Opposing Commands (a discussion of Nephi's guilt)


Lucread
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't really know why I brought this up in another thread (part of a ramble, clearly, but still), but I did and it caught a couple of eyes. And looking over it again, I decided to take Maya's advice and start a thread about this (and I assume this is the appropriate forum).

This particular discussion came up a lot in converations with non-members who were familiar with the Book of Mormon, or at least the early parts of it, and as such became the focus of a conversation I had with a friend of mine one night while we were closing the store we worked at (it was a Blockbuster Video, if that matters to you, but its not important). Through our conversation, his question rounded back to this very point, and he claimed it as the only problem he "really" had with the Book of Mormon (note that he was/is a temple worthy man, but this still bothered him).

The issue: Why would (or even how could) God command Nephi to kill Laban?

A valid question and argument, for all intents and purposes. And a very difficult one to answer. Such a command is in direct opposition with the sixth commandment, and while some may try to jusify it due to Laban being an exceptionally evil person, that explanation is flawed inasmuch that the commandment states "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not kill unless the guy is really evil and totally deserves it."

Now, while the latter was technically the Catholic mentality during the Crusades, as has it been used in varying other wars throughout history, the fact is that it is not what God commanded, and is thus no excuse nor explanation. So this event, of Nephi killing Laban, becomes an issue.

How do you explain it? How can you in strictly religious terms?

I don't think you can, as I don't think its possible to do so.

Due to this, and reading over the event and pondering about the issue at great length... I came to a conclusion for myself that resides within the humanity of Nephi. Now I know this isn't exactly going to be an explanation that goes over well with everyone, but its the only explanation I can see justified with any form of logic.

Nephi lied.

See... I refuse to believe that God would command anyone to break one of his own commandments as anything but a test (meaning he would stop them from actually commiting the act like he did with Abraham)... thus I find it much easier to believe in Nephi being an imperfect human being.

So lets take at this altered series of event as a theory:

Having been commanded to retrieve the plates, Nephi finds Laban upon the ground, grasping them tightly... trying to figure out how to get them away from him, he sees Laban's sword, and decides the easiest way would be to slay him. Commiting a grievous act of necessity, Nephi successfully retrieves the plates... but as a record of his actions, he gives himself an excuse, and claims that God commanded him to kill Laban.

Like I said, I know this is not ever going to be the most popular explaination for his actions, but personally, I find it to be the most logical, and most coinciding with my belief in God.

That said, I bring this here for discussion. What do you think on this matter?

How do you justify Nephi's actions and/or God's contradicting command?

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it isn't a very popular belief among the LDS faithful that God can command someone to do something contrary to what he has commanded someone else, but if we look at the entire story of Lehi and his family we see examples of this. During the time period of Lehi's departure, the prophets were all commanded by Jeremiah to preach repentance to the city of Jerusalem. THAT was the commandment of the time – but Lehi did not obey that commandment. Instead, he was told by God to take his family and to leave the city. I have a feeling that other “members of the church” at the time knew, there would be many who would claim Lehi was breaking the commandments himself, and leading his family away on “false inspiration.” After all, Lehi WASN’T the leader of the church at this time… Jeremiah was.

But if Lehi had not disobeyed and instead followed what the Lord told him specifically, we wouldn’t have the record that later became the Book of Mormon and God’s entire plan for the restoration of the church in the latter days would have been frustrated.

Now that is probably just going to give your friend more doubts about the Book of Mormon, but there are the same examples that occur throughout all scripture, BOM and Bible, where men are commanded to do something a little “unconventional” by God, only to then be rewarded with furthering revelation, and sometimes, a call to prophet-hood – AFTER they obey.

So in my book, Nephi didn’t have to lie, because God COULD have commanded him to kill Laban, just as he commanded Lehi to disobey Jeremiah and leave Jerusalem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God commanded that we not lie, yet Abraham lied about his relationship with his wife.

And then there are these commands:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

...

And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

...

And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.(1 Samuel 15)

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded. (Joshua 10)

Go up against the land of Merathaim, even against it, and against the inhabitants of Pekod: waste and utterly destroy after them, saith the Lord, and do according to all that I have commanded thee.

...

