1 Nephi 4:11

[Just_A_Guy]

You are misusing the word Orwellian.

As I admitted in my Post #140.

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

What would you call it when someone ignores a segment of the scriptures that has been confirmed by living prophets, just because that segment says something that the person doesn't like?

[Snow]

What would you call it when someone ignores a segment of the scriptures that has been confirmed by living prophets, just because that segment says something that the person doesn't like?

Now you are just making things up. Why is that?

I don't reject, say, Deut 20:10-17 or 7:12, of Numbers 31:17, or 1 Samuel 15:1-3 because I don't like it. I think they should probably be rejected because a god orders murder, rape, kidnapping, slavery, stealing, kidnaping and animal abuse cannot be well reconciled with God who is just and benevolent.

Can't you make your point honestly?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Snow

[Justice]

I've been doing a little studying, trying to find something that might help.

They were still living under the Law of Moses at this time.

Under the Law of Moses, if you made false accusations, or if you bore false witness, you were treated as though you were guilty of the crime you accused the other of. Laban called Laman a robber, which he wasn't. So, that meant, under the Mociac Law, that Laban was guilty of robbery. Under the Law of Moses robbery was a capital offense, and guilty of death.

To boot, Laban stole Lehi's property from Lehi's sons, to remove all doubt.

That Laban was sentenced to death by the Lord was the fullfilling of the Law they were supposed to live under at that time.

Whether you agree with it or not, that was the law at the time.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Justice, I have tried several times to show that the killings are justified under the LESSER law. Nobody wanted to believe it. The literal believers want to believe that the killings are justified under the HIGHER law.

I guess you and I agree. This is the LOWER LAW which does not apply to the law of mercy or the law of the celestial kingdom.

That said, I believe that God does not command killings. However, he gives lower laws unto the children of men (who will not abide the higher) so that they may inherit the proper kingdom after judgment.

Now, my answer to the "Joe" scenerio is this:

If Joe represents God, who is the only omnipotent being, then He is bound to do nothing himself. He allows us our agency that our actions might witness for/against us at the judgment bar.

Now he might inspire someone to do something to frustrate the evil work. That is a possibility.

However, I'm thinking the inspiration would be along the lines of "call the police."

This topic gets even more confusing if you believe that God preserved Cain after he murdered his brother. These things seem to condradict eachother.

[Justice]

Sometimes it takes me a little longer. :)

[Traveler]

If someone can – would you please explain the difference between the divine truths that are at the essence of the epoch of David and Goliath and Nephi and Laban?

I find it interesting that G-d commanded each to kill someone that was delivered into their hands. It is also interesting that both took the life of their captive by cutting of their heads while they were helpless and incapisated.

The Traveler

[Finrock]

Now, my answer to the "Joe" scenerio is this:

If Joe represents God, who is the only omnipotent being, then He is bound to do nothing himself. He allows us our agency that our actions might witness for/against us at the judgment bar.

Now he might inspire someone to do something to frustrate the evil work. That is a possibility.

However, I'm thinking the inspiration would be along the lines of "call the police."

Good afternoon TruthSeekerToo! I hope you had a good weekend. BTW, you sending that good weather worked, cause the last few days have been wonderful. :)

If may, I would like to explain a bit my hypothetical scenario. From my discussions so far with you, HeThePrimate, and Snow I came to understand that one thing that you all seem to rely on to understand scripture and to judge it is logic. In order to accomodate this learning style, I wanted to utilize a tool that is used in logic often. That is to make up a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a the logical conclusion of any given line of reasoning. Of course, in order for such a tool to work all participants have to agree to go along with the scenario and to follow the rules of logic. I assumed that you all would be familiar with creating hypothetical scenarios and therefore I didn't give much of an introduction to it. However, from the responses so far, I realize I should have explained it more. I'm sorry for not doing that. In a hypothetical scenario, only the facts that are given to you are relevant to the answer. If you change the facts, then obviously the answers will change. Therefore, it is important that we answer the quesitons based on the information that was given in the scenario. So, given the information in the hypothetical scenario, do you believe that Joe would be morally right or wrong in killing the serial killer? This is the question that needs to be answered. In this case you would either believe that he is morally right or he is morally wrong. No other answer or explaination would satisfy the inquiry. Also, as I mentioned, intellectual honesty is required. That means that we answer the questions honestly, even if the conclusion doesn't support our point-of-view. Otherwise, the exercise is futile.

