Hypothetical question.

[Guest bmy_]

I'm back from my temporary suspension from this site.. I served my 7 day ban and (hopefully) I learned my lesson. I've got no clue how long this thread will stay alive (or my account) but I'm sincerely interested in the answer to this question. Please bare with me as this is not meant to be offensive in any way.. if you find it offensive, please consider that this is a serious topic that one must deal with sooner or later.

1 Nephi 4:18 says.. (and this is the basis of my topic)

"18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword."

If commanded to by the Prophet.. would you..

1) Kill your son or daughter?

2) Kill your mother/father?

3) Kill your Bishop?

4) Set off a bomb in the parking lot after Church?

If yes -- why? If no -- why not? Yes.. I realize that this is not even a remotely likely situation.. that does not matter. It's a what if situation.

I'll start.. as I find that fair. No (to all) I would not. I'd surely accept the consequences as I feel that whatever punishment given to me for failing this task is nothing compared to the guilt I would feel.

[a-train]

I'd do whatever the LORD commands. Does that mean I would do one of the above on simply the word of a General Authority or even President Monson? Of course not. I would require the LORD to reveal directly to me that the commandment was His will.

This is true however, not only for the activities above, but for the very basis of the authority of the President of the Church in the first place as well as all things commanded through Him and all Church leaders. I would say the same about home teaching. Do not do your home teaching strictly because your EQ President says so, get a revelation.

-a-train

[Guest bmy_]

I'd do whatever the LORD commands. Does that mean I would do one of the above on simply the word of a General Authority or even President Monson? Of course not. I would require the LORD to reveal directly to me that the commandment was His will.

This is true however, not only for the activities above, but for the very basis of the authority of the President of the Church in the first place as well as all things commanded through Him and all Church leaders. I would say the same about home teaching. Do not do your home teaching strictly because your EQ President says so, get a revelation.

-a-train

Thanks for the reply. Is President Monsons word not good enough.. and you feel like you would need further validation? What would you suspect him of to make you doubt him? There are some who would say that our Prophet telling you to do the deed is personal revelation.

I'm sorry.. it really is an unfair question. Thank you for your patience

[a-train]

Thanks for the reply. Is President Monsons word not good enough.. and you feel like you would need further validation? What would you suspect him of to make you doubt him? There are some who would say that our Prophet telling you to do the deed is personal revelation.

I'm sorry.. it really is an unfair question. Thank you for your patience

Anyone saying that revelation through someone else is "personal" is simply wrong.

Let me be as clear as I can. NO. President Monson's word is NOT good enough.

I need a personal revelation directly from God to believe that anything President Monson says was revealed to him by God really was.

The missionaries teach personal revelation on the very first discussion. Why? Because one cannot know if the Book of Mormon is true, if the Church really was restored by God, if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, or anything for that matter without personal revelation.

I don't believe ANYONE who claims to have revelation for and in behalf of me without a direct revelation from God affirming so.

-a-train

[Guest bmy_]

Anyone saying that revelation through someone else is "personal" is simply wrong.

Let me be as clear as I can. NO. President Monson's word is NOT good enough.

I need a personal revelation directly from God to believe that anything President Monson says was revealed to him by God really was.

The missionaries teach personal revelation on the very first discussion. Why? Because one cannot know if the Book of Mormon is true, if the Church really was restored by God, if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, or anything for that matter without personal revelation.

I don't believe ANYONE who claims to have revelation for and in behalf of me without a direct revelation from God affirming so.

-a-train

I'm glad you take that view. You sustained the Prophet as I did.. we already acknowledged that he is capable of receiving revelation for us. What i'm digging at is the why behind our need for further validation of a given revelation? Why can we not accept this hypothetical command at face value.. a direct message from God to us from a man who God speaks and commands through.

If one truly believed the Church is true.. would the Prophets commandments not be as good as one given directly from God?

Edited June 17, 2009 by bmy_

[a-train]

I'm glad you take that view. You sustained the Prophet as I did.. we already acknowledged that he is capable of receiving revelation for us. What i'm digging at is the why behind our need for further validation of a given revelation? Why can we not accept this hypothetical command at face value.. a direct message from God to us from a man who God speaks and commands through.

