1 Nephi 4:11

[Hemidakota]

http://i.azjmp.com/0SbSY

I cannot blame Snow in putting forth his assertion, since I can relate to my own accord with not believing for those who are of the lesser - the Celestial kingdom will be receiving a perfect resurrected body. Way to go Snow....I appreciate these moments to share our thoughts.

[Snow]

Snow, take a moment and read this article. It may provide some answer some your concern of Nephi slaying of Laban. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/pdf/jbms/792565429-1-1.pdf

Interesting link - thanks.

You will note that I also stipulated that murder also pertains to the brutality of the killing rather than just legality.

[Snow]

The word is obedience. Nephi had demonstrated that he was faithful with some things. The Lord wanted Nephi to see that he could be faithful in the hardest of things.

The harder of the reasons were that Nephi had never considered to take another man's life. He did not want to. It was the hardest thing God could have asked him to do.

Interesting theory. Why not have Nephi jump off a cliff believing he could fly? That way he wouldn't have to chop off someone's head.

Another was that Nephi would have to take the lives of his nephews in the future to protect his family and right to worship. He needed to be taught that whatever God commands is right. He needed to be prepared to take a life in defense of keeping God's commandments.

God my never ask you or I to do this. But, it was required of Nephi... this reasoning is perfectly clear to me.

Might I suggest that it is clear to you because you are the one who made it up. Of course it is clear to you.

There are so many different things in the scriptures where we can second guess God. I think commanding the children of Israel to utterly destroy entire nations would be far more of an issue than Nephi killing one wicked man.

No one is questioning God. I am questioning Nephi's or Joseph's version, not God.

I think you didn't get the spirit of my post. What tells me this is that it was difficult for you to read. Normally, when our minds are closed and we are not looking for answers, other's views become difficult and monotonous. But, with an open mind, and a true curiosity about whether or not someone might have some insight, often we read earnestly, seeking to learn.

Maybe - or maybe I just found your argument weak and un-compelling.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, or even that I have this one right. I'm just explaining how I understand it. But, I did quote a lot of scripture, and had you beed interested in learning, you might have re-quoted a verse and showed where you disagreed. If all you want to do is present ideas of how God may have handled the situation better, I suggest you pray and tell Him. I can't help you with that. I am doing the best I can to understand these commandments and actions with the understanding that "whatever God commands is right." If that is something you cannot do, then perhaps you should spend time talking to God about it.

I keep saying it and saying it - I am questioning the account, not God. As to how else it might have been handled, I am responding to the poster who claimed that there was NO OTHER way.

I do believe though, that if you are to ever understand this, you have to open your mind at some point.

I can clearly see the difference between God commanding someone, in scripture, to slay a wicked man to bring about His purpose, and a man claiming to hear a voice at night that told him to kill someone, claiming it was God trying to justify himself. There is a very big difference to me.

Interestingly, the proof (of God being behind it) is the same in both cases.

I really wish you all the best, and the help of the Spirit to try to discern this, since it seems to be a stumbling block to you.

In what way am I stumbling. Is God going to punish me because I don't think God commands murder?

[Snow]

Good morning Snow! Thank you for the reply.

I think I understand what you are saying. Let me rephrase it and see if I got it right. I think you are saying that the account in 1 Nephi is really just one example of a bigger issue that you have with Old Testament stories of God commanding people to be killed, particularly people who you perceive to be innocent people. In your mind, God simply wouldn't do this and therefore you doubt that these accounts are actually true. Because you feel that God wouldn't do the things people are attributing to Him, you do not have a testimony of these parts of the scriptures. Further, despite these apparent contradictions of how you understand God to be and some of the accounts that you are reading in the scriptures, you still have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, minus the account in 1 Nephi 4. However, you aren't really trying to address your underlying concern at this point, more than you are simply amused at what you perceive to be unreasonble explanations of these apparent contradictions or atleast discrepencies in the scriptures.

Did I understand you correctly?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Well put.

[Snow]

In other words, you have a lot of trouble accepting the scriptures as they are. Ok.

Why? It's been pointed out to you that logic is ultimately not a useful tool in understanding God or His ways. And even WHY that is.

What has been pointed out was someone's opinion. That someone has an opinion does not make that opinion correct,

Logic is not an attribute of Godliness.

