1 Nephi 4:11

[spiritseeker]

If you do believe the Book of Mormon is true then why do you not accept what it says at face value? It seems cut and dry to me ... This is what Heavenly Father decided Labans head must come off. Why do I believe it because the Word of God says so! I just don't get what answer you are looking for , It seems to me you will have to wait until you return to Heavenly Father to get the answer you are looking for none of us know the why of His decision... And, when I said I felt sorry for you it was because I believed you did not accept the truth of the Book of Mormon. If I am wrong I am sorry. But it does seem to me to be a contradiction to say one believes it is the Word of God and then question it....

[Maxel]

Sorry, I don't catch all the posts but I did speak to this concept in another post.

The point I made is that you did catch the post and replied to everything except the John Welch quote- which, incidentally, has nothing to do with Nephi's slaying of Laban being a trial of faith. I have not read you interact with the idea that the slaying was a fulfillment of prophecy, or that it was an example to the Nephite people in later generations. If you have, please point me in the right direction- after two perusals of this thread, I haven't seen one.

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.

Actually, it is very much an example of circular logic- the premise is that the Book of Mormon is true and inspired of God and presented to us in a purely correct form- therefore, all the doctrine and events found therein represent things as they really happened and accurately reflect the nature of God.

The argument begins and ends with the idea that the Book of Mormon is inspired- one arrives at said idea by gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon. This reasoning is a logical fallacy- a logical weakness. Then again, we read in 1 Corinthians 1:25 that "the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men".

In this instance, I will stand by my circular reasoning- and, frankly, it's stronger than your own reasoning because it 1) admits to being based in circular reasoning (when the best you've ever come up with "A just God wouldn't command murder!" and never offer any real evidence for that dogmatic assumption), and 2) is based in scripture (when your own reasoning runs directly contrary to revealed scripture). Your only real rebuttal to point 1 is 'that's not true!' (when it is), and to point number 2 is 'the scriptures are faulty'- hence, your two recent threads detailing accounts in the Bible that you think most Mormons reject in the same way that you reject 1 Nephi 4.

And, technically, my logic is the logic found in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 4:10-18. In it, we are privy to the thought process that Nephi underwent to arrive at the conclusion that he should kill Laban. Of course, I accept that because it is in the Book of Mormon.

Gotta love that circular logic. I do. The Mormon faith is based in a similar pattern of reasoning.

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.

-You have not interacted with the fact that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac except once, when you said "that is dogma, not fact" (post #83). When shown a passage from the Doctrine and Covenants (132:36) that mentions Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac- you clam up and don't mention it again. Incidentally, the verse also deals directly with the fact that God does in fact at times command His servants to take anothers' life. I would daresay that's the superior argument, but you haven't responded to it.

-You have not interacted with the section from John Welch's paper "Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban" that I quoted in post #70, despite offering a direct response to post #70 (post #75) that responds to points both before and after the quote from Welch.

In response to my general summary statement ("You reject all this logic simply because you want to- not because it's bad or weak or wrong.") with a hazy statement that you "addressed the issue in previous posts" (I have to wonder- what is 'the issue' that you are referring to, as I mentioned two- Welch's quote and the precedent of Abraham- in post #172) . You've stated that you think the Lord commanding His followers to kill as a test of faith is not right- but when presented with evidence that the Abraham account is fact, not dogma, you mysteriously go silent pertaining to the subject. In another read-through of this thread, I see that Hemidakota once again linked Welch's article (post #121) and that you responded to that (post #127) with the following:

"Interesting link - thanks.

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

Which doesn't address the portion I quoted at all, dealing with why the Lord would have Nephi do the killing instead of the Lord Himself (therefore, you haven't interacted with that argument). In addition, your statement suddenly makes Snow's personal definition of 'murder' a requirement that God has to live by (I have seen no scriptural evidence for the brutality of a killing being a 'stipulation' for murder).

I maintain my original stance: you have not interacted with the quotation from Welch's paper- despite responding to the post it was found in, including the points directly preceding and following the quotation!

I would let this slide- if you had ever interacted with my assessment of how you used the straw-man fallacy (which I am now terming 'selective rebuttal') against my argument (post #94, at the bottom). It was in response to your words

"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." (post #83).

