that your position is shaky.

I think you, and I assume you understand logic, know that is untrue. I do not rely on dogma re God's ordering atrocity against babies and women. I reject the dogma and rely on the logic that a just God acts justly.

I have nothing against you, but you are dead wrong,

Okay - here's your big chance. Avoiding dogma that you just derided, prove that I am wrong. Prove that God agrees with you... not that someone else agrees that God agrees, rather prove that GOD Himself agrees with you.

I notice you don't interact with the argument about how Nephi's slaying of Laban didn't constitute murder but was a justified killing;

That's untrue.

murder - definition of murder by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

murder,

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

Anyway you look at it, chopping off someone's head is, by definition, murder. Whether or not it was a good idea doesn't matter.

you don't interact with the fact that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac;

Untrue - that is dogma, not fact.

you don't interact with the fact that Exodus 21:13 clearly states that if God shall deliver another into a man's hand that the killer shall be appointed a place to flee- you choose one argument (which apparently is the weakest, by your own standards of emotional reasoning) and ignore the rest. I never thought I'd see such blatant straw-manning from you- or such a blatant disregard for the revealed word of God.

Now it is put up or shut up time. You assert (falsely I say) that I am committing a straw man fallacy. Prove it. I don't think you can.... which is why, it seems, you have resorted to more petulance.

As for "blatant disregard for the revealed word of God" I bet I could easily find over a dozen (probably many times over given enough time) things from scripture that you disregard or think are wrong. Care to challenge me on that?

Edited April 21, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

its not that hard of an answer. you just need to understand law. It was not murder any more than putting a murder to death or defending yourself or a solider in war is murder. it was justified under law by LABANS actions.

That doesn't make it NOT murder:

murder - definition of murder by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

murder

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

If someone is trying to kill you, or your family, you are required to defend yourself. in this easy to see situation it is the person who is attacking you that has under LAW brought their life into your hands as they have sought yours. That is the law of JUSTICE. that you are returned to your own.

1. Untrue. You are not "required" to defend yourself. You could turn the other cheek as instructed by Christ.

2. Please demonstrate that Nephi was defending himself from Laban.

All this was was LABAN getting returned to his own by HIS OWN CHOICE, and by the person who he OFFENDED by law.

if the angel, or God, had taken Labans life to "preserve a nation" then by the law of JUSTICE satan would be able to take a life to "preserve his nation"

.... so..... God had the person, who under law had the power to condemn, take his life, thus preserving justice.

its not near as difficult as you all make it out to be, it was not evil, it was not unjust, it was not murder. even under Israeli law, it would have been Nephi to "throw the first stone"

Laban sealed his fate when he sought to take the life of Nephi and his brethren for his possessions and accused them of robbery. by simple justice, Labans life was at that moment forfeit to Nephi and his brethern because he had declared that robbers were to be put to death (and he DID seek their lives) and yet he chose to be a robber! . LABAN CHOSE THE LAW HE WOULD ABIDE AND LIVE BY.

this is the law of the kingdoms.

see this simple statement:

kingdom of glory man inherits will be determined by level of law he abides.

under law in Index of D&C.

Why did God instruct Nephi to kill Laban. Why didn't he do it Himself?

[Just_A_Guy]

Snow, is this a mere intellectual exercise? Or are you gradually building towards an assertion that God didn't really tell Nephi to kill Laban at all? And if the latter--what do you think really happened?

[Snow]

Snow, is this a mere intellectual exercise? Or are you gradually building towards an assertion that God didn't really tell Nephi to kill Laban at all? And if the latter--what do you think really happened?

Of course it is an exercise - all these debates are exercises. Most posters give up and simply assert dogma. I tend to stick with it until I come up with a satisfactory solution.

As to whether or not it happened - who knows? I certainly don't have a burning testimony that God instructed Nephi to chop off Laban's head.

Nephi is not the best example of the principle so pick an account from the OT where God orders his followers to commit atrocity against someone, including murder, rape and wanton animal slaughter, kidnapping, slavery and stealing.

There are some options here:

1. It happened. God is not just and benevolent.

2. God is just and benevolent. It didn't happen.

3. We are missing some part of the story or some understanding of other issues that preclude us from reconciling the conflict.

I do not dogmatically believe it has to be any particular one of the three over the other two... but I do enjoy the show of people resorting to poor debate techniques when they get stuck.