So, with this new explanation, I would invite you to answer the questions again, if you want to take part in the exercise. If you do not, that is OK. I'll go away and we can move on with life. But, if you are curios to explore the logical conclusion of a particular line of reasoning, then let us explore it together and see where it leads.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

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?!?).

...HEP

Here's how to put in the ¢ symbol: make sure you num-lock is engaged; Press the ALT key and whilst holding it down press '155' on the keypad of your keyboard; then release the ALT key.

¢ ASCII & ANSI Character Chart

HiJolly

[pam]

ˆ¿ˆ

Yayyyy it worked. I had forgotten how to make this little face. Thanks!!!!

[Maxel]

I've been following this thread with interest, and I've decided to re-enter the convo to make an observation.

Justice, I have tried several times to show that the killings are justified under the LESSER law. Nobody wanted to believe it. The literal believers want to believe that the killings are justified under the HIGHER law.

I think we need to differentiate which parts of the story we are talking about. In Justice's brilliant explanation of the Mosaic Law requiring Laban to die because he falsely accused Laman of being a thief, Justice shows that Laban deserved death according to the Mosaic Law. However, the Mosaic Law also called for judges to try the case and pass the sentence death to the guilty. Clearly, Nephi- acting under direct orders from God- was acting under a law and system different than the Mosaic Law, even if he was enacting the justice required by it. I submit that he was not acting under an even lesser law, but under a higher law.

While Laban may have been guilty of death under the lesser (Mosaic) law, Nephi may have been- indeed, I still claim that he was- justified in killing Laban under the higher law (the law of Christ which stresses loving God above man and obedience). I am not so concerned with why Laban deserved death as with the fact that Nephi was indeed acting under the influence of God, and did what he was supposed to do- he passed the trial of faith.

This is the LOWER LAW which does not apply to the law of mercy or the law of the celestial kingdom.

I have to wonder- where exactly is the law of mercy (which you extrapolate to mean mercy given to all; even those who willingly and sinfully break covenants and the laws of the land) extolled as the higher law, equivalent with the celestial kingdom? Requisite to receiving Christ's mercy and grace is a "broken heart and a contrite spirit"- we can safely assume from the narrative that Laban was not in possession of either (Nephi, however, was). Even if the law of mercy is the higher law, Laban was not under its jurisdiction or influence. No one can doubt, however, that the law of justice fits his situation perfectly. Edited April 27, 2009 by Maxel
Removed inflammatory comment

[Dravin]

If someone can – would you please explain the difference between the divine truths that are at the essence of the epoch of David and Goliath and Nephi and Laban?

I find it interesting that G-d commanded each to kill someone that was delivered into their hands. It is also interesting that both took the life of their captive by cutting of their heads while they were helpless and incapisated.

The Traveler

As far as as David and Goliath, I always got the impression from 1 Sam 17:49-51 that the sling killed him, the beheading was to prove he actually killed him and to inspire fear in the Philistines.

[HiJolly]

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

Agreed. By the same logic, it also does not make the opinion incorrect.

In this case, I'm wondering if you are making the claim that the postulates do not impact the veracity of the conclusion, which would have to be the case for my opinon, as stated, to be incorrect.

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

What, in your opinion, is "pure logic"? I suspect that we agree on this, but I'd like you to clarify, if you would.

And I would say again that truth itself is not an attribute of Godliness; truth simply is a knowledge of what IS: Doctrine and Covenants 93 . But I would agree that the ability to recognize, understand and know truth IS certainly an attribute of Godliness. What do you think?

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.

If that produces within you the faith and confidence necessary for you to follow it in living life, then I agree. I would point out, though, that the logic didn't save you. In your example logic was used as a tool to promote behavior and belief that lead to salvation. As you said, it "plays a part", and I totally agree with that. But it doesn't necessarily do so for everyone. A distinction worth noting, IMO.

BTW, I find point #2 quite interesting, in light of your views in this thread. Not that I disagree with your views, I just think that in this context it is a bit ironic.

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

Did I say anything about reason? Do you truly see logic and reason as being synonymous? I must admit to being more in the Platonist camp on that, and not so much with Aristotle.