Of course (once again!) you responded to the post in which I laid our your actions- but you end your response with

"Thank you for your very thoughtful and considered responses. I'll read the rest as soon as I can."

Since you have done plenty of posting (starting two new threads since that time!) since then, the most charitable position I can give to you is that you forgot. HOWEVER, you HAD to have read the rest of my post and not respond to it, because my acceptance of the challenge that spawned your 'Disbelieving the Scriptures' thread came at the very end of post #94. I am forced to believe you read the whole post (or skipped to the end for some mysterious reason... But an appeal to mystery won't satisfy me) and simply decided not to respond. However, since you have a habit of responding to the slightest sentences made by your opponent if you think they are inane enough, I am forced to conclude that you didn't respond because you had taken such a firm stance that you hadn't committed the straw-man fallacy, when in reality you did and you don't want to make yourself look bad by admitting 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.

I'll correct my assertion when I get a straight answer out of you, accounting for your behavior. I will not hesitate to correct it- if you can convince me that you're not using duplicitous debate tactics.

[Justice]

All I know is being told I had to kill someone would be a GREAT trial to me, even if I knew I was justified. I would rather sacifice my life than be responsible for taking another's. And, I say that after a lifetime of thought and deliberation.

[Snow]

I'm guessing, judging by your combative nature and ability to post during the day, that you are a very recently returned missionary who hasn't gotten the Bible basing out of their system and hasn't gotten a job or started school yet.

Is that close?

The point I made is that you did catch the post and replied to everything except the John Welch quote- which, incidentally, has nothing to do with Nephi's slaying of Laban being a trial of faith. I have not read you interact with the idea that the slaying was a fulfillment of prophecy, or that it was an example to the Nephite people in later generations. If you have, please point me in the right direction- after two perusals of this thread, I haven't seen one.

I was responding to your post: "What about 'a test of faith'?" I have posted on that a number of times. If by the John Welch quote you mean the uncredited quote in your post 70, okay, I read it. I understand that the author in trying to get instead of the head of Nephi and in doing so has crafted some line of thinking that, in his opinion, might lead one to commit murder. What do you want me to say about it? It's an interesting idea. He is fairly eloquent in his presentation, but his ability to string to together a line of thinking in well written words doesn't cause me to think that the best an order from God to murder is the best solution to the problem.

Actually, it is very much an example of circular logic-

If it is a circular fallacy - it's one of the stranger ones I've ever seen. You claim that the reason for God command is that the command was recorded in the BoM. It is hard to see exactly how that is circular since it being recorded is not even a reason. It is more like a nonsensical statement or non-sequitur flapped up in a circular spin.

the premise is that the Book of Mormon is true and inspired of God and presented to us in a purely correct form- therefore, all the doctrine and events found therein represent things as they really happened and accurately reflect the nature of God.

That's not my premise. My premise is that the Book of Mormon's translation was inspired by God and that in it's ability to teach gospel truths, it is the most correct of all books. That ancient writers were historically accurate recorders of factual reality is not known with certainly, but we do know for a fact that the book comes with a disclaim warning against the absolute sense of it's purity.

The argument begins and ends with the idea that the Book of Mormon is inspired- one arrives at said idea by gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon. This reasoning is a logical fallacy- a logical weakness. Then again, we read in 1 Corinthians 1:25 that "the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men".

That's true. Those that are primarily driven by dogma to the exclusion of all else with start and end with that idea.

Fortunately for me, I am not bound by the chains of dogmatic thinking. Your mileage may vary.

In this instance, I will stand by my circular reasoning- and, frankly, it's stronger than your own reasoning because it

By the way - to be clear - circular reasoning is not a case of reason. It is a fallacy - the lack of reason.

1) admits to being based in circular reasoning (when the best you've ever come up with "A just God wouldn't command murder!" and never offer any real evidence for that dogmatic assumption),

Of course you know that isn't true. You know that my reasoning is that a just and benevolent God does not act in a way that contradicts his nature - so acts that are unjust or cruel as antithetical to such a God, and you also know that I said that Nephi is not a great example of that dilemma. However, even though it is not a great example, the issue remains problematic for me with the stated reasons.

Let's be accurage - runs counter to what some people believe is revealed scripture.

Your only real rebuttal to point 1 is 'that's not true!' (when it is), and to point number 2 is 'the scriptures are faulty'- hence, your two recent threads detailing accounts in the Bible that you think most Mormons reject in the same way that you reject 1 Nephi 4.