[Hemidakota]

Do solidiers who come from war having killed people get temple recommends? Yes.

Yes...they still can qualify.

[Hemidakota]

Of course it is an exercise - all these debates are exercises. Most posters give up and simply assert dogma. I tend to stick with it until I come up with a satisfactory solution.

As to whether or not it happened - who knows? I certainly don't have a burning testimony that God instructed Nephi to chop off Laban's head.

Nephi is not the best example of the principle so pick an account from the OT where God orders his followers to commit atrocity against someone, including murder, rape and wanton animal slaughter, kidnapping, slavery and stealing.

There are some options here:

1. It happened. God is not just and benevolent.

2. God is just and benevolent. It didn't happen.

3. We are missing some part of the story or some understanding of other issues that preclude us from reconciling the conflict.

I do not dogmatically believe it has to be any particular one of the three over the other two... but I do enjoy the show of people resorting to poor debate techniques when they get stuck.

Laban was killed. That is a given.

[Connie]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it's from the Ensign, February 1996: LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question

Why did the Lord command Nephi to slay Laban, when to do so was contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”?

Rodney Turner, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1996, 62–63

Rodney Turner, professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University.

Nephi was a man of astonishing faith, profound humility, and consistent righteousness. While still a youth, he had such faith that he conversed with the “Holy Spirit” and was shown what his father had seen in a dream. He also beheld Mary bearing the infant Son of God in her arms and saw Christ’s baptism, ministry, and crucifixion (see 1 Ne. 11).

Because of his great faith, Nephi was convinced that the brass plates could be obtained from Laban, no matter how difficult the task might be. He told his father, “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them” (1 Ne. 3:7).

Nephi was soon to learn that God’s ways are not always easy. After two failures to obtain the plates, Nephi and his brothers once more faced the walls of Jerusalem. Laman, Lemuel, and Sam hid themselves while Nephi crept into the darkened city alone. Because of his faith and willingness to obey the Lord’s commandments, Nephi was sensitive to the whisperings of the Spirit. He was therefore “led by the Spirit,” as he says, “not knowing beforehand the things which I should do” (1 Ne. 4:6).

By following the Spirit, Nephi discovered Laban lying drunk in the street. “I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban,” Nephi wrote (1 Ne. 4:10). Appalled, he at first resisted the command, saying, “Never at any time have I shed the blood of man” (ibid). But the Spirit spoke again, saying, “The Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. …

“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” (1 Ne. 4:12–13).

Some people might claim that by saying the Spirit commanded him to kill Laban, Nephi was rationalizing to justify what was, in fact, murder. They might argue that God would never have commanded Nephi to take a life.

However, Nephi was a righteous man; he was well acquainted with the promptings of the Holy Ghost and knew the difference between his own thoughts and divine revelation. Nephi did not have to include the account of his slaying of Laban in his record. He was not caught in the act, and he might have left his account of obtaining the plates vague. He could even have lied, saying that Laban was already dead when he found him, or providing some other plausible explanation. But Nephi was a truthful man; despite the fact that it was a difficult subject, he wrote it as it happened.

The incident may well have been a trial of faith for Nephi. The Lord could have helped him procure the record in some other way. Instead, the Lord allowed Nephi to struggle with a dilemma: obtain and safeguard the plates as he had been commanded, or let Laban live.

But if Laban had lived, the consequences would have been disastrous. The mission to obtain the plates would have failed, and without the plates, Lehi’s posterity would have perished in unbelief (see 1 Ne. 4:13). The history of Lehi’s descendants would have been far different, and there might have been no Book of Mormon as we know it. Had Nephi not procured the plates, the “keystone of our religion” would be missing.

But there is a larger issue: the moral nature of God. What are its bounds? Who can say what the Almighty can and cannot do? The Prophet Joseph Smith observed, “It is the constitutional disposition of mankind to set up stakes and set bounds to the works and ways of the Almighty.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 320). Yet the Lord “willeth to take even them whom he will take, and preserveth in life them whom he will preserve” (D&C 63:3). Evidently God had judged Laban and found him guilty.

He had, as Nephi noted, defied God’s commandments, stolen Lehi’s property, and sought to kill Nephi and his brothers (see 1 Ne. 3:12). Nephi was only doing what God had commanded. Did God have a right to do this? Of course.

