Disbelieving the Scriptures.

[ruthiechan]

In this passage, God (supposedly) instructs his followers to take over a city and if the city does not resist, God's followers are to enslave the inhabitants. If the inhabitants refuse takeover, the men are to be killed and the women are to be taken as booty so that God's followers might enjoy them.

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

"When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

Interestingly in this passage God (supposedly) instructs that men and non-virgin women are to be killed:

Numbers 31:17

[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."

Snow, thank you for mentioning these scriptures. They are the very ones that came to my mind while reading this thread. I hate these passages. I always get a sick feeling in my gut, and I simply have never felt the Spirit while reading them.

Here are a few possibilities I've heard of regarding these scriptures.

1: It's a gross mistranslation or it was purposely added in.

2: Moses used his authority to get what he wanted, which was more resources or maybe more women.

3: The Israelites harassed Moses about taking those lands over until he said okay fine, do what you want. Kind of like how Joseph Smith harassed God about the 116 pages until he got his way.

4: The Israelites were living a Telestial law because they couldn't handle a higher law. While Moses was on the mount they made idols to worship instead of continuing in faith, and so instead of getting the "Do this" list of commandments they got the "Do not do this" list of commandments. While I believe this, I don't see how God would want the above to occur.

5: A spin off of 4 is that the Israelites were so pathetic that they could not coexist with a people of different faith without forgetting their own faith. This is probably true, but again doesn't fly with me because why would God order them to take away someone else's land? Why couldn't God prepare a different land for them? Why punish the other people for the Israelites' weakness?

6: God didn't want the other people to continue in their sins so it was better for them to die than to continue a life of sin and so he used the Israelites to do this and blessed them afterwards. This one I find to be bologna. If God didn't want the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites to continue in their sins then why not organize a missionary effort instead?

You are more of a scripturian than I am methinks Snow. I would really like to know your take on the above verses.

[JohnnyRudick]

Snow, thank you for mentioning these scriptures. They are the very ones that came to my mind while reading this thread. I hate these passages. I always get a sick feeling in my gut, and I simply have never felt the Spirit while reading them.

Here are a few possibilities I've heard of regarding these scriptures.

1: It's a gross mistranslation or it was purposely added in.

2: Moses used his authority to get what he wanted, which was more resources or maybe more women.

3: The Israelites harassed Moses about taking those lands over until he said okay fine, do what you want. Kind of like how Joseph Smith harassed God about the 116 pages until he got his way.

4: The Israelites were living a Telestial law because they couldn't handle a higher law. While Moses was on the mount they made idols to worship instead of continuing in faith, and so instead of getting the "Do this" list of commandments they got the "Do not do this" list of commandments. While I believe this, I don't see how God would want the above to occur.

5: A spin off of 4 is that the Israelites were so pathetic that they could not coexist with a people of different faith without forgetting their own faith. This is probably true, but again doesn't fly with me because why would God order them to take away someone else's land? Why couldn't God prepare a different land for them? Why punish the other people for the Israelites' weakness?

6: God didn't want the other people to continue in their sins so it was better for them to die than to continue a life of sin and so he used the Israelites to do this and blessed them afterwards. This one I find to be bologna. If God didn't want the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites to continue in their sins then why not organize a missionary effort instead?

You are more of a scripturian than I am methinks Snow. I would really like to know your take on the above verses.

I really don't know:(

I just put this in the same category (somewhat) as David and Nephi cutting

off the head of. . .

God has His reasons:huh:

Bro. Rudick

[HEthePrimate]

-the talking donkey

Hey now, donkeys talk to me all the time! But I agree, everybody picks and chooses what they believe from the scriptures. They kinda have to, in order to avoid going insane!

HE, "The Donkey Whisperer," the Primate

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Deuteronomy 20

So the Israelites were supposed to conquer cities first by diplomacy and then by war and after succeeding they get the spoils of war. So what's the problem? That's standard practice, even today. We tried diplomacy with Iraq, then went to war and now we have the spoils - we have Hussein's palaces, his gold, and you better believe a lot of your good little soldier boys have had his women.

So the Israelites were commanded to destroy EVERYTHING of the nations whose land they were seizing in order to ensure that the pagan practices of those people would not rub off on Israel. So what's the problem?