26 Come against her from the utmost border, open her storehouses: cast her up as heaps, and destroy her utterly: let nothing of her be left.(Jeremiah 50)

And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.(Judges 21)

There's more, but the point is that the Nephi-Laban story is far from the only example of the Lord giving conflicting commandments. Additionally, it was not a general commandment given -- it was a specific one, to a specific person, in a specific circumstance, for a specific purpose. Furthermore, we read later in the Book of Mormon that it is acceptable to go to war in defense of one's family and liberties. Laban had already sent men at his command after Nephi and his brothers at least once. If Nephi (or his brothers) had openly attempted to obtain the plates from Laban again, Laban likely would have killed them. It was necessary to slay Laban in order to obtain the plates and stay alive. It was crucial that Nephi's family have the scriptures with them as they traveled to the New World, and the Lord knew that. It was a "greater good" situation, and I see no conflict whatsoever when the situation is looked at in the proper context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the time period of Lehi's departure, the prophets were all commanded by Jeremiah to preach repentance to the city of Jerusalem. THAT was the commandment of the time – but Lehi did not obey that commandment. Instead, he was told by God to take his family and to leave the city.

Well, he did preach to the people -- that was why they wanted to kill him, partially precipitating the need to leave Jerusalem. We just don't learn much about his preaching because the opening of the Book of Mormon focuses on the leaving right away.

18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

19 And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.

20 And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. (1 Nephi 1)

That happens after a vision, but before the dream in which Lehi is commanded to leave Jerusalem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wing: I agree with you, and certainly don't think Lehi did anything wrong (I use the term "disobeyed" lightly), but I do wonder how many people today, if we faced a similar circumstance, would claim Lehi wasn't "enduring to the end" by preaching even in the face of death if that is what the prophet commanded (not bothering to pray and ask Heavenly Father if he happened to tell Lehi something else)? After all, Jeremiah and the other prophets didn't get the chance to escape from Jerusalem. How many of them knew of the imminent destruction but were required of the Lord to stay anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there is a difference between killing, and murdering... we're not supposed to murder. Killing? When I eat a carrot, I kill it.

Actually, I think you kill it when you pull it out of the ground. ;)

Wing: I agree with you, and certainly don't think Lehi did anything wrong (I use the term "disobeyed" lightly), but I do wonder how many people today, if we faced a similar circumstance, would claim Lehi wasn't "enduring to the end" by preaching even in the face of death if that is what the prophet commanded (not bothering to pray and ask Heavenly Father if he happened to tell Lehi something else)? After all, Jeremiah and the other prophets didn't get the chance to escape from Jerusalem. How many of them knew of the imminent destruction but were required of the Lord to stay anyway?

Lehi didn't have to endure to the end in Jerusalem. He endured elsewhere, as he was commanded to do. I don't see any conflict with that. I also don't believe that he had a life of ease when compared with Jeremiah and the others. He had to endure seeing half his sons try to kill him and the other half. I don't know how many of the prophets died in that siege of Jerusalem, but I believe that, on some level, they knew the city would be razed. It also doesn't seem like, from the text of First Nephi, that Lehi asked for a way out. The Lord came to him and told him to leave. And he and his family did so quickly and quietly. It may be that Jeremiah didn't even know they were leaving until well after they were gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God can't give conflicting commandments (and this one does take the cake) then that would negate a lot of personal revelation.

God told you to stop at 1 child,? blasphemy, he commanded we multiply and that is not multiplying.

God confermd you should be a cop, emt, Dr,etc. ? Blasphemy those people work on Sabbath.

I would say he gives conflicting advice to individuals more often then we think. This is just more noticeable because of it's intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been given a conflicting commandment by God in the last year and seen the wisdom in it. My daughter and family have been protected massively by Him requesting we not attend church for a time. Also the church has moved forward in my area greatly because of it. What am I supposed to do ignore God? I am not sure that is wise.

Fact is the only reason I am LDS is because God commands it, if He commands otherwise then that is more important than any scripture that is only true because of personal revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wingnut did a good job of creating references but missed one of the most pertinent examples:

1 Samuel 15: 12-33

12 And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal.

13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.

14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.

16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the Lord hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.

17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed thee king over Israel?

18 And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord?

20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the bvoice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

24 ¶ And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.

25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord.

26 And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.

27 And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.

28 And Samuel said unto him, The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.

29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

30 Then he said, I have sinned: yet honor me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord thy God.

31 So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshipped the Lord.

32 ¶ Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.