My opinion is that logic and science are very similar. They are both immensely useful tools here in mortality, but they are critically limited whenever they are used to investigate or weigh the things of eternity. They are tools to be used with wisdom and care.

HiJolly

[Justice]

However, the Mosaic Law also called for judges to try the case and pass the sentence death to the guilty.

The supposition is that there were no legal administrators of the Law of Moses at this time in Jerusalem. Much like in the Nephite nation, the system turned corrupt and was being ran by wicked men. So, even if he wanted to answer the Law of Moses to Laban's wrongs, there was no legal, righteous administrator.

I agree with you, I don't think it was a higher law Nephi was acting out. I belive it was the Law of Moses, with Christ Himself as the judge and jury this time.

I have to wonder- where exactly is the law of mercy (which you extrapolate to mean mercy given to all; even those who willingly and sinfully break covenants and the laws of the land) extolled as the higher law, equivalent with the celestial kingdom?

It's true about the broken heart and contrite spirit. However, I don't think mercy was in the Law of Moses. Looking at the woman taken in adultery, even she was shown mercy by Christ, even though she broke a greater law.

I think mercy was shown several-fold to Laban here. First, he did not have to live through the invasion of Jerusalem, and endure even greater hardships. Plus, and it is just my theory, but Laban was destined to commit greater crimes than stealing. He tried to take the lives of the sons of Lehi. It was only a matter of time until he succeeded taking someone's life. He was saved from committing a greater crime.

But, as you say, it seems he was justified under either law.

[Just_A_Guy]

What would you call it when someone ignores a segment of the scriptures that has been confirmed by living prophets, just because that segment says something that the person doesn't like?

Now you are just making things up. Why is that? . . . .

Can't you make your point honestly?

What was dishonest? The Nephi account challenges one of your core assumptions about the nature of God (see below). Of course you don't like it. I wouldn't either, if I were convinced of the same assumption that you seem to have made.

I don't reject, say, Deut 20:10-17 or 7:12, of Numbers 31:17, or 1 Samuel 15:1-3 because I don't like it. I think they should probably be rejected because a god orders murder, rape, kidnapping, slavery, stealing, kidnaping and animal abuse cannot be well reconciled with God who is just and benevolent.

This isn't about any of those other scriptures, for which you have rightly set up a separate thread. This particular discussion is about Nephi. Bringing in other scriptures strikes me as little more than poisoning the well. And since the scriptures you cite are all in the Old Testament, you aren't even poisoning the right well.

You assume, at the outset, that a just and benevolent God would never order a killing. I questioned this assumption (in general terms; not directed towards you specifically) earlier, and don't recall you responding to it directly. Feel free to prove me wrong--I could very easily have missed one of your posts--but it strikes me that at least in this particular discussion you've never tried to make the type of reconciliation you claim to have attempted.

[Maxel]

I heartily agree with most of your post, Justice, but I want to take one thing out of the barrel and tack it on the wall, so to speak.

I agree with you, I don't think it was a higher law Nephi was acting out. I belive it was the Law of Moses, with Christ Himself as the judge and jury this time.

In this case, I think there are two different actions/judgments that are involved:

1) Laban deserving to die under the Law of Moses

2) Nephi slaying Laban according to his obedience to the command of God

I still maintain that Nephi was acting in accordance with a higher law- following the will of God, even when it is hard- by executing Laban, which is a judgment mandated by the Mosaic Law.

Ultimately, even in Nephi were acting in accordance with the Law of Moses, it is still God commanding Nephi to slay Laban- which is the pith of my own stake in this conversation.

[Justice]

Yes. This is one of those things like Joseph and Oliver getting the Priesthood before they were baptized, or even members of the Church. It is even similar to Heavenly Father showing Himself to Joseph Smith.

These are all things that would normally not be done, but circumstances make it impossible to follow proper protocal.

I believe if God had judged Laban to a higher law, he would have shown mercy, just as in the example I gave of the woman caught in the act of adultery. So, even though Nephi was acting under a direct commandment from God, which would supersede any other law given (making it higher), God executed judgement, legally, accordingto the law of Moses... which He gave to them.

I think we're saying the same thing, but you are looking at it through Nephi's eyes, who certainly should have followed God's voice over any law in place, and I am looking at it through God's eyes, that Laban was codemned under the law He gave them to live by.