Numbers 31

Again, standard military practice. Heck that's half the point of war is to kill the men, take the women, and eat their food. The other half of the point of war is to convert people (or kill them if they won't convert). Again, these things haven't changed even today.

Now if you want to know why God endorses these practices at these particular instances in scripture - well ask God. I can't read his mind so I couldn't tell ya. You might try reading the LDS Institute of Religion manuals (available freely online at Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Login).

[Snow]

Deuteronomy 20

So the Israelites were supposed to conquer cities first by diplomacy and then by war and after succeeding they get the spoils of war. So what's the problem? That's standard practice, even today. We tried diplomacy with Iraq, then went to war and now we have the spoils - we have Hussein's palaces, his gold, and you better believe a lot of your good little soldier boys have had his women.

So the Israelites were commanded to destroy EVERYTHING of the nations whose land they were seizing in order to ensure that the pagan practices of those people would not rub off on Israel. So what's the problem?

Numbers 31

Again, standard military practice. Heck that's half the point of war is to kill the men, take the women, and eat their food. The other half of the point of war is to convert people (or kill them if they won't convert). Again, these things haven't changed even today.

Now if you want to know why God endorses these practices at these particular instances in scripture - well ask God. I can't read his mind so I couldn't tell ya. You might try reading the LDS Institute of Religion manuals (available freely online at Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Login).

It sounds like you actually believe that God is the kind of God who orders his followers to murder, steal and kidnap (women as booty).

Okay - that's one answer. How do you reconcile that with the LDS belief that God is not evil?

[Snow]

Snow, thank you for mentioning these scriptures. They are the very ones that came to my mind while reading this thread. I hate these passages. I always get a sick feeling in my gut, and I simply have never felt the Spirit while reading them.

Here are a few possibilities I've heard of regarding these scriptures.

1: It's a gross mistranslation or it was purposely added in.

Could be but unless there is some evidence to consider, it isn't a "useful" solution.

2: Moses used his authority to get what he wanted, which was more resources or maybe more women.

That could be, but the claim of the passage is that God ordered the evil so you have to engage that part of the assertion.

3: The Israelites harassed Moses about taking those lands over until he said okay fine, do what you want. Kind of like how Joseph Smith harassed God about the 116 pages until he got his way.

Which would make God complicit in murder, stealing and kidnapping.

4: The Israelites were living a Telestial law because they couldn't handle a higher law. While Moses was on the mount they made idols to worship instead of continuing in faith, and so instead of getting the "Do this" list of commandments they got the "Do not do this" list of commandments. While I believe this, I don't see how God would want the above to occur.

5: A spin off of 4 is that the Israelites were so pathetic that they could not coexist with a people of different faith without forgetting their own faith. This is probably true, but again doesn't fly with me because why would God order them to take away someone else's land? Why couldn't God prepare a different land for them? Why punish the other people for the Israelites' weakness?

6: God didn't want the other people to continue in their sins so it was better for them to die than to continue a life of sin and so he used the Israelites to do this and blessed them afterwards. This one I find to be bologna. If God didn't want the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites to continue in their sins then why not organize a missionary effort instead?

You are more of a scripturian than I am methinks Snow. I would really like to know your take on the above verses.

All interesting points - thank you for the contribution.

I am not really much of a scripturian. I enjoy the study of the development of scripture as much as the scripture themselves.

The only way I can reconcile such actions (attributed to God) is to say what a former poster on LDSTalk said: The OT is a history of God's dealings with man... from the man's point of view.

It is, I think, impossible to think of the bible as inerrant, even in it's original form. It may possess gospel truth but the history aspect is very problematic.

[Snow]

And I assure you Snow is no troll but loves to make us think :}

Perhaps - but with a little recreational trolling on the side just to kick things up a notch.

[HEthePrimate]

Deuteronomy 20

So the Israelites were supposed to conquer cities first by diplomacy and then by war and after succeeding they get the spoils of war. So what's the problem? That's standard practice, even today. We tried diplomacy with Iraq, then went to war and now we have the spoils - we have Hussein's palaces, his gold, and you better believe a lot of your good little soldier boys have had his women.