Yhew - I disagree with that. Pure logic is or leads to truth. Truth is most assuredly an attribute of Godliness.

It is not supported in scripture. It is not required for salvation, or exaltation.

That's untrue. Here's an example of how logic plays a part in salvation:

1. Scripture says that faith and obedience are required for salvation.

2. Scripture is true.

3. One must, therefore, have faith and be obedient to obtain salvation.

It, like science, has limited application due to the veil over our minds and senses. It's like using a pinewood Christmas soldier "Nutcracker" to crack Brazil nuts. Absolutely unsuited for the task.

I guess that I feel sorry that you do not think your God given reason is theologically important.

So why place such importance on it, particularly on a religious message board? And why be so acerbic about it?

HiJolly

Because irrationality is an attribute of un-Godliness.

[Finrock]

Well put.

Evening Snow! Thanks. I'm glad I'm not misunderstanding you. Taking what you've written, I guess your issue isn't as much with 1 Nephi 4, than it is with Old Testament accounts where God commands whole civilizations to be destroyed. You seem to, at least in some sense, agree that Laban deserved what he got. So, in relation to the Old Testament accounts and to the extent that it is relevant to the 1 Nephi account, how do you reconcile the belief that the scriptures are the word of God, while at the same time believing that they are teaching such blatant falsehoods (i.e., the falsehood that God commands people to kill people or even worse, whole civilizations, including innocent children and animals)?

I ask this question so that I can understand your position better.

Thanks for having taken the time to take part in this discussion thus far. I'm sure you have better things to do.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Evening Snow! Thanks. I'm glad I'm not misunderstanding you. Taking what you've written, I guess your issue isn't as much with 1 Nephi 4, than it is with Old Testament accounts where God commands whole civilizations to be destroyed. You seem to, at least in some sense, agree that Laban deserved what he got. So, in relation to the Old Testament accounts and to the extent that it is relevant to the 1 Nephi account, how do you reconcile the belief that the scriptures are the word of God, while at the same time believing that they are teaching such blatant falsehoods (i.e., the falsehood that God commands people to kill people or even worse, whole civilizations, including innocent children and animals)?

I ask this question so that I can understand your position better.

Thanks for having taken the time to take part in this discussion thus far. I'm sure you have better things to do.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

It's pretty simple - Let's take the OT. The OT is an account of man's relationship with God, from man's point of view.

So - when God supposedly commands stealing, stealing, rape, or when there is internal contradiction, or irrationality, or scientific error, etc... I don't have to resort to mental gymnastics, relative morality, appeals to mystery and apologetic spin. The problems are merely human errors. Although God allowed men to write errors into scripture, he guided the process just enough so that the scriptures contain true doctrine sufficient for perfecting the saints, when aided by prayer, humility and modern inspiration/revelation.

There - that's it. I don't have to defend and spin and rationalize to reconcile scripture in the face of major difficulty. Moreover, my approach correlates nicely with Church theologians such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's thoughts.

Brigham

[Justice]

Interesting theory. Why not have Nephi jump off a cliff believing he could fly? That way he wouldn't have to chop off someone's head.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Laban needed to die in order for the records to be safe. Together with the fact that God knew the hardest thing He could ask Nephi to do was to kill someone, He used the opportunity as a teaching example.

Might I suggest that it is clear to you because you are the one who made it up. Of course it is clear to you.

Well, I don't think I made it up. I feel it's the explanation given to me so I can understand. I know unless it is revealed personally there would be skepticism.

No one is questioning God. I am questioning Nephi's or Joseph's version, not God.

This makes much more sense. It sounded to me as if you were questioning why God would command someone to kill another person.

Maybe - or maybe I just found your argument weak and un-compelling.

LOL Fair enough. You're not the first person to say this to me. I have a hard time expressing myself sometimes. Usually, though, given enough time, I can make it more clear. I'll ponder on it a bit and see if different wording can come to me, or if I can find the real reason why this issue doesn't bother me.

I keep saying it and saying it - I am questioning the account, not God. As to how else it might have been handled, I am responding to the poster who claimed that there was NO OTHER way.

It was God who made the statement that it is better that one man perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief. This is the statement that I feel you have to come to terms with. If the Book of Mormon is true, then this was God's idea; God's commandment; and God's statement. God said the man needed to die, not Nephi.