Man’s agency cannot delimit or circumscribe the agency of God. For his own reasons, God can temporarily suspend or revoke that which he has previously commanded. For example, he told the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness” (D&C 132:36).

The God who proved Abraham is the same God who proved Nephi. Like Abraham, Nephi obeyed and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

The principles of the gospel are unchanging, and God is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (D&C 20:12). But our mortal circumstances change, and the application of divine law is sometimes adapted to those changes. That is why a living prophet is indispensable. Man does not have the right to adjust the application of God’s laws. But God has every right to do so; and when he does, he will reveal his decisions to his servants, the prophets (see Amos 3:7).

[HiJolly]

Of course it is an exercise - all these debates are exercises. Most posters give up and simply assert dogma. I tend to stick with it until I come up with a satisfactory solution.

...

I do not dogmatically believe it has to be any particular one of the three over the other two... but I do enjoy the show of people resorting to poor debate techniques when they get stuck.

Snow, if you want debate then I recommend you go over to the MA&DB board. This is primarily a DISCUSSION board.

Feel free to debate that point, but I will not engage.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

You didn't need to actually respond. I knew that you couldn't explain it.

Baloney. I just don't like arguing and being pedantic. And "Snow" is synonymous with arguing, on this board.

HiJolly

[Maxel]

Is it so hard to believe that the "unjustified self-defense" was not later removed? You believe what he said, after all--why wouldn't Moroni, et al.?

I'm not quite following what you're saying here... Are you saying that Moroni agrees with me, and that we're both wrong; or that Moroni and later prophets "covered up" for Nephi's "unjustified" murder of Laban by adding other logic? If it's the former- I'd rather agree with the prophets from the holy scriptures than you, if there is ever a difference between the two positions. If it's the latter- the simple question is why would later prophets- holy men of God- cover up atrocities of previous prophets by saying that their evil acts were good? Isn't that a double standard that goes against the entire purpose of prophets and scripture?

Or are you saying something different that I've missed?

No, you should use your own brain, think the issues through, examine your conscience, and pray about it.

Done. Done many years ago, actually. This most recent foray into the matter has merely strengthened my resolve in the matter. The simple answer I've gotten from the Lord is to trust the scriptures and the prophets- not HEthePrimate or anyone else who would claim something opposite what the scriptures clearly teach. Would you have me prefer you over prophets and apostles?

You guessed right--I am saying that "I don't disbelieve in the prophets." However, I do believe that in addition to being prophets, they are also humans, and subject to error just like the rest of us. If you don't believe the prophets are error-prone, you either haven't read, or don't believe, the scriptures.

Of course prophets are error-prone. The scripture they write, which had been carefully preserved over 900+ years and which were subject to prophetic editing by Mormon, is error-proof. There's a clear difference between prophets and scripture.

We LDS need to get over our "prophet worship" and accept them for who they are--people who occasionally receive messages from God to convey to people and inspiration in leading the Church. Heck, the prophets themselves have said that we need to pray about everything they say to see if it really is from God, not just blindly accept it. The surest way to be sure you're doing the right thing is follow the advice of the prophets and pray--have direct communication with God yourself.

Again, I have. A few different times.

No, it doesn't mean the scriptures are "wholly unreliable." It means they are not any more perfect than the people who wrote them. The scriptures are of great value.

Ah, but you, HEthePrimate, are (by virtue of having a conscience) more able to tell me and the rest of the LDS community which parts of scripture are truly inspired and which are sordid attempts to cover up prophets' sinful atrocities?

You talk about picking-and-choosing. News bulletin: Everybody picks and chooses what they believe from the scriptures! With all the contradictions and problems in the scriptures, you kinda have to.

Contradictions? In the Book of Mormon? Can you expand on that?

Personally, I pick and choose to believe the entirety of the written scripture as I am moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Of course my understanding of them is not perfect, but I am perfectly capable of distinguishing gray areas from clear, concrete doctrine. This is not a gray area.

[Just_A_Guy]

Of course it is an exercise - all these debates are exercises. Most posters give up and simply assert dogma.

Well . . . they recite scriptures that clearly support their arguments and assume that that concludes the matter . . . yeah.