So the Israelites were commanded to destroy EVERYTHING of the nations whose land they were seizing in order to ensure that the pagan practices of those people would not rub off on Israel. So what's the problem?

Numbers 31

Again, standard military practice. Heck that's half the point of war is to kill the men, take the women, and eat their food. The other half of the point of war is to convert people (or kill them if they won't convert). Again, these things haven't changed even today.

Now if you want to know why God endorses these practices at these particular instances in scripture - well ask God. I can't read his mind so I couldn't tell ya. You might try reading the LDS Institute of Religion manuals (available freely online at Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Login).

Whether or not it's "standard military practice" is beside the point. The point is, would a good God command genocide, rape, etc.? You talk about stamping out pagan practices and ask the question, "What's the problem?" The problem is LDS people constantly talk about both free agency and doing good works. Murdering people because they don't believe as we do is not exactly in line with the LDS doctrine of free agency, and genocide is not exactly a good deed. Mormons' justifications of those heinous Biblical acts are inherently self-contradictory. Any thinking person who wants to do justice to his own religion should put some serious thought into these questions and make up his mind about what he chooses to believe.

You suggest asking God why he endorses such practices at those particular instances in scripture. I suggest you ask God IF he really endorses such practices.

HEP

[HEthePrimate]

The only way I can reconcile such actions (attributed to God) is to say what a former poster on LDSTalk said: The OT is a history of God's dealings with man... from the man's point of view.

It is, I think, impossible to think of the bible as inerrant, even in it's original form. It may possess gospel truth but the history aspect is very problematic.

QFT. I would also add that the Book of Mormon contains truth, but is not inerrant.

"A history of God's dealings with man... from the man's point of view." What a great way to put it! Thanks.

HEP

[Snow]

QFT. I would also add that the Book of Mormon contains truth, but is not inerrant.

"A history of God's dealings with man... from the man's point of view." What a great way to put it! Thanks.

HEP

I'd theoretically agree but I don't really study BoM inerrancy.

[HEthePrimate]

I'd theoretically agree but I don't really study BoM inerrancy.

Makes sense. I'll give you one Book of Mormon example: Nephi claimed the Lord (via an angel) commanded him to slay Laban. At the time, Laban was drunk and unconscious. The idea is that it was supposedly the only way Nephi could get his hands on the brass plates and provide the scriptures to Lehi's descendants. The rationale: It is better that one man should perish, than that an entire nation should perish in unbelief. That's a BIG red flag for me, when Nephi uses the same justification for what he did that Caiaphas used for killing Jesus! I have a problem with the notions that the Lord would command Nephi to decapitate a defenceless man, and that God could come up with no other way to give Nephi the brass plates.

LDS will often concede the Bible is not inerrant, but I believe the BoM isn't, either.

Peace,

HEP

[prospectmom]

I can see why you would think that He

[Gatorman]

Faith is an amazing thing. It allows me to look at the 'inconsistencies' and say, what am I supposed to learn from this scripture. Is it that God commanded Nephi to kill? Or, is it that Nephi was provided a way to get the plates of brass, which were scriptures, which were critical to his descendents and us.

Here is the thing, all of these inconsistencies leave me with but one answer. And, it is the same answer I have for things such as 'evolution' or the question of same gender attraction being choice versus 'made that way'. I don't know. It isn't important to my salvation in this world. Heavenly Father knows and we are promised with that knowledge when the time comes. For now, I am to learn the meaning behind the scriptures, I am to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Amazingly enough, this appears to be an attitude very much in line with the leaders of the church. As such, I have faith I have the right position. Unless the leaders of the church are wrong and the rest of 'men' in the world are right. But, my faith tells me that is a false and dangerous argument.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

It sounds like you actually believe that God is the kind of God who orders his followers to murder, steal and kidnap (women as booty).

Okay - that's one answer. How do you reconcile that with the LDS belief that God is not evil?