If one truly believed the Church is true.. would the Prophets commandments not be as good as one given directly from God?

Sustaining an elder's calling to the highest authority in the priesthood order is not the same as promising to believe and to follow his every word from thenceforth. Is it not possible that he could be misled or wrong? Certainly it is possible. We are each individually responsible for consulting the LORD in all things and acting accordingly.

-a-train

[Guest bmy_]

Sustaining an elder's calling to the highest authority in the priesthood order is not the same as promising to believe and to follow his every word from thenceforth. Is it not possible that he could be misled or wrong? Certainly it is possible. We are each individually responsible for consulting the LORD in all things and acting accordingly.

-a-train

Thank you. This is my attitude almost exactly. In the scenario posed in this thread.. I would say no (if I even could, in the presence of God..) simply because at this point in time I feel like nothing is worth that. It's not the idea that the Prophet is wrong.. it's the idea that he could be wrong that makes me hesitate.

However.. what of statements like this one? It got quite a bit of 'thanks' in another thread (so obviously quite a few people agree). I invited this person into this thread to discuss.. so we'll see how it goes from here.

It seems to me that people take the saying 'when the Prophet speaks the discussion is over' a bit to far.

Silly me, I thought we were led by a prophet of God, and I thought perhaps this was the Lord's church, and that He was at the head of it, and that He gave His prophets guidance about His will for His church...

If we believe we are led by a prophet of God, and if we believe the scripture that says God reveals his secrets to his prophets.... Time to follow the prophet...

If we don't believe it, why are we members of this church? If we are NOT led by a prophet, all these sacrifices are unnecessary.

[a-train]

Thank you. This is my attitude almost exactly. In the scenario posed in this thread.. I would say no (if I even could, in the presence of God..) simply because at this point in time I feel like nothing is worth that. It's not the idea that the Prophet is wrong.. it's the idea that he could be wrong that makes me hesitate.

However.. what of statements like this one? It got quite a bit of 'thanks' in another thread (so obviously quite a few people agree). I invited this person into this thread to discuss.. so we'll see how it goes from here.

It seems to me that people take the saying 'when the Prophet speaks the discussion is over' a bit to far.

There are members of every stripe in this Church. Some take things dogmatically like those in other Christian circles. The scriptures and the prophets teach otherwise. We are to receive personal revelation. Joseph Smith taught that salvation without it is impossible.

Let me ask you this: If an elder in the Church, serving in a position of authority did something not in harmony with the will of the LORD and/or counseled others to do so, would we sustain him by supporting his bafoonery? We are to sustain him in his calling, not bafoonery.

-a-train

-a-train

[Guest bmy_]

There are members of every stripe in this Church. Some take things dogmatically like those in other Christian circles. The scriptures and the prophets teach otherwise. We are to receive personal revelation. Joseph Smith taught that salvation without it is impossible.

Let me ask you this: If an elder in the Church, serving in a position of authority did something not in harmony with the will of the LORD and/or counseled others to do so, would we sustain him by supporting his bafoonery? We are to sustain him in his calling, not bafoonery.

-a-train

We would not. Thank you for contributing in this thread.. was fun I'll admit that it scares me a bit that there are people out there who harbor no doubt whatsoever.. I hope that people learn to doubt.. because without at least some doubt faith means nothing.

[pam]

If back from a 7 day suspension why did you find it necessary to start a new account? Which BTW is against the rules to have 2 accounts.

[hordak]

I'm back from my temporary suspension from this site.. I served my 7 day ban and (hopefully) I learned my lesson. I've got no clue how long this thread will stay alive (or my account) but I'm sincerely interested in the answer to this question. Please bare with me as this is not meant to be offensive in any way.. if you find it offensive, please consider that this is a serious topic that one must deal with sooner or later.

1 Nephi 4:18 says.. (and this is the basis of my topic)

"18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword."

If commanded to by the Prophet.. would you..

1) Kill your son or daughter?

2) Kill your mother/father?