In what way am I stumbling. Is God going to punish me because I don't think God commands murder?

I just meant it seems you are unable to come to terms with "God can command anything He wants because He knows the end from the beginning," and just because we can't see His purpose does not mean it is not a merciful position, even if it looks harsh to us. I firmly believe that Laban dying at that instant gave him the best possible chance at repentance and exaltation. Otherwise, God would have commanded to do it a different way.

This is like, and this is hypothetical, what if a man was interferring with Noah building the ark? That God might have commanded Noah to take his life would be a matter of timing. Jerusalem was about to be destroyed very shortly.

One day we will be astounded at the way God directed the affairs of this earth. When we are given the ability to see what happened and the reasoning, we will be utterly amazed at the patience and mercy He shows to man every day. There is so much about Laban we don't know. My guess is that the Lord showed him mercy upon mercy throughout hs life, and even taking his life may have prevented him from committing a greater sin in the future that would have made it very difficult to repent of.

We have no idea what God knows; what He sees. Therefore, we cannot know why He commands things unless He reveals it. It's part of having trust and faith in Him. All we need to do is look to the example of the Savior when He was alive in the flesh to see what kind of person He is, and what motivates Him to give commandments, even the ones we have a hard time understanding.

[Finrock]

It's pretty simple - Let's take the OT. The OT is an account of man's relationship with God, from man's point of view.

So - when God supposedly commands stealing, stealing, rape, or when there is internal contradiction, or irrationality, or scientific error, etc... I don't have to resort to mental gymnastics, relative morality, appeals to mystery and apologetic spin. The problems are merely human errors. Although God allowed men to write errors into scripture, he guided the process just enough so that the scriptures contain true doctrine sufficient for perfecting the saints, when aided by prayer, humility and modern inspiration/revelation.

There - that's it. I don't have to defend and spin and rationalize to reconcile scripture in the face of major difficulty. Moreover, my approach correlates nicely with Church theologians such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's thoughts.

Brigham

Good morning Snow! Thanks for the answer.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that if scripture attributes anything that is morally questionable, like stealing, raping, killing, etc. to God, then it is safe to reject that part of scripture as not actually being inspired. You also include anything that is a contradiction, irrational, or scientifically erroneous to the class of things that can be rejected as not being inspired.

How do you determine what is morally questionable, contradictory, irrational, or scientifically erroneous? Moreover, what standard do you use to judge that something is morally questionable, it is irrational, it is contradictory, or it is scientifically erroneous?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

Just a Guy-You need to also add that killing renders the killer spiritually dead.

Always?

Also, sin does not create a false prophet. False prophesies do.

I would say that promulgating and acting on false revelations do.

If the instruction Nephi received to kill Laban was in fact a false revelation--then yes, he is a false prophet; and so is anyone who repeated that revelation as a true revelation from God.

I can just imagine the conversation in th C.K. between the babies who were killed and their killer.........akward! But I'll fully admit that is me looking at it with my natural eyes.

Maybe awkward . . . maybe not. There are worse things than death.

[HEthePrimate]

It's pretty simple - Let's take the OT. The OT is an account of man's relationship with God, from man's point of view.

So - when God supposedly commands stealing, stealing, rape, or when there is internal contradiction, or irrationality, or scientific error, etc... I don't have to resort to mental gymnastics, relative morality, appeals to mystery and apologetic spin. The problems are merely human errors. Although God allowed men to write errors into scripture, he guided the process just enough so that the scriptures contain true doctrine sufficient for perfecting the saints, when aided by prayer, humility and modern inspiration/revelation.

There - that's it. I don't have to defend and spin and rationalize to reconcile scripture in the face of major difficulty. Moreover, my approach correlates nicely with Church theologians such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's thoughts.

Brigham

I couldn't agree with you more! Thank you, Snow, for articulating so well what I was having difficulty saying. As you point out, there are human errors in the scriptures--heck, the Book of Mormon prophets even apologize for them--but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the scriptures, for God has a way of communicating and dealing with people despite our frailties. (Actually, that's a tremendously comforting thought.) Thanks again!

HEP

[Just_A_Guy]

It's pretty simple - Let's take the OT. The OT is an account of man's relationship with God, from man's point of view.