Nephi is not the best example of the principle so pick an account from the OT where God orders his followers to commit atrocity against someone, including murder, rape and wanton animal slaughter, kidnapping, slavery and stealing.

I'm not comfortable taking demonstrable errors in the Bible and using those as proof that the Book of Mormon contains the same types of errors. Our whole religion is based (at least in significant part) on the idea that the Book of Mormon was needed because it is in some sense more "pure", theologically, than the Bible alone was.

There are some options here:

1. It happened. God is not just and benevolent.

2. God is just and benevolent. It didn't happen.

3. We are missing some part of the story or some understanding of other issues that preclude us from reconciling the conflict.

I think I would use a slightly different thought process.

Step 1: Did it happen, or didn't it?

Step 2: If it did, how can we reconcile this with a God who tells us that He is just and benevolent?

Logic and reason are certainly important, but if/when they lead us to rewrite an unequivocal self-identified historical record that was created and affirmed by a number of men who hold themselves out to be (and whom we profess to be) prophets of God--I start to get a little worried.

Nephi said that God told him--repeatedly--to kill Laban. I'm not ready to throw that narrative out merely because it doesn't jibe with the lately-evolved mores of a society that has known nothing of true self-defense for at least three generations.

[Maxel]

I know that YOU are not telling me to shut but you are resorting to the very flimsiest of rebuttals... don't question God.

No, while similar, the message is 'don't seek to counsel the Lord'- that is, don't try to tell Him how He could do such-and-such better. Don't tell Him (or us) that He should have caused a cerebral vascular accident instead of in Laban instead of commanding Nephi to kill Laban.

3. IF it it so that God commands violence, including violence against innocence, I am trying to find the logic in it.

The logic is written out for you, plain as the words in 1 Nephi 4:10-18. You are merely rejecting said logic.

However, I admit that the idea of 'violence against innocence' somewhat puzzles me. It is clear that the inhabitants of Jericho were far from innocent. I assume you are talking about the children and animals- in that case, I don't really know why the Lord would command His servants to kill children and animals. However, I'm not one to let what I don't know adversely affect what I do know. I also know that any innocent child inherits celestial glory.

I that Joseph Smith believe the BoM to be the most correct book and I believe that he may well be right but I think that refers to correctness in it's ability to convey true doctrine. I do not think it is the most correct science book, or history book or book of literature.

I quite agree. I believe the BoM is more than capable (and the most correct book on earth) of conveying true doctrine- such as "the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes" (1 Nephi 4:13). I don't believe the BoM- prophetically declared the "most correct book on earth" and that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (Book of Mormon Introduction)- contains blatantly false doctrine of such a heinous nature as you are implying that it does.

Read what you just wrote. You are saying that a belief that a just God does not command injustice and that a benevolent God does not command murder is cynical.

Yes, it is cynical, because even when you are point-blank told by Nephi that the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring about His righteous purposes, you reject that because it doesn't 'sit well' with you. That's cynicism.

That's fine and dandy. I have no problem with revelation, and as it so happens, God has not revealed to me that he orders killings and murder of innocent (the women and children you mentioned, not Laban).

So, has he revealed to you that He doesn't? If not, will you admit that you really just don't know because the matter is too difficult to arrive at through purely logical means because revealed scripture seems to contradict human logic?

Yeah - not very persausive. I suppose you are trying to say that the Spirit that supposedly killed the Egyptians might kill me but I just don't feel impacted by such an argument.

No- merely that the same spirit that killed the Egyptians is the same spirit of revelation. That God does, in fact, slay the wicked to bring about His righteous purposes. I don't think you're worthy of death.

If you are trying to have a serious discussion with me, you only weaken your case when you adopt a petulant tone.

[<reverse time warp>]

Tsk, tsk, tsk,

If I was being petulant, you're being condescending, and we've both considerably weakened our cases.

While I accept that doctrine from scripture is inspired, the Bible as a history or science book falls way short, demonstrably short.

So, what about the doctrine- from the Book of Mormon- that the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring about His righteous purposes and that He commands His servants to sometimes take the life of others? Perusing the Ensign article from Connie might help you understand how I am so willingly able to accept these cases from the Bible- where entire nations were destroyed under the swords of the Israelites acting under the direct commandment of God- as accurate and reflecting true doctrine.

The answer to your sarcastically put question is obvious. Use your God given reason and study the evidence, where evidence exists - I am referring to the Bible here.