Isn't that what He told Nephi to do? Kill Laban, deceive his servant into letting you steal the brass plates, kidnap the servant so he doesn't tell the guards.... At least God's consistent :) -- on a side note - I'd have thrown the unconscious Laban over my shoulder and carried him out of the city and back to our cave and then pulled the "good cop bad cop" routine - "if you don't hand over the plates I'll let Laman and Lamuel have their way with you"

The real question isn't whether or not God commanded these things. The question is why did he do it. The answer to Nephi's situation is in the scriptures - it's better that "one man should perish than a whole nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief". I think the same answer applies en masse to the Israelites utter destruction of those nations already residing in Canaan when they showed up. As far as God's instructions regarding the cities that are "very far off" - the "why" is probably there somewhere but I haven't searched for it.

So now we know WHY God chose to command some of these things. Your next step is to decide whether or not you're going to let those reasons interfere with your faith.

[ruthiechan]

Isn't that what He told Nephi to do? Kill Laban, deceive his servant into letting you steal the brass plates, kidnap the servant so he doesn't tell the guards.... At least God's consistent :) -- on a side note - I'd have thrown the unconscious Laban over my shoulder and carried him out of the city and back to our cave and then pulled the "good cop bad cop" routine - "if you don't hand over the plates I'll let Laman and Lamuel have their way with you"

The real question isn't whether or not God commanded these things. The question is why did he do it. The answer to Nephi's situation is in the scriptures - it's better that "one man should perish than a whole nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief". I think the same answer applies en masse to the Israelites utter destruction of those nations already residing in Canaan when they showed up. As far as God's instructions regarding the cities that are "very far off" - the "why" is probably there somewhere but I haven't searched for it.

So now we know WHY God chose to command some of these things. Your next step is to decide whether or not you're going to let those reasons interfere with your faith.

It is my understanding that if Laban weren't killed then he'd send people after Nephi and his family so he couldn't just knock him out and spare his life.

However, I must say, that there is a BIG difference between God ordering one man to be killed and ordering an entire group of people killed. Why couldn't God work it to soften their hearts, or why not do something to convince the leaders of those people to cooperate with the Israelites? When Moses convinced Pharaoh to let his people go using the power of God there wasn't an uprising. God didn't command them to rise up and fight their oppressors and kill the Egyptians. The slaves still did their work while Moses was negotiating the matter with God at his side. The people of God should not start fights, but they are allowed to defend themselves.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

It is my understanding that if Laban weren't killed then he'd send people after Nephi and his family so he couldn't just knock him out and spare his life.

However, I must say, that there is a BIG difference between God ordering one man to be killed and ordering an entire group of people killed. Why couldn't God work it to soften their hearts, or why not do something to convince the leaders of those people to cooperate with the Israelites? When Moses convinced Pharaoh to let his people go using the power of God there wasn't an uprising. God didn't command them to rise up and fight their oppressors and kill the Egyptians. The slaves still did their work while Moses was negotiating the matter with God at his side. The people of God should not start fights, but they are allowed to defend themselves.

You DO recall that before Pharaoh freed Israel, the firstborn of EVERY Egyptian family was killed? We're talking millions of people, old, young, bond, free, male, female - all killed in an instant by God himself. We are told over and over in Sunday school that God uses us to answer prayers - we are His instruments in helping other people's lives. Why is it so hard to believe that we can also be His instruments in taking them? You do also recall the whole flood story? An entire WORLD (not just a city or a nation) was whiped out that time - and yet it was one of the greatest acts of compassion demonstrated in the Old Testament.

With an "eternal perspective" these things are truly of little consequence to those supposed victims - but potentially of gigantic consequence to those spirits awaiting to come to mortality. The living Amorites had already exercised their agency - and in doing so they were taking away the agency of any children that they would have; they were committing the unforgivable sin on an unprecedented level. The same with the whole Earth in Noah's time. Had these nations continued to flourish, their descendants for generations - billions of souls - would have come to this world and never been able to choose righteousness, defeating the entire plan of salvation and making the Savior's atonement meaningless. Point blank - Satan would have won.

[ruthiechan]

Deuteronomy 20

So the Israelites were supposed to conquer cities first by diplomacy and then by war and after succeeding they get the spoils of war. So what's the problem? That's standard practice, even today. We tried diplomacy with Iraq, then went to war and now we have the spoils - we have Hussein's palaces, his gold, and you better believe a lot of your good little soldier boys have had his women.