So - when God supposedly commands stealing, stealing, rape, or when there is internal contradiction, or irrationality, or scientific error, etc... I don't have to resort to mental gymnastics, relative morality, appeals to mystery and apologetic spin. The problems are merely human errors. Although God allowed men to write errors into scripture, he guided the process just enough so that the scriptures contain true doctrine sufficient for perfecting the saints, when aided by prayer, humility and modern inspiration/revelation.

There - that's it. I don't have to defend and spin and rationalize to reconcile scripture in the face of major difficulty. Moreover, my approach correlates nicely with Church theologians such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's thoughts.

Brigham

This is a very elegant idea, though it sounds faintly Orwellian. Don't like something that is in the historical record? Fine. Repeat "it never happened" often enough, and it's no longer an issue.

[HEthePrimate]

Good morning Snow! Thanks for the answer.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that if scripture attributes anything that is morally questionable, like stealing, raping, killing, etc. to God, then it is safe to reject that part of scripture as not actually being inspired. You also include anything that is a contradiction, irrational, or scientifically erroneous to the class of things that can be rejected as not being inspired.

How do you determine what is morally questionable, contradictory, irrational, or scientifically erroneous? Moreover, what standard do you use to judge that something is morally questionable, it is irrational, it is contradictory, or it is scientifically erroneous?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

I can't speak for Snow, but I can throw in my $0.02 worth (darn it, why don't they have the 'cents' sign on keyboards like they used to have on typewriters?!?). I'll go back to what I said earlier in this thread--Moroni 7:3-17. These verses tell us exactly how we can tell what's right and what's wrong, like night from day. It's interesting to me that in the first few verses he says that he judges them to be true Christians specifically because of their "peaceable walk with the children of men." This makes it especially pertinent to this thread, I think.

3 Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.

4 And now my brethren, I judge these things of you because of your peaceable walk with the children of men.

5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.

How can we know if something is irrational or contradictory? Study logic and critical thinking. How can we know if it's unscientific? Study science. How can we know if it's moral? Study ethics, study the scriptures, pray, and follow Jesus' teachings and example.

HEP

[HEthePrimate]

This is a very elegant idea, though it sounds faintly Orwellian. Don't like something that is in the historical record? Fine. Repeat "it never happened" often enough, and it's no longer an issue.

How on earth is it "Orwellian," even "faintly?"

Dictionary definition:

Orwellian

of or like the society portrayed by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four, in which a totalitarian state exercises almost total control over the public and private activities of the citizens

This has nothing whatsoever to do with a totalitarian state. Rather the opposite--it has to do with individual choice as to what we believe.

It seems to me that you are also assuming that the scriptures are historical fact, and that history accurately represents objective reality. Both history and scriptures are written by humans, who are prone to err, and I'm not convinced the scriptures were even meant to be historical in nature.

HEP

[Just_A_Guy]

How on earth is it "Orwellian," even "faintly?"

Dictionary definition: . . .

This has nothing whatsoever to do with a totalitarian state. Rather the opposite--it has to do with individual choice as to what we believe.

Right . . . my bad . . . substitute "Bradbury-esque".

It seems to me that you are also assuming that the scriptures are historical fact, and that history accurately represents objective reality. Both history and scriptures are written by humans, who are prone to err, and I'm not convinced the scriptures were even meant to be historical in nature.

I agree that taking the scriptures as (forgive the bad pun) the "gospel" version of history is problematic in general.

On the other hand, the major problem with such sources is that they often tend to be tremendously self-serving to the author--either as towards his individual actions, or as to the actions of his culture. That Nephi included his execution of Laban in the narrative at all, violates this pattern. I don't see how you can make a straight-faced argument that Nephi's inclusion of the story of his execution of Laban raises him or the Nephites generally in the estimation of the average reader. To anyone who hasn't been conditioned by decades of singing in primary about how "Nephi was obedient", it's a gut-wrenchingly horrifying story.

There's just no reason to disregard Nephi's narrative here as historical fact while accepting the Book of Mormon in principle, except that the story is highly inconvenient to our preferred worldview.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Finrock]

I can't speak for Snow, but I can throw in my $0.02 worth (darn it, why don't they have the 'cents' sign on keyboards like they used to have on typewriters?!?).