Even if I were to accept ALL the accounts of God commanding His followers to kill others in the Bible are somehow 'misreported' (btw, I know that's not what you're saying) that still does not erase the fact that we see the exact same thing happening in the Book of Mormon. Ultimately, my reasoning for accepting said accounts in the Bible stems from the reasoning given for Nephi's slaying of Laban. It is a case where doctrine from the Book of Mormon forms the foundation for understanding biblical accounts.

While Laban might have deserved death - God has other methods available to Him besides ordering murder. - Not that he didn't order Laban's death - it just that no one has yet been able to offer a reconciliation of a just and benevolent God ordering attrocity - Laban is just a minor example.

I think the obvious answer is: He did because He did- we first must accept that fact before we understand the reasoning for it. Personally, I believe it was partly a test of faith and that there are other reasons we don't quite understand. Is there evidence to support it? If you believe in the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture- yes. (Not to say that you don't accept it as inspired scripture)

Any rational person can assure you that if I murdered the govenor and claimed that God told me to, I couldn't get a recommend. Period. If the President (of the Church) had a private meeting with the President (of the USA) and emerged from a closed room with a bloody sword and the President's head, he would lose his recommend, regardless of what he had to say about it.

I agree with you, if such were to happen in today's political clime. However, we always see commanded killings take place in one of two situations:

1- Wartime, where the commanded killing is usually aimed at a group of people who seek to destroy the liberties of God's followers (such as the king-men of Zarahemla in Alma 51) or when a people had been hardened, inhabited the promised land, and needed to be destroyed to make way for the people of God (such as the instance of Joshua's warfare with the Caananites).

2- When the current political structure had failed to provide the righteous with its intended results (such as the Brass Plates in the case of Nephi and Laban, or when another kingdom had conquered Israel due to wickedness, and the Israelites then repented but the conquerors would not give up their power- such as the example of Ehud in Judges 3).

These days the only ones related to us that do such evil and insane things are fundamentalist whack job sects - and we all agree that those dudes are nutty sinners, regardless of claims that God made em do it.

These days, our current political structure is still solid enough to attain redress for our wrongs and ensure us our liberties- even in the midst of severe persecutions, Joseph was commanded to continue to petition the government for redress.

I think you, and I assume you understand logic, know that is untrue. I do not rely on dogma re God's ordering atrocity against babies and women. I reject the dogma and rely on the logic that a just God acts justly.

Yes.. and God acting justly does not preclude Him ordering His followers to (very rarely) take the lives of others- it just assumes that such commandments are, in fact, just. By the way, women can be evil, break covenants, and bring condemnation upon themselves. Jezebel is a good example- the Lord spoke that "The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel." (1 Kings 21:23)

Okay - here's your big chance. Avoiding dogma that you just derided, prove that I am wrong. Prove that God agrees with you...

Well, I would offer scripture from the Book of Mormon- the standard we're all supposed to adhere to and the "keystone of our religion"- but you've already rejected that. I can only offer so much logical argument before I have to give up and say that the problem isn't with me.

I suppose my most cogent argument is the scriptural one, and the one about political structures failing God's people. I would like to add that it is official Mormon doctrine that governments are given to us by God (D&C 134:1) and that the duties of government are, among other things, to offer a means for the peaceful redress of wrongs committed against the people (v. 11).

BTW, I'm not so much against dogma. My purpose in pointing out your own dogmatic assumptions is to show you that you yourself are not above accepting it: you are the one who has proven yourself wholly opposed to dogma in the past.

...not that someone else agrees that God agrees, rather prove that GOD Himself agrees with you.

I guess 'proving' such a position is impossible. I would counter, though, that doing so for your own position is equally as impossible and I move that this ridiculous demand be dismissed for its inherent inanity.

Anyway you look at it, chopping off someone's head is, by definition, murder. Whether or not it was a good idea doesn't matter.

The real question is: is that 'murder' (the unjustified kind) in the eyes of God? I've laid out the reasons I firmly believe it isn't- the scriptures support my own view, not yours, in this matter.

Untrue - [the fact that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac] is dogma, not fact.

No, it's actually fact- unless you also dispute Doctrine and Covenants 132:36, which states "Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness."