So the Israelites were commanded to destroy EVERYTHING of the nations whose land they were seizing in order to ensure that the pagan practices of those people would not rub off on Israel. So what's the problem?

Numbers 31

Again, standard military practice. Heck that's half the point of war is to kill the men, take the women, and eat their food. The other half of the point of war is to convert people (or kill them if they won't convert). Again, these things haven't changed even today.

Yes, these are standard military practices of men.

Now if you want to know why God endorses these practices at these particular instances in scripture - well ask God. I can't read his mind so I couldn't tell ya. You might try reading the LDS Institute of Religion manuals (available freely online at Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Login).

Unless you are seeing something I'm not, Numbers 31 is entirely left out in the Institute manual.

This is what the Institute Manual has to say about Deuteronomy 20:

This chapter relates Israel’s war-making activities and gives special rules for selecting soldiers (see vv. 1–9 ). A noted Bible scholar gave some excellent insights into the principles in the Mosaic code related to warfare.

“The military laws of Scripture are of especial relevance to man, in that they involve not only laws of warfare but an important general principle.

“In surveying military laws, we find that, first , when wars are fought in terms of a defense of justice and the suppression of evil, and in defense of the homeland against an enemy, they are a part of the necessary work of restitution or restoration, and they are therefore spoken of in Scripture as the wars of the Lord ( Num. 21:14 ). The preparation of the soldiers involved a religious dedication to their task ( Josh. 3:5 ).

“ Second , the law specified the age of the soldiers. All able-bodied men twenty years old and up were eligible for military service ( Num. 1:2, 3, 18, 20, 45 ; 26:2, 3 ). This standard long prevailed and was, for example, the basis of operation in the American War of Independence. It was, however, still a selective service ( Num. 31:3–6 ), so that, for example, out of 46,500 eligible from Reuben, 74,600 from Judah, and 35,400 from Benjamin ( Num. 1 ), in the war against Midian, only a thousand from each tribe were taken ( Num. 31:4 ). The eligibility of each able-bodied man was thus in principle to assert their availability in an extreme crisis.

“ Third , since warfare against evil is godly and serves God’s task of restoration, God promised to protect His men if they moved in terms of faith and obedience. . . . In the battle against Midian, cited above, 12,000 Israelite soldiers burned all the cities of Midian and slew their men, brought back 675,500 sheep, 72,000 head of cattle, 61,000 asses, and 32,000 unmarried women, without any loss of life. Out of this, a tithe or portion was given to the Lord. Thus, where a war is waged in terms of God’s law and in faith and obedience to His law-word, there men can count on His protecting and prospering care even as Israel experienced it.

“ Fourth , exemption from military service was provided by law. The purpose of an army should be to fight God’s battles without fear ( Deut. 20:1–4 ). Exemptions were given to several classes of men: (a) those who had built a new house and had not dedicated nor enjoyed it; (b) those who had planted a vineyard and had not yet enjoyed its fruit; © and those who have ‘betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her’; such men would have a divided mind in battle; finally, (d) all who were ‘fearful and faint-hearted’ were excused as dangerous to army morale, ‘lest his brethren’s heart melt as his heart’ ( Deut. 20:5–9 ). The exemption of the newlywed men was mandatory according to Deuteronomy 24:5 , ‘When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the host, neither shall he be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife, whom he hath taken.’ Also exempt from military service (e) were the Levites ( Num. 1:48, 49 ). The Levites very often fought, but they were exempt from a draft.

“From these exemptions, a general principle appears: the family has a priority over warfare . The young bridegroom cannot serve; the new home must come first. The new farmer similarly gains exemption. Important as defense is, the continuity of life and godly reconstruction are more important.

“A fifth aspect of military law requires cleanliness in the camp ( Deut. 23:9–14 ). A latrine outside the camp is required, and a spade ‘to cover up your filth’ ( Deut. 23:13 , Moffatt). ‘For the Eternal your God moves within your camp, to rescue you and to put your enemies into your power; hence your camp must be sacred—that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you’ ( Deut. 23:14 , Moffatt).

“Another general principle appears from this law as well as the first and third laws (above), namely, that it is not enough for the cause to be holy: not only the cause, but the people of the cause, must be holy, both spiritually and physically.