Good evening HethePrimate! Thanks for your post. I appreciate it. As a matter of fact, I was intending to invite others who supported Snow's point-of-view to feel free to contribute. I didn't want Snow to think I was picking on him, it's just that it seemed all others who were of the same opinion as Snow had abandoned the conversation and he was the only one left still participating. So, it is nice to get your 2 cents worth (and I'm sure your opinion is worth more than just 2 cents, btw).

I'll go back to what I said earlier in this thread--Moroni 7:3-17. These verses tell us exactly how we can tell what's right and what's wrong, like night from day. It's interesting to me that in the first few verses he says that he judges them to be true Christians specifically because of their "peaceable walk with the children of men." This makes it especially pertinent to this thread, I think.

How can we know if something is irrational or contradictory? Study logic and critical thinking. How can we know if it's unscientific? Study science. How can we know if it's moral? Study ethics, study the scriptures, pray, and follow Jesus' teachings and example.

HEP

I think I understand, but I may have to dig a bit deeper just to be sure. You seem to at least believe that scripture is one way we can measure what is good or evil.

Now, I'm not sure I understand the next part. I think you are saying that we can know that something is irrational, contradictory, unscientific, or immoral by studying those subject matters, which will then allow us to judge those things when we encounter them, in this case, in the scriptures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for now I'm going to assume that is what you mean.

Barring morality, for the time being, because I want to deal with that separate, how do you know that if you study those subject matters in question, so that you can correctly judge the scriptures using the knowledge you presumably gain from that studying, that what you have studied is right? To ask it more concisely: How do you know that what you are studying is good/right?

Because you offered scripture as a way to test morality (good from evil), I wanted to deal with this question separate. If scripture is your tool for measuring morality (you offered Moroni 7:3-13 as an example), then how do you judge which portion of scripture you are going to accept as a valid moral value, particularly in cases where there appears to be two competing values in the same volume of scripture?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Laban needed to die in order for the records to be safe. Together with the fact that God knew the hardest thing He could ask Nephi to do was to kill someone, He used the opportunity as a teaching example.

Think about it: God teaches people important truths by compelling them to commit murder.

It doesn't reconcile well with: "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

It was God who made the statement that it is better that one man perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief. This is the statement that I feel you have to come to terms with. If the Book of Mormon is true, then this was God's idea; God's commandment; and God's statement. God said the man needed to die, not Nephi.

Uh - no. It was Joseph Smith who wrote that Nephi wrote that God said it. It could well be that Nephi did in fact say it and Joseph Smith did in fact translate it but it wasn't historically accurate.

I just meant it seems you are unable to come to terms with "God can command anything He wants because He knows the end from the beginning," and just because we can't see His purpose does not mean it is not a merciful position, even if it looks harsh to us.

An appeal to mystery means nothing to me.

I firmly believe that Laban dying at that instant gave him the best possible chance at repentance and exaltation. Otherwise, God would have commanded to do it a different way.

Does that go only for Laban or did Mama Cass Elliot choke on a sandwich and die when she did because it gave her the best chance at repentance too?

One day we will be astounded at the way God directed the affairs of this earth. When we are given the ability to see what happened and the reasoning, we will be utterly amazed at the patience and mercy He shows to man every day. There is so much about Laban we don't know. My guess is that the Lord showed him mercy upon mercy throughout hs life, and even taking his life may have prevented him from committing a greater sin in the future that would have made it very difficult to repent of.

We have no idea what God knows; what He sees. Therefore, we cannot know why He commands things unless He reveals it. It's part of having trust and faith in Him. All we need to do is look to the example of the Savior when He was alive in the flesh to see what kind of person He is, and what motivates Him to give commandments, even the ones we have a hard time understanding.

That is an interesting point and I don't disagree but that is not a satisfactory answer. It is merely a way to avoid the implications of the account.

[Snow]

Good morning Snow! Thanks for the answer.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that if scripture attributes anything that is morally questionable, like stealing, raping, killing, etc. to God, then it is safe to reject that part of scripture as not actually being inspired.

No - I didn't say that. I haven't thought through all such instances.

You also include anything that is a contradiction, irrational, or scientifically erroneous to the class of things that can be rejected as not being inspired.