Now it is put up or shut up time. You assert (falsely I say) that I am committing a straw man fallacy. Prove it. I don't think you can.... which is why, it seems, you have resorted to more petulance.

You actually did straw-man my very first arguments because you did not, in fact, in post 75, the post in which I claimed you committed said fallacy, interact with any of my stronger arguments- merely the ones that (like I said) were the "weakest".

In post 70, the post which post 75 was a response to, I offered as support:

-Jacob 4:10 (Seek not to counsel the Lord)

-Joshua 6 (Joshua being commanded to destroy Jericho- including women and children)

-Genesis 22 (God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac)

-An excerpt from "Legal Perspectives on the Killing of Laban", an article Hemidakota linked, arguing that Nephi's slaying of Laban was a validation of previous revelation and a manifestation of God's power

-The idea of Laban being delivered into Nephi's hands, with Exodus 21:13 promising that God will provide safety to the killers of those who are delivered into their (the killer's) hands

-A rewording of your original argument (Could a person commit murder and receive a temple recommend?) into: Could a person receive, in good conscience, a temple recommend if he/she did the commandments of God? Then I asked the converse of the question.

Your post- in which I claimed the straw-man was made- contained the following rebuttals:

-Jacob 4:10 (A side argument, intended to show that the very action of claiming God should have done something differently is against scriptural advice)

-Joshua 6 (In which you state that you just don't believe me because the scriptural account goes against your own personal view of God)

-The original question that spawned my reworded argument, with the continued assertion- with no real, cogent evidence- that one could not get a temple recommend after committing murder and claiming that God commanded it.

Of the 3 rebuttals, the first is to a side argument. The second is to scripture that claims the anointed of God were commanded to kill women and children. You use the example as an emotional lever to argue your case. The third is to a rebuttal of mine that was originally based on your own assertion, and was not rooted in scripture at all.

Summary: Of a post that offered a somewhat diverse pool of support for its general argument, you picked the weakest points and attacked those. That is the heart and soul of a straw-man: reducing your opponent's argument to less than it actually is, or going only after the weakest points.

As for "blatant disregard for the revealed word of God" I bet I could easily find over a dozen (probably many times over given enough time) things from scripture that you disregard or think are wrong. Care to challenge me on that?

Challenge accepted. Probably best to do it over PM or on a new thread though, so as not to hijack this one.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Yikes!

So, those of you who agree that the D&C tells us there are different laws for different kingdoms truly believe that killing is part of the law of the highest kingdom? Remember that Nephi was supposedly living the Law of Moses. Is the LoM the higher law required for the Celestial Kingdom? I thought it was a preparatory gospel. Nephi following the law of justice does not make him an evil man or say that he didn't become a prophet. But it is not something to emulate. So that means there is something else we are supposed to learn from this narrative!

The higher law is given by Jesus Christ during his ministry. The higher law is given to us in various places throughout our scriptures. And, yes, people choose which laws they are going to abide by because you can't abide them all.

D&C 42:18-19

And now behold I speak to the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

And I would submit that the death he shall die is spiritual. Not that his life is to be taken because that would make another killer.

The lesson of this story is not to kill if God tells you to. There is a far, far deeper lesson to learn if you just ask God.

[threepercent]

That doesn't make it NOT murder:

murder - definition of murder by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

murder

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

1. Untrue. You are not "required" to defend yourself. You could turn the other cheek as instructed by Christ.

2. Please demonstrate that Nephi was defending himself from Laban.

Why did God instruct Nephi to kill Laban. Why didn't he do it Himself?

this was a lawful killing, therefore not murder, even by your posted definition.

yes, you can turn the other cheek, but you are required to defend your family, as I edited the post that distinction became lost in translation. opps. this is taken into account when nephi was commanded to slay Laban, thus removing the option from Nephi to "turn the other cheek" or to "extend mercy". By receiving this command Nephi was also released from the law of mercy. it is nessasary to learn addition before multiplication.

I have no need to demonstrate that Nephi was defending himself when I was posting a example that KILLING is not unlawful. and if KILLING is not by itself unlawful, then the first thing you need to establish is if this was a lawful or unlawful killing.

I also have posted previously that there is a difference between a commandment and a law. "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment not a law, so may be rescinded at any time. If you do not understand this distinction you will not be able to understand at all.

now I have to ask you, snow, to go back and read the answer to this question.