A matter of perspective?

[Snow]

What was dishonest? The Nephi account challenges one of your core assumptions about the nature of God (see below). Of course you don't like it. I wouldn't either, if I were convinced of the same assumption that you seem to have made.

The dishonesty is that you claim that I ignore a segment of scripture "just because that segment says something that the person doesn't like?"

You know that is not true. I was very clear that I don't ignore it. I read it, ponder it, have prayed about it and interact with it and have done so extensively here. What I do do is question it as an accurate depiction of history. I don't reject it. I question it... and my questioning of it is not based on not liking it, as you so incorrectly claim, rather it is based on the difficulty it raises with the explanations given for justifying the action.

This isn't about any of those other scriptures, for which you have rightly set up a separate thread. This particular discussion is about Nephi. Bringing in other scriptures strikes me as little more than poisoning the well. And since the scriptures you cite are all in the Old Testament, you aren't even poisoning the right well.

That is wrong. It is about those scriptures because I have made it about those scriptures. Threads have a life of their own and discussion go where the dialogue takes them. You may not want to talk about those scriptures but they are already part of the discussion.

You assume, at the outset, that a just and benevolent God would never order a killing. I questioned this assumption (in general terms; not directed towards you specifically) earlier, and don't recall you responding to it directly. Feel free to prove me wrong--I could very easily have missed one of your posts--but it strikes me that at least in this particular discussion you've never tried to make the type of reconciliation you claim to have attempted.

No - I don't assume it. So far you are 0 for 3. I have plainly stated that my issues with Nephi, compared to the OT are much more muted because Laban seemed to have gotten what he deserved. My original objection to the Nephi/Laban account was because a poster claimed that it was the ONLY way that Nephi could have gotten the plates - obviously God could have done it in lot of other ways and so far I have seen no particularly convincing argument for why chopping of Laban's head was the best way - though one argument was fairly interesting... to teach Nephi a lesson about his faithfulness.

[Snow]

I heartily agree with most of your post, Justice, but I want to take one thing out of the barrel and tack it on the wall, so to speak.

In this case, I think there are two different actions/judgments that are involved:

1) Laban deserving to die under the Law of Moses

2) Nephi slaying Laban according to his obedience to the command of God

I still maintain that Nephi was acting in accordance with a higher law- following the will of God, even when it is hard- by executing Laban, which is a judgment mandated by the Mosaic Law.

Ultimately, even in Nephi were acting in accordance with the Law of Moses, it is still God commanding Nephi to slay Laban- which is the pith of my own stake in this conversation.

Look - if God really and truly ordered it, okay, game over. That's the end of it.

However, I can't think of any particularly convincing evidence of WHY God would choose such a path instead of other paths

[spiritseeker]

You ask why .... Because He is God and that's the choice He made. Ours is not to always understand why but to accept what is....

[Snow]

What, in your opinion, is "pure logic"? I suspect that we agree on this, but I'd like you to clarify, if you would.

I was thinking of math being a pure form of logic and other forms of logic being useful abstractions of such pure logic.

And I would say again that truth itself is not an attribute of Godliness; truth simply is a knowledge of what IS: Doctrine and Covenants 93 . But I would agree that the ability to recognize, understand and know truth IS certainly an attribute of Godliness. What do you think?

I am not a philosopher but I would counter that the scriptures tell us that Christ - God is the way, the truth and the life... that is truth and God are somehow synonymous so truth entails more than just correct knowledge.

If that produces within you the faith and confidence necessary for you to follow it in living life, then I agree. I would point out, though, that the logic didn't save you. In your example logic was used as a tool to promote behavior and belief that lead to salvation. As you said, it "plays a part", and I totally agree with that. But it doesn't necessarily do so for everyone. A distinction worth noting, IMO.

Agreed. Logic does not save but it is a God-given tool/talent and we should put it to good employ in the service of God.

BTW, I find point #2 quite interesting, in light of your views in this thread. Not that I disagree with your views, I just think that in this context it is a bit ironic.

Oh - I believe that scripture is true - just not in the same way as those that dogmatically and unquestioningly accept it all even when it contradicts fact and logic.

Did I say anything about reason? Do you truly see logic and reason as being synonymous? I must admit to being more in the Platonist camp on that, and not so much with Aristotle.