You know that isn't true as shown above so please stop saying it.

And, technically, my logic is the logic found in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 4:10-18. In it, we are privy to the thought process that Nephi underwent to arrive at the conclusion that he should kill Laban. Of course, I accept that because it is in the Book of Mormon.

Technically you are privy to what Joseph Smith wrote that Nephi says was his thought process. Big difference.

By the way, I have not received a testimony that God orders his followers to kill other people, both innocent and not. Have you in fact received a testimony that God orders his followers to brutally kill people?

Gotta love that circular logic. I do. The Mormon faith is based in a similar pattern of reasoning.

Sorry - can't identify.

-You have not interacted with the fact that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac except once, when you said "that is dogma, not fact" (post #83). When shown a passage from the Doctrine and Covenants (132:36) that mentions Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac- you clam up and don't mention it again. Incidentally, the verse also deals directly with the fact that God does in fact at times command His servants to take anothers' life. I would daresay that's the superior argument, but you haven't responded to it.

Where did you get that terminology "interacted?"

How this for my interaction: I have not been inspired by the Spirit to know that God tests his servants by asking them to murder their children and until I am so inspired, I doubt it happened that way as a non-evil God does not command evil in his followers.

... as for the rest of your post, it's getting a little tedious. May I suggest and little attention to succinctness might make it easier to get through. I may pick up the rest later.

[Snow]

If you do believe the Book of Mormon is true then why do you not accept what it says at face value? It seems cut and dry to me ... This is what Heavenly Father decided Labans head must come off. Why do I believe it because the Word of God says so! I just don't get what answer you are looking for , It seems to me you will have to wait until you return to Heavenly Father to get the answer you are looking for none of us know the why of His decision... And, when I said I felt sorry for you it was because I believed you did not accept the truth of the Book of Mormon. If I am wrong I am sorry. But it does seem to me to be a contradiction to say one believes it is the Word of God and then question it....

Here's the point: Most people, not just me, pick and choose what parts of scripture they believe.

Take a look at my threads on Disbelieving Scripture and the Inferiority of Women to find numerous examples of scripture that, fortunately, most people reject or at least without acceptance. You say it seems a contradiction to say one believes the Word but then questions it.

Let's take an example: Please look at genealogies of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 and tell me which one (or neither) you accept and which you reject. Note that they are different so they cannot both be accepted.

Also: if you are going to claim "mistranslation" please post your factual evidence that a mistranslation occurred.

[Just_A_Guy]

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 are aware that there are other meanings of "ignore" besides merely "to refuse to take notice of", right?

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.

You're trying to tell me that you reject--er, question--a scripture, not because you disagree with it or dislike it per se, but only because you find yourself able to poke rhetorical holes in the arguments of those who take the scripture at face value? The only way I see you getting there is if you read the scriptures with a presumption that they are not true, unless you can find a good logical reason why they are.

Of course, if you want to tell me that you have subjected (or intend to subject) every verse of every chapter of every verse of scripture to the same scrutiny to which you subject the story of Nephi and Laban. Including, presumably (for example) such innocuous scriptures as 1 John 3:23.

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.

Except when you use those scriptures to cast doubt on the veracity of the scripture originally under discussion. Then, it's just a straw man.

No, I do not assume [that a just and benevolent God would never order a killing]. . . 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.

Er . . . your first post to this thread used the expression "sully his hand with murder". Later, before you ever mentioned OT stories, you spoke* skeptically of "the legitimacy of ancient behaviors". Still later, you said* "It's quite another thing to reconcile am [sic] instruction to murder with a benevolent, just God." And finally, you said*:

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.

If you make no such assumption, why were two of your three "options" rooted in that very assumption; and why have you (so far as I can tell) made zero attempt to actually reconcile it yourself in this forum?

*Lest I be accused again of "dishonesty", please note that when I say "spoke" or "said", I include "wrote" or "posted".

[Snow]

You are aware that there are other meanings of "ignore" besides merely "to refuse to take notice of", right?

Okay - you used the word in a way that didn't grasp from your post.