“A sixth military law requires that, prior to an attack, or rather, a declaration of war, an offer of peace be extended to the enemy. The offer of peace cannot be an offer to compromise. The cause, if it be just, must be maintained; the enemy must yield to gain peace ( Deut. 23:9–14 ). A ‘sneak attack’ after a declaration, in Gideon’s manner, is legitimate: hostilities are in progress. But, prior to a declaration of war, an attempt to negotiate with honor to the cause is required. [This position is supported also in latter-day scripture; see D&C 98:33–36 ; Alma 43:46 ; 48:14–16 .] The formal blowing of trumpets, both before war and in rejoicing at the time of victory, placed the cause before God in expectancy of victory and in gratitude for it ( Num. 10:9, 10 ).

“ Seventh , warfare is not child’s play. It is a grim and ugly if necessary matter. The Canaanites against whom Israel waged war were under judicial sentence of death by God. They were spiritually and morally degenerate. Virtually every kind of perversion was a religious act: and large classes of sacred male and female prostitutes were a routine part of the holy places. Thus, God ordered all the Canaanites to be killed ( Deut. 2:34 ; 3:6 ; 20:16–18 ; Josh. 11:14 ), both because they were under God’s death sentence, and to avoid the contamination of Israel. Among related and adjacent peoples whose depravity was similar but not as total, men ( Num. 31:7 ; Deut. 1:1, 2, 16 ; 20:16, 17 ) and sometimes married women as well were killed ( Num. 31:17, 18 ), but the young virgins were spared ( Num. 31:18 ). With other foreign countries, of better calibre, any woman taken prisoner could be married, but could not be treated as a slave or as a captive ( Deut. 21:10–14 ), clearly indicating the difference in national character between Canaanites and other peoples. These provisions are quite generally condemned by the modern age, which has hypocritically resorted to the most savage and total warfare in history. These laws were not applicable to all peoples but only to the most depraved. They assert a still valid general principle: if warfare is to punish and/or to destroy evil, the work of restoration requires that this be done, that an evil order be overthrown, and, in some cases, some or many people be executed . . . .

“ Eighth, the normal purpose of warfare is defensive; hence, Israel was forbidden the use of more than a limited number of horses ( Deut. 17:16 ), since horses were the offensive weapon of ancient warfare. . . .

“ Ninth, a very important military law appears in Deuteronomy 20:19, 20 , one which also embodies a basic principle of very far-reaching implications. According to this law, ‘When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege: Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.’ The last portion of Deuteronomy 20:19 is rendered by various translators to read, ‘for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee?’ (MJV). In other words, war is not to be waged against the earth, but against men. But, even more centrally, life must go on, and the fruit tree and the vineyard represent at all times an inheritance from the past and a heritage for the future: they are not to be destroyed. Other trees can be cut down, but only as needed to ‘build bulwarks against the city.’ Wanton destruction is not permitted. . . .

“ Tenth, and finally, the laws of booty provided a reward to the soldiers ( Num. 31:21–31, 29, 30, 42 ; Deut. 20:14 ), so that there is legal ground not only for soldiers’ pay but also a pension, a reward for their services. War indemnity was an aspect of the penalty imposed on an enemy ( II Kings 3:4 ) as penalty for their offense, and to defray the costs of the war.

“In terms of Scripture, in a sinful world, war is ugly, but it is a necessity if evil is to be overcome.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 277–81.)

[ruthiechan]

You DO recall that before Pharaoh freed Israel, the firstborn of EVERY Egyptian family was killed? We're talking millions of people, old, young, bond, free, male, female - all killed in an instant by God himself. We are told over and over in Sunday school that God uses us to answer prayers - we are His instruments in helping other people's lives. Why is it so hard to believe that we can also be His instruments in taking them? You do also recall the whole flood story? An entire WORLD (not just a city or a nation) was whiped out that time - and yet it was one of the greatest acts of compassion demonstrated in the Old Testament.