No - that is not correct. I think that someone can write an inspired bit of gospel truth and still get factual, historical, or scientific parts of it wrong because of the flaws in their human knowledge, speech capabilities, memory and perception filter. I believe that things can be inspired and still have flaws in them... and scripture provide abundant proof of that.

How do you determine what is morally questionable,

Through the light of Christ and Holy Ghost - or here's a simple way... can you do it and still get a temple recommend?

Murder generally keeps you out of the temple - does it not?

contradictory,

This is self explanatory, but let me give you an example:

In Mark, Jairus comes to Jesus and asks Jesus to come to his home to heal his sick daughter but before they get to the house, the girl dies. By contrast in Matthew Jairus goes to Jesus AFTER his daughter has already died.

Both accounts cannot be accurate/true.

irrational,

Here's a hint: If it involves a talking donkey (Numbers 22-25), then it's irrational and probably not literally true.

or scientifically erroneous?

Through science?

Moreover, what standard do you use to judge that something is morally questionable, it is irrational, it is contradictory, or it is scientifically erroneous?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Obviously may standard is my own intellect, education, conscious, and God-given reason plus any answers I've received to prayers.

[Finrock]

This is primarily addressed to Snow, TruthSeekerToo, and HEthePrimate, but anyone who wants to can respond.

I want to create a hypothetical scenario. Please, consider the following:

Suppose there is a man who has an extraordinary ability. His name is Joe. Joe has the ability to know, perfectly, what a person has thought or done, what a person is thinking or doing, and what a person will think and do. Joe, who has this extraordinary ability, has never been wrong and there is know way for his ability to fail. Now, further suppose that Joe comes across another man, whom Joe knows to be a serial killer. Joe knows, perfectly, that the serial killer has killed dozens of innocent and helpless children in the past. Joe also knows that the serial killer is thinking of killing again, and as a matter of fact, Joe knows that the serial killer has another innocent and helpless victim at home that the serial killer intends to kill tonight. Further, Joe knows that if the serial killer isn't killed, then the serial killer will continue to kill innocent and helpless children in the future.

Based on this scenario, would Joe be doing the morally right or wrong thing by killing the serial killer? Conversely, based on this scenario, would Joe be doing the morally right or wrong thing if he let the serial killer live?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

I couldn't agree with you more! Thank you, Snow, for articulating so well what I was having difficulty saying. As you point out, there are human errors in the scriptures--heck, the Book of Mormon prophets even apologize for them--but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the scriptures, for God has a way of communicating and dealing with people despite our frailties. (Actually, that's a tremendously comforting thought.) Thanks again!

HEP

Thank you.

[Snow]

This is a very elegant idea, though it sounds faintly Orwellian. Don't like something that is in the historical record? Fine. Repeat "it never happened" often enough, and it's no longer an issue.

You are misusing the word Orwellian. In fact, what you are implying - that one should accept the scriptures as accurate history just because they are scripture is closer to Orwellian.

[Snow]

This is primarily addressed to Snow, TruthSeekerToo, and HEthePrimate, but anyone who wants to can respond.

I want to create a hypothetical scenario. Please, consider the following:

Suppose there is a man who has an extraordinary ability. His name is Joe. Joe has the ability to know, perfectly, what a person has thought or done, what a person is thinking or doing, and what a person will think and do. Joe, who has this extraordinary ability, has never been wrong and there is know way for his ability to fail. Now, further suppose that Joe comes across another man, whom Joe knows to be a serial killer. Joe knows, perfectly, that the serial killer has killed dozens of innocent and helpless children in the past. Joe also knows that the serial killer is thinking of killing again, and as a matter of fact, Joe knows that the serial killer has another innocent and helpless victim at home that the serial killer intends to kill tonight. Further, Joe knows that if the serial killer isn't killed, then the serial killer will continue to kill innocent and helpless children in the future.

Based on this scenario, would Joe be doing the morally right or wrong thing by killing the serial killer? Conversely, based on this scenario, would Joe be doing the morally right or wrong thing if he let the serial killer live?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Yeah - and the guy is named Tom Cruise in Minority Report.

Of course we know the answer to your scenario but let me make the necessary corrections to it so that it becomes analogous to the Nephi account:

We have no idea whether Joe actually had any ability (perfect or otherwise) to know other's thoughts and future actions other than 2600 years after Joe died, someone else claimed that Joe had such an ability... oh, and there is zero historical evidence or record that Joe ever existed.