You're trying to tell me that you reject--er, question--a scripture, not because you disagree with it or dislike it per se, but only because you find yourself able to poke rhetorical holes in the arguments of those who take the scripture at face value? The only way I see you getting there is if you read the scriptures with a presumption that they are not true, unless you can find a good logical reason why they are.

Will you please hold me accountable for what I say instead of what you invent?

Thank you.

Of course, if you want to tell me that you have subjected (or intend to subject) every verse of every chapter of every verse of scripture to the same scrutiny to which you subject the story of Nephi and Laban. Including, presumably (for example) such innocuous scriptures as 1 John 3:23.

... what? You sentence was incomplete so I don't know what your point is.

Except when you use those scriptures to cast doubt on the veracity of the scripture originally under discussion. Then, it's just a straw man.

But of course that is not what I did and you know it. Please hold me accountable for my own actions, not those you invent.

I specified differences between the two sets of scriptures and addressed each on it's own terms.

Er . . . your first post to this thread used the expression "sully his hand with murder". Later, before you ever mentioned OT stories, you spoke* skeptically of "the legitimacy of ancient behaviors". Still later, you said* "It's quite another thing to reconcile am [sic] instruction to murder with a benevolent, just God." And finally, you said*:

If you make no such assumption, why were two of your three "options" rooted in that very assumption; and why have you (so far as I can tell) made zero attempt to actually reconcile it yourself in this forum?

What "such assumption?" What are you trying to say.

*Lest I be accused again of "dishonesty", please note that when I say "spoke" or "said", I include "wrote" or "posted".

I've decided to not call you dishonesty. I now simply call upon you to address what I actually say and do instead of what I haven't said or done.

[Maxel]

Snow-

I just finished writing a long post detailing exactly how I felt about your most recent response. I will not post it- I just deleted it- because I think it's too harsh, and I want to walk away from this while maintaining some level of civility between us. Know that I have, in fact, read your post and processed what you've said.

In closing, all I have to say is that I believe I'm right and that the scriptures support my own view; and I believe that you're wrong and that the scriptures run opposite to your view. I am content to leave it at that.

[Just_A_Guy]

Will you please hold me accountable for what I say instead of what you invent?

Like this?

Er . . . your first post to this thread used the expression "sully his hand with murder". Later, before you ever mentioned OT stories, you spoke* skeptically of "the legitimacy of ancient behaviors". Still later, you said* "It's quite another thing to reconcile am [sic] instruction to murder with a benevolent, just God." And finally, you said*:

... what? You sentence was incomplete so I don't know what your point is.

Apologies. Let me try again:

Unless, [o]f course, you want to tell me that you have subjected (or intend to subject) every verse of every chapter of every verse of scripture to the same scrutiny to which you subject the story of Nephi and Laban. Including, presumably (for example) such innocuous scriptures as 1 John 3:23.

But of course that is not what I did and you know it. Please hold me accountable for my own actions, not those you invent . . . I specified differences between the two sets of scriptures and addressed each on it's own terms.

Your actions were that you entered into a discussion of Nephi (and Nephi only, at that point) and started dropping hints about how scriptural stories of violence aren't always necessarily "legitimate". The net effect of such an action is to cast doubt on the veracity--or at least the legitimacy--of Nephi's story.

What "such assumption?"

The assumption that I mentioned here, and you referred to here, and which I restated in the very post to which your last was intended to respond: viz, that a just and benevolent God would never order a killing.

[Snow]

Snow-

I just finished writing a long post detailing exactly how I felt about your most recent response. I will not post it- I just deleted it- because I think it's too harsh, and I want to walk away from this while maintaining some level of civility between us. Know that I have, in fact, read your post and processed what you've said.

In closing, all I have to say is that I believe I'm right and that the scriptures support my own view; and I believe that you're wrong and that the scriptures run opposite to your view. I am content to leave it at that.

Okay - btw, I know that scriptures support your view, not mine. My point is that scripture, not necessarily the Nephi account (but possibly) may not be a completely accurate depiction of reality. I understand you disagree.

[Snow]

Like this?

Yes - like that.

Apologies. Let me try again:

Your actions were that you entered into a discussion of Nephi (and Nephi only, at that point) and started dropping hints about how scriptural stories of violence aren't always necessarily "legitimate". The net effect of such an action is to cast doubt on the veracity--or at least the legitimacy--of Nephi's story.

Yes, that's true. I have doubts.