With an "eternal perspective" these things are truly of little consequence to those supposed victims - but potentially of gigantic consequence to those spirits awaiting to come to mortality. The living Amorites had already exercised their agency - and in doing so they were taking away the agency of any children that they would have; they were committing the unforgivable sin on an unprecedented level. The same with the whole Earth in Noah's time. Had these nations continued to flourish, their descendants for generations - billions of souls - would have come to this world and never been able to choose righteousness, defeating the entire plan of salvation and making the Savior's atonement meaningless. Point blank - Satan would have won.

When God took the life of every first born child in Egypt it was quiet and in their sleep.

The flood, well, that was sort of a natural disaster. Some even consider drowning to be humane.

The people of God waging war against the unbelieving does not inspire people to change their ways, and taking the life of another human being outside of self defense can not be good for the soul. People do not do well in war. PTSD anyone?

When it's God who does the killing then we know it is done perfectly. He does not slide into atrocity.

I believe that Martin Luther King Jr was inspired by God, especially in the way he organized those peaceful demonstrations. The 13th Article of Faith states that we believe in doing good to all men, including our enemies. Of course, that's a Celestial Law not a Telestial Law.

And maybe that's my problem. I, who strive to live by the Celestial Law, can not understand the mindset of those who can only manage to live the Telestial Law.

[HEthePrimate]

It is my understanding that if Laban weren't killed then he'd send people after Nephi and his family so he couldn't just knock him out and spare his life.

.

That seems to be how it's generally understood. However, if God can part the Red Sea to deliver the Israelites from the Egyptians, surely he could have kicked up a little windstorm to wipe out Nephi's tracks so Laban couldn't find him. Or just keep Laban unconscious long enough for Lehi and Co. to get away. Or send a lightning bolt to slay Laban himself! Why would Nephi slaying Laban be the only possible way to preserve the scriptures for the Lehites? Surely God has more imagination than that!

My conclusion is that God did not command Nephi to slay Laban, but that Nephi said God did in order to justify his action. It's not as if he'd be the only one in history to say something like that...

HEP

Edited July 30, 2009 by HEthePrimate

[john doe]

So, Nephi lied about things in the scriptures just to make himself look good? Wow, that's quite an accusation to make. How many other lies do you think prophets have made and justified or covered up just to make themselves look good in the eyes of men and God? Do you believe any of the scriptures hold truth?

[Snow]

Isn't that what He told Nephi to do? Kill Laban, deceive his servant into letting you steal the brass plates, kidnap the servant so he doesn't tell the guards.... At least God's consistent :) -- on a side note - I'd have thrown the unconscious Laban over my shoulder and carried him out of the city and back to our cave and then pulled the "good cop bad cop" routine - "if you don't hand over the plates I'll let Laman and Lamuel have their way with you"

The real question isn't whether or not God commanded these things. The question is why did he do it.

That's hardly the real question. What is the evidence - not dogma - but evidence, that God ordered murder, stealing and kidnapping.

There is not one single itsy, bitsy shred of evidence. The source of the dogma is an anonymous author from over 2500 years ago.

The answer to Nephi's situation is in the scriptures - it's better that "one man should perish than a whole nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief".

Short of killing Laban, the whole nation would perish? Couldn't there have been a alternate way, like slipping Laban a mickey and stealing the plates?

I think the same answer applies en masse to the Israelites utter destruction of those nations already residing in Canaan when they showed up. As far as God's instructions regarding the cities that are "very far off" - the "why" is probably there somewhere but I haven't searched for it.

One could argue that Laban was evil and deserved death. You can't very argue that all the women and children of Canaan were evil.

So now we know WHY God chose to command some of these things. Your next step is to decide whether or not you're going to let those reasons interfere with your faith.

Here's a clue: A good and just God does not do evil and injustice. What's the point of trying to spin it.

[Snow]

Makes sense. I'll give you one Book of Mormon example: Nephi claimed the Lord (via an angel) commanded him to slay Laban. At the time, Laban was drunk and unconscious. The idea is that it was supposedly the only way Nephi could get his hands on the brass plates and provide the scriptures to Lehi's descendants. The rationale: It is better that one man should perish, than that an entire nation should perish in unbelief. That's a BIG red flag for me, when Nephi uses the same justification for what he did that Caiaphas used for killing Jesus! I have a problem with the notions that the Lord would command Nephi to decapitate a defenceless man, and that God could come up with no other way to give Nephi the brass plates.