3) Kill your Bishop?

4) Set off a bomb in the parking lot after Church?

If yes -- why? If no -- why not? Yes.. I realize that this is not even a remotely likely situation.. that does not matter. It's a what if situation.

I'll start.. as I find that fair. No (to all) I would not. I'd surely accept the consequences as I feel that whatever punishment given to me for failing this task is nothing compared to the guilt I would feel.

No. Due to some experiences in my misguided youth, "shell shocked" vets i know, and my wifes experience in the ER (many psych patients don't know they are psych patients) i am well aware of the minds ability to manufacturer dreams, thoughts, feelings, urges, and visions both aided and unaided and how "real" it can be to the person.

A google search will show that it isn't that uncommon for "God to tell someone" to do something horrible. We on the outside say it's a cop out or they are nuts but in either event it was "real" enough to cause them to complete said act when conscience and society would have taught them it is wrong.

I wouldn't want to be that person. If asked by God to kill someone i would doubt my sanity and get checked out.

[NeuroTypical]

A thing to note about Nephi: No mortal being told him to kill Laban. A little more context to verse 18 is warranted.

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

It's not like Nephi got a warm fuzzy about killing Laban and said "sure, why not". The Spirit proposed an action that revulsed him. He initially refused. Then the Spirit laid out a rational argument for Nephi. The combination of a good reason, plus the fact that the good reason was God's will, had to happen before Nephi chose to follow the spirit.

To answer the OP's question, no - outside of service in armed forces during wartime, I would not follow any mortal human's command to kill someone or commit an act of terrorism, prophet or not. If the Lord wants me to do what He wanted Nephi to do, I'd need to have a similar experience to Nephi. Meaning, the spirit would have to show me why, and there would have to be absolutely no doubt that it was the spirit who was talking to me - as opposed to a mental illness or halucination.

That's my answer. I figure I can give it to my Lord on judgement day while I'm on my knees before Him, I figure I can give it to all of you too.

LM

[NeuroTypical]

It seems to me that people take the saying 'when the Prophet speaks the discussion is over' a bit to far.

Yeah, people shouldn't follow 'sayings', they should follow commandments.

Not only that, they should make sure the 'saying' they've decided to talk about is an actual saying in the first place. "When the Prophet speaks the discussion is over" has never been a commandment, has never been doctrine. It has never been taught in any General Conference. It has never been taught by any church leader. It has never appeared in any General Handbook or instruction manual.

Now, back in 1945, a brother by the name of Lee A. Palmer wrote a "Ward Teacher's Message" under the supervision of the presiding bishopric, in which he said "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done." When people saw that statement in a church publication, it caused quite a bit of an uproar. It caused the leader of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake to write a letter to church HQ asking for clarification. And here is the clarification letter, signed by the prophet George Albert Smith (underlining mine):

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency

Salt Lake City, Utah

December 7, 1945

Dr. J. Raymond Cope

First Unitarian Society

13th East at 6th South Street

Salt Lake City, Utah

My dear Dr. Cope:

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free

To choose his life and what he'll be,

For this eternal truth is given

That God will force no man to heaven."

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith

LM

[YellowLight]

A thing to note about Nephi: No mortal being told him to kill Laban. A little more context to verse 18 is warranted.

It's not like Nephi got a warm fuzzy about killing Laban and said "sure, why not". The Spirit proposed an action that revulsed him. He initially refused. Then the Spirit laid out a rational argument for Nephi. The combination of a good reason, plus the fact that the good reason was God's will, had to happen before Nephi chose to follow the spirit.

To answer the OP's question, no - outside of service in armed forces during wartime, I would not follow any mortal human's command to kill someone or commit an act of terrorism, prophet or not. If the Lord wants me to do what He wanted Nephi to do, I'd need to have a similar experience to Nephi. Meaning, the spirit would have to show me why, and there would have to be absolutely no doubt that it was the spirit who was talking to me - as opposed to a mental illness or halucination.

That's my answer. I figure I can give it to my Lord on judgement day while I'm on my knees before Him, I figure I can give it to all of you too.