Yes and yes.

My opinion is that logic and science are very similar. They are both immensely useful tools here in mortality, but they are critically limited whenever they are used to investigate or weigh the things of eternity. They are tools to be used with wisdom and care.

HiJolly

Difference of opinion then. I think they are separate and that logic, but not science, are important in studying / understanding soteriology.

[Snow]

You ask why .... Because He is God and that's the choice He made. Ours is not to always understand why but to accept what is....

So do you accept everything that people say comes from God or do you pick and choose what to accept?

I am betting that you pick and choose.

[Maxel]

However, I can't think of any particularly convincing evidence of WHY God would choose such a path instead of other paths

What about 'a test of faith'? What about the reasons presented in the article I cited in Post #70? You responded to the post it came in (in Post #75), but you completely skipped the reasoning presented- you didn't even bother to shrug it off. Then, there's the precedence- Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac and it being counted unto him for righteousness- but you skip that too, first calling it 'dogma' then ignoring it when I quote the Lord referencing the act in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Here's the best reason for why God commanded Nephi to kill Laban: because it says so in the Book of Mormon!

You reject all this logic simply because you want to- not because it's bad or weak or wrong. If it were wrong you would have made a great parade of intellectual condescension in your refutation of it- your silence condemns your position. You prefer to attack weaker arguments. It's part of your favored straw man tactic- it might more accurately be called 'selective rebuttal'- it's (I guess) what you use to maintain your own superiority in the discussion (at least, in your own eyes).

This is your modus operandi, and then you have the gall to call Just_A_Guy the dishonest one?

[Snow]

What about 'a test of faith'? What about the reasons presented in the article I cited in Post #70? You responded to the post it came in (in Post #75), but you completely skipped the reasoning presented- you didn't even bother to shrug it off. Then, there's the precedence- Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac and it being counted unto him for righteousness- but you skip that too, first calling it 'dogma' then ignoring it when I quote the Lord referencing the act in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Sorry, I don't catch all the posts but I did speak to this concept in another post. I don't think that ordering someone to chop off another person's head is a test of faith and is aligned with a good and righteous and benevolent God. If the purpose were to test faith - I think there are other, better suited, development opportunities that do not result in decapitation and bloody hands.

Here's the best reason for why God commanded Nephi to kill Laban: because it says so in the Book of Mormon!

You reject all this logic simply because you want to- not because it's bad or weak or wrong.

Logic? What? You claim that the best reason for the murder was that the BoM says that it happened?

That's not logic. I have no idea what it is but it ain't a reason for anything - it's beyond bad or weak, it's non-sensical. It's barely or maybe not even a circular fallacy.

If it were wrong you would have made a great parade of intellectual condescension in your refutation of it- your silence condemns your position. You prefer to attack weaker arguments. It's part of your favored straw man tactic- it might more accurately be called 'selective rebuttal'- it's (I guess) what you use to maintain your own superiority in the discussion (at least, in your own eyes).

This is your modus operandi, and then you have the gall to call Just_A_Guy the dishonest one?

Sorry - I don't know what you are talking about. I addressed the issue in previous posts and am addressing it now. How can you call me dishonest for not addressing when in fact I have addressed it? You may have missed it just as I may have missed your post (but did respond to someone else who raised it.

As for your implication that I am dishonest (because I didn't respond to your post)... here's your chance to correct your assertion.

[spiritseeker]

So do you accept everything that people say comes from God or do you pick and choose what to accept?

I am betting that you pick and choose.

No I do not accept everything people say to me! I do believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God evidently you do not.... Hence I accept what it says by faith! It seems to me that no matter what anyone says to you here you have already made up your mind. You are not looking for an answer your looking for a reason not to believe. And I am sorry for you.

[Snow]

No I do not accept everything people say to me! I do believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God evidently you do not.... Hence I accept what it says by faith! It seems to me that no matter what anyone says to you here you have already made up your mind. You are not looking for an answer your looking for a reason not to believe. And I am sorry for you.

1. You are in error. I do believe that the Book of Mormon is true.

2. You are in error. I haven't made up my mind. I always respond to a superior argument.

3. On what basis do you feel sorry for me? What do you have that I do not that causes your sorriness?