Why did God instruct Nephi to kill Laban. Why didn't he do it Himself?

the basic principles of law may be found in this account.

its really amazing, and testifies of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon that even with such little information available about the entire incident, there is sufficient to understand and teach more about law. I think it is there for a reason, and I think that reason is to try peoples faith.

now, for those of you who are not posting but reading these things and perhaps struggling with such a confusing issue I would say this:

sometimes understanding comes after the trial of faith. sometimes gaining a testimony comes from obedience such as with the law of tithing.

I would recommend that you exercise that faith in believing that the book of Mormon is true, and that God is just, and that Nephi was a great and noble man, worthy of our most sincere gratitude and respect and love. That he was most assuredly not a murderer nor was he deceived into committing a heinous act.

If you do not understand these passages, then kneel down and tell a loving Father of your confusion, and ask for understanding.

I can only testify that the Book of Mormon is true, I hope each one of you learn this for yourselves. The time is soon upon us that you will need the power that comes from knowing that. you will not be able to stand on borrowed light.

If anyone wants to understand the law better, feel free to pm me, I would love to teach those who want to know, in a spirit that is edifying and uplifting, in contrast to contentious.

[Finrock]

Yikes!

So, those of you who agree that the D&C tells us there are different laws for different kingdoms truly believe that killing is part of the law of the highest kingdom? Remember that Nephi was supposedly living the Law of Moses. Is the LoM the higher law required for the Celestial Kingdom? I thought it was a preparatory gospel. Nephi following the law of justice does not make him an evil man or say that he didn't become a prophet. But it is not something to emulate. So that means there is something else we are supposed to learn from this narrative!

The higher law is given by Jesus Christ during his ministry. The higher law is given to us in various places throughout our scriptures. And, yes, people choose which laws they are going to abide by because you can't abide them all.

D&C 42:18-19

And now behold I speak to the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

And I would submit that the death he shall die is spiritual. Not that his life is to be taken because that would make another killer.

The lesson of this story is not to kill if God tells you to. There is a far, far deeper lesson to learn if you just ask God.

Hi Truthseekertoo! Good afternoon to you and I hope you are doing well today.

I just wanted to comment that for me, I have never understood the lesson of 1 Nephi 4 to be that we must kill if God tells us to. I think the fact that Nephi killed Laban isn't as important as the fact that Nephi trusted the Lord and was obedient. If I liken that scripture to myself, I don't envision being commanded by God to kill a drunk evil person. I do, however, envision myself being in very difficult situations where I do not know or understand fully what it is that I should do and trusting in the Lord to guide me to do what is right. The lesson I learn from 1 Nephi 4 is that sometimes what God requires of us may not make sense to our human reasoning and wisdom. Also, sometimes we are given callings from God that seem impossible for us to accomplish, but if we trust and obey God, he will provide a way. There is another lesson that I have experience in a very real way. In my various callings through-out the years, I have begun to learn to trust in the Lord more than I have in the past. In whatever calling I have had, I have always wanted to do the right things and be successful. However, I have had the tendency to trust in my own wisdom or the wisdom of the world, so to speak. I'd have elaborate plans and programs that were well intended, but ultimately missed the mark. I don't think I succeeded as well as I could have. It took some time, but ultimately I began to realize that I need to rely more on revelation and be humble. I have begun to see that if I do things the Lord's way, then I will likely succeed where in the past my efforts have failed. Just like Nephi and his brothers, they came up with their own plans and tried to execute them without success. It wasn't until Nephi fully relied on the the Spirit to lead him, that he succeeded in the getting the plates.

So, those are just some of the things I have learned from that account in 1 Nephi. I have never, however, understood the lesson from that chapter to be teaching us that it is OK to kill another person and I doubt that this is what most people understand that passage to be teaching either.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[TruthSeekerToo]

Thanks for your post Finrock.

I seem to be getting a series of lessons from this passage. I was only looking for a "yes" or a "no." But apperantly that is irrelevant.....or at least not what I'm supposed to take from it.

[Hemidakota]

Always, the first mistake of reading a story, is not looking at the culture background and how at that time frame, how did the people think and which law was abided.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Snow]

Baloney. I just don't like arguing and being pedantic. And "Snow" is synonymous with arguing, on this board.

HiJolly

Be that as it may - I was serious. I knew you couldn't respond.