LM

How would you be able to differentiate between the two? If you were having a hallucination of some sort, you would not be in a reational state of mind to make any other conclusion. Many people who kill their own children or others have said they SAW God or was directly told by Him, so how do you combat that?

[Wingnut]

I'm wondering what the point of this thread is.

[martybess]

The first thing that comes to my mind here is we are commanded by God to do many things. (The ten commandments for example) and we either obey or we don't. Wha'ts so special about this situation? We have a hard time obeying and many times we don't. The same can be said about this situation. We obey or we dont. Many times I do not. That's agency and that's what it's all about.

Thou shall not steal - Hmmm that's a nice pen I'll take it home from work.

Thou shall kill Laban - Hmmm that makes me feel uncomfortable all pass.

Thou shall keep the sabbath day holy - There's a rock concert on tv tonight and I'm going to watch it!

What's the difference here? What's the point of this thread? Is it because it seems to be a contradiction in commands? Thou shall not kill and the killing of Laban?

Edited June 17, 2009 by martybess

[NeuroTypical]

How would you be able to differentiate between the two? If you were having a hallucination of some sort, you would not be in a reational state of mind to make any other conclusion. Many people who kill their own children or others have said they SAW God or was directly told by Him, so how do you combat that?

I have a passing aquaintence with both halucinations and mental illness. I also have a fairly decent ongoing relationship with the Spirit. They ain't the same.

For one thing, the spirit has never guided me to harm another person. It's all about love.

Also, as I already said, the spirit gave a convincing arguement to Nephi. He stood there as a rational human being, in full posession of his faculties. Halucinations or mental illness don't exactly come with a sense that you've got both feet firmly planted in reality. They operate on fears, loves, illogical urgings, and such.

LM

[Dravin]

It is entirely right and proper to seek confirmation on teachings/principles/policies that one isn't sure about. It is not however proper to stand up in a public outlet and openly criticize/mummer. So the thanks the post you are referring to are in my estimation (or at the least for me) in support in the sentiment that we should support our leaders and sustain them. Am I perfect in this? Not by a long shot. Which is why I just thanked the post instead of going into a tirade about sustaining our leaders (which I'm arguably doing right now I suppose).

So, if say it came out, "Thou shalt not wear purple." and one have trouble understanding why and we'll even say purple is your favorite color, so its not idle curiosity, you don't want to ditch your wardrobe unless you know for sure that the Lord wants you to be following what came from the pulpit, so you start praying for understanding and confirmation. This is entirely proper. Even asking other people, "I wonder why?" and "Can you help me understand?" or saying something like, "I dunno, this is a pretty hard pill to swallow, I guess I'll have to pray about it" is perfectly fine.

Now, lets give the same situation but instead one stands up in the middle of Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society or a random public space. Now one may or may not be seeking for personal revelation concerning said teaching but you get on your soap box and start talking about how the Brethren are making this stuff up, its all to control the membership, silly Brethren you have the perfect way around this supposed teaching, you are just going to wear lavender instead, its not purple right? This is murmuring, not perfectly fine and proper.

For some scriptural examples, we have Miriam and her case of leporsy for going on about some issues she had with Moses and some Ethiopian woman. Now I don't think that had she upon having troubles with this came to the Lord in prayer for understanding would have been stricken with leprosy, she would have gotten an answer, a simple, "Don't worry about it." or something more detailed. Instead though she spoke out against him and the children of Israel got to take a break from their journeys. We also have Laman and Lemuel, if upon having troubles with their Father's claimed revelations and visions had knelt down before the lord in humility honestly wanting to know they probably would have turned out more like Nephi than they did, the history of the Book of Mormon would be vastly different (or maybe not so vastly different depending on what direction your thought experiment goes). Instead of doing this though they murmured, complained and criticized.

Does this mean you are some vile apostate? No. Heck when it comes out about undocumented missionaries serving and baptizing people breaking the law of the land by staying in a country illegally I wonder about such a policy, think I've even expressed that a time or two on this very board and may even have wondered over into less supporting and more murmuring (honestly don't remember). It can be a hard line to judge at times I suppose, but drifting from, "Okay, I'm gonna have to pray about this as I'm unsure." and "Those fools, why don't they follow the gospel as I understand it!" can be easy and the latter if left unchecked can have negative spiritual consequences.