Now - with that correction, can you answer your own question?

[Finrock]

No - I didn't say that. I haven't thought through all such instances.

No - that is not correct. I think that someone can write an inspired bit of gospel truth and still get factual, historical, or scientific parts of it wrong because of the flaws in their human knowledge, speech capabilities, memory and perception filter. I believe that things can be inspired and still have flaws in them... and scripture provide abundant proof of that.

OK, so you aren't applying your standards across the whole of scripture. I'm assuming then that you can conceive of instances in the scriptures where something that is apparently contradictory, irrational, immoral, ect., is attributed to God and you would judge the scripture passage to not be in error.

Through the light of Christ and Holy Ghost - or here's a simple way... can you do it and still get a temple recommend?

Murder generally keeps you out of the temple - does it not?

OK. And, to answer your question, yes.

This is self explanatory, but let me give you an example:

In Mark, Jairus comes to Jesus and asks Jesus to come to his home to heal his sick daughter but before they get to the house, the girl dies. By contrast in Matthew Jairus goes to Jesus AFTER his daughter has already died.

Both accounts cannot be accurate/true.

Here's a hint: If it involves a talking donkey (Numbers 22-25), then it's irrational and probably not literally true.

Through science?

Obviously may standard is my own intellect, education, conscious, and God-given reason plus any answers I've received to prayers.

I can't say I fully understand where you are coming from, but I'm trying. I guess I'm trying to get a bit deeper than you appear to be willing to go, because some of what you are saying here assumes certain truths. To use a logic term, it's circular, but that's OK. I'm not trying to pigeonhole you to anything. I was just wanting to get a better understanding of your perspective, and I think I've come at least a bit closer in understand your point-of-view.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Yeah - and the guy is named Tom Cruise in Minority Report.

Of course we know the answer to your scenario but let me make the necessary corrections to it so that it becomes analogous to the Nephi account:

In Minority Report, the predictions weren't perfect! :) I'm sorry, but I don't know your answers to the scenario. Do you mind sharing them with me?

We have no idea whether Joe actually had any ability (perfect or otherwise) to know other's thoughts and future actions other than 2600 years after Joe died, someone else claimed that Joe had such an ability... oh, and there is zero historical evidence or record that Joe ever existed.

Now - with that correction, can you answer your own question?

I'm sorry if I'm wrong with my perception here, but I think you might be trying to preempt where I'm going with my scenario. If you don't want to take part in the scenario, that is OK. Trust me, I won't mind at all and I understand. I would, however, like you, and anyone else, to consider it, for the time being. And I would like to request that anyone who answers, and I promise the same, to be intellectually honest in their answers.

As far as corrections, I'm not sure I know what you mean by corrections. Perhaps you are calling for corrections based on where you assume I am going with my scenario? In that case I guess I can see why you would want to call them corrections. But, mine is a hypothetical scenario, and it is exactly as I created it to be, therefore it is correct.

I think if you change the scenario, then my answers to those questions would probably change. I certainly don't mind entertaining your hypothetical scenario. Do you want to postulate your hypothetical scenario first, before we continue with mine? I don't mind.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Justice]

Uh - no. It was Joseph Smith who wrote that Nephi wrote that God said it. It could well be that Nephi did in fact say it and Joseph Smith did in fact translate it but it wasn't historically accurate.

Joseph Smith was a prophet, and translated the book for a language he could not understand himself. God gave him the gift and power to traslate it.

Nephi was a man who lived when he said he did, and did the things he said he did.

I don't believe there is either an attempt to fraud or that blatant of a mistake in the record. If there were, it wouldn't be considered "the most correct book of any on earth."

I believe it was historically accurate, and I don't have a problem with God giving the commandment...

...but if I did, the problem would be with me and my lack of understanding.

Either the Book of Mormon is true, or it isn't. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet, or he wasn't.

It really makes no difference that Nephi killed Laban and claimed he was told to by God. What mattersis the statement attributed to God by Nephi that "it is better for one man to die than for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief." Either God said that or He didn't. I say He did, and saying otherwise is questioning the veracity of the Book of Mormon.