LDS will often concede the Bible is not inerrant, but I believe the BoM isn't, either.

Peace,

HEP

I've argued just that point - half heartedly. One could argue that Laban was evil and his punishment was just or even righteous - maybe, maybe not, but it could be argued. However in the case of the OT God orders murder of innocents, stealing (not records but livestock) and kidnapping - taking virgins as sexual booty, ie rape. Those actions cannot be reconciled with a just and good god and trying to reconcile them is nuts.

[Kawazu]

Howdy,

On the subject of Laban's demise, check out this article-- "Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order" (Val Larsen, 2007).

Here is an excerpt:

...Few, if any of us, would want to live in a society where individual citizens are free to kill drunken fellow citizens—however guilty the drunk may be—because the citizen feels he has been constrained by God to do so. In the eternal scheme of things, it would make all the difference whether—as in this case—God had in fact instructed the perpetrator to commit the homicide. Nothing that God commands us to do can ultimately be wrong. But (since, as a practical matter, we can never know for certain whether God has actually commanded someone else to commit murder, we must hold to the rule that individual citizens are never justified in killing passed-out drunks they stumble upon in the course of a nighttime ramble through a city. If Laban is guilty of capital crimes...he should be executed by the state, not by an ordinary citizen who meets him in a chance encounter. So the stumbling block remains.

Basically, the author establishes that Nephi's role as a sovereign over his people takes place not at his coronation, which of course occurs much later, but instead during these first few chapters of First Nephi.

The first paragraph on page 4, under the heading, "Setting the Stage" explains how the family of Lehi starts to become differentiated as a sovereign people. It's an interesting take. Although the article is 18 pages, the reader gets an adequate gist of the concept by reading up to page 7 or so.

At any rate, I felt it was an engaging read. Have a great day, everyone.

Cheers,

Kawazu

Edited July 31, 2009 by Kawazu

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

That's hardly the real question. What is the evidence - not dogma - but evidence, that God ordered murder, stealing and kidnapping.

There is not one single itsy, bitsy shred of evidence. The source of the dogma is an anonymous author from over 2500 years ago.

So you don't consider the testimony of eye witnesses - even a confession from the perpetrator himself! - as evidence? I'd LOVE to see you on CourtTV, you'd make for some good laughs :)

Short of killing Laban, the whole nation would perish? Couldn't there have been a alternate way, like slipping Laban a mickey and stealing the plates?

You didn't see my little quip about siccing Laman and Lamuel on him?

One could argue that Laban was evil and deserved death. You can't very argue that all the women and children of Canaan were evil.

Why not? All the men can be evil but women and children are intrinsically innocent? That sounds sexist to me. Besides - if one man can be evil and deserve death, why can't two men? Or two men and a woman? Or 20 men and 20 women and 10 children? How does increasing the number of people make them any less sinful?

Here's a clue: A good and just God does not do evil and injustice. What's the point of trying to spin it.

Can you, 2500-3000 years after the fact, with only the testimony of "an anonymous author from over 2500 years ago" honestly say that these actions were UNjust? Tell me how you can justify such an assumption when the only accounts of the event explicitly state that it was just? What reason do you have to "spin" it as evil?

[deblldo]

Hi,

Been reading with interest, and to be honest like snow there are a few things that jump out at me as not being kind or loving, fair etc in the bible. But i also know that i wasnt there some few thousand years ago so the evidence i have is a little shaky to say the least.

For instance i have been taught for years that my loved ones (who are not saved) are burning in flames of fire right now. So after much studying and prayer i realise that this is not true, because that teaching directly contradicts who God is. Having said that , He does discipline His children (and who are we to aargue with His parenting skills?) Again who are we to say what happened when God did/didnt order/wish people to be killed?

let me ask this does it make God automatically evil and horrible if he did want people dead.

Its a bit like me saying there was once a time about 12 years ago i prayed with all my heart for God to "kill" someone, now at first glance without asking me for details or knowing the situation, you might think me a horrible and wicked person, is it my fault you dont trust me?

Thats how it can be with the bible sometimes i find, some things yes stuy search and find the truth, but others we just need to trust God that He knew better than us at the time.

deb