P.S. I'm fairly sure I'm not communicating particularly well here. I just want it understood that I don't think you are some vile sinner ripe for the plucking by Satan as you lead your army of Anti-Year Wait Apostates (AYWA) against all that is just and right and true and even against Apple Pie itself. Just sometimes we get taking in by the equivalent of a jingoistic post because we get tired of those who murmur and it reaches a tipping point on some minor issue. You didn't specifically ask but I got the sense you were trying to understand where people are coming from so I spilled the beans on my erratic and probably contradictory thought process of thanking the post in question.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Dravin
Some major syntax errors.

[Carl62]

I'm wondering what the point of this thread is.

I think it's to test to see how far we'd go in obeying our leaders. Funny thing is, when I was at Utah State, I had a friend make a comment that has stuck with me to this day. He said, "I know some Mormons who'd go head first off a bridge if just their bishop commanded them to because they believe he's inspired." I've always kinda wondered about that and from what I've seen from a few LDS I know, he may not be that far off the mark.

[Dravin]

I'm wondering what the point of this thread is.

He's trying to play "Gotcha!" with Sister of Jared.

[Wingnut]

He's trying to play "Gotcha!" with Sister of Jared.

Haha...I'll stick around then.

[bytebear]

I'm back from my temporary suspension from this site.. I served my 7 day ban and (hopefully) I learned my lesson. I've got no clue how long this thread will stay alive (or my account) but I'm sincerely interested in the answer to this question. Please bare with me as this is not meant to be offensive in any way.. if you find it offensive, please consider that this is a serious topic that one must deal with sooner or later.

1 Nephi 4:18 says.. (and this is the basis of my topic)

"18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword."

If commanded to by the Prophet.. would you..

1) Kill your son or daughter?

2) Kill your mother/father?

3) Kill your Bishop?

4) Set off a bomb in the parking lot after Church?

If yes -- why? If no -- why not? Yes.. I realize that this is not even a remotely likely situation.. that does not matter. It's a what if situation.

I'll start.. as I find that fair. No (to all) I would not. I'd surely accept the consequences as I feel that whatever punishment given to me for failing this task is nothing compared to the guilt I would feel.

Very few people in the history of the world will be put in a position that you describe. In fact, it is so rare that the few examples we have of it are well known. In the scenarios you have suggested, I can only think of one that fits any of them, and that is of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Of course, you could also apply the same logic to Jesus Christ himself. God had the power to save him. Why didn't he? Did God kill his own son?

So, this kind of question is really akin to the age old question of "Why do good things happen to bad people?" Those who have faith know there is a purpose for everything. Those who don't use it as an excuse to reject God and faith.

[mountthepavement]

To answer the OP's question, no - outside of service in armed forces during wartime, I would not follow any mortal human's command to kill someone or commit an act of terrorism, prophet or not.

That's a very interesting point.

Then, what do you think is qualitative difference between the OP's situation and war time? Or is the difference between them purely quantitative -- y'know, greater numbers.

[Dravin]

Very few people in the history of the world will be put in a position that you describe. In fact, it is so rare that the few examples we have of it are well known. In the scenarios you have suggested, I can only think of one that fits any of them, and that is of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Of course, you could also apply the same logic to Jesus Christ himself. God had the power to save him. Why didn't he? Did God kill his own son?

Actually even Abraham doesn't quite fit as he received revelation himself concerning Isaac, if Melchezidek had came to him and told him he needed to sacrifice his son that'd be more akin to the scenario proposed. Its this same reason that Nephi doesn't quite fit either as it wasn't Lehi that told him to do what he did but he received the revelation himself concerning Laban.

The closest we have to a scriptural example to this, off the top of my head, is Israel being commanded by Samuel to not spare anyone, man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Dravin

[bmy-]

Whew. Thank you for clearing my account issue up Pam (I assume it was you).

I'll get to the points through the thread and start from there.