33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

This is more than just an example of God commanding his faithful to kill under certain circumstances. Like Nephi, this is a prophet of God doing the actual killing. Samuel obviously did not cease to be a prophet of God by killing the Amalekite king, but would go on from here to consecrate David as king of Israel.

As with most Old Testament stories, we don't have the whole picture. We don't know the whole story of why the Amalekites were to be completely and utterly destroyed, but that was what the Lord commanded. Saul lost favor with the Lord for not completing the task God commanded him to do, and the ruler-ship over Israel was stripped from him as a result.

Admittedly, it's not pretty nor elegant. But God had his reasons in each case, and ultimately it is up to Him and not us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard somewhere, sorry can't remember where, that Laban probably stole the plates to begin with. We know that he "lusted" after the riches they brought to buy it from him and then he sent his servants to try to kill Nephi and his brothers and took all the gold and silver they brought to negotiate with him. So, don't forget the guy is a murderer and a thief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of justifiable murder, lying and other assorted acts is indeed a conundrum. We know we are not supposed to do those things and yet there they are in print. Killing a sleeping man with a sword, in cold blood, would get us the death penalty in Texas and Utah.

In literature, there are always rogues who commit crimes that serve as a means to achieve some overall goal in the story line. Sometimes they are admirable like Robin Hood and sometimes they are loathsome like Gollum. In these stories there are lessons to be learned. They contain moral lessons and gems of wisdom that we can use in our existence. The important point is distinguishing the brigandry of the rogue characters from the moral to be learned. This can be hard if we take a literal stance on the story, rather than leaning back and looking at what it meant.

Killing someone with a sword may strike the fancy of young lads dreaming of romanticized deeds of daring do by pirates or samurai on far away islands, but the action of murder still remains morally wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucread: Is this discussion helpful or are we making things worse?

Niether, really... I like the discussion, but most of these conflicts are coming up as being told one thing and then another... none of them really conflict with the broad standard ten commandments given. I don't have a problem with God "changing his mind" persay, but I don't feel as though he would order someone to specifically break one of his ground rules.

The ten commandments are the ground rules. Being commanded to preach and then do something else... these are differing commands, yes, but niether conflict with the solid ground rules set down during the time of Moses, and are therefore not something that are really comparable to the Nephi/Laban story.

Being allowed to go to war in defense is the closest thing that has been brought up, imo (the stuff Wingnut posted I've similarly always taken as authorial liberties and justifications)... but even that seems more like a "don't let yourself be killed" sort of thing. Its not exactly a commandment to go kill their enemies... they just take it as such (another example of humanity)... war can be waged without a death toll, its difficult, but maming isn't against the commandments and would leave your enemies incapable of hurting you, or anyone, ever again.

That said, it has also been mentioned that men of God have lied... so why then would it be hard to believe that Nephi did?

THAT said, changed brought up a good point... and in actuality, in many religions, and in many modern translations of the bible, the commandment given is "you shall not murder," rather than "thou shalt not kill." Indicating a significant difference between the two... this would make the command of "going to war in defense" entirely legitimized... however, that would not change the original issue with Nephi.

Taking a man's sword while he sleeps and smiting off his head can in no way be legitimized as anything but murder. So essentially, Nephi was commanded to murder Laban... and even that would still conflict with the commandment given (if you take the modern translation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of justifiable murder, lying and other assorted acts is indeed a conundrum. We know we are not supposed to do those things and yet there they are in print. Killing a sleeping man with a sword, in cold blood, would get us the death penalty in Texas and Utah.

In literature, there are always rogues who commit crimes that serve as a means to achieve some overall goal in the story line. Sometimes they are admirable like Robin Hood and sometimes they are loathsome like Gollum. In these stories there are lessons to be learned. They contain moral lessons and gems of wisdom that we can use in our existence. The important point is distinguishing the brigandry of the rogue characters from the moral to be learned. This can be hard if we take a literal stance on the story, rather than leaning back and looking at what it meant.

Killing someone with a sword may strike the fancy of young lads dreaming of romanticized deeds of daring do by pirates or samurai on far away islands, but the action of murder still remains morally wrong.

This is a good point, and very valid through literature... however within a story that is meant to be holy and true, such literary devices fundamentally should not exist. This is not a work of fiction meant to entertain. It is a work of scripture meant to teach. And what this story teaches is fundamentally in contradiction to what was established in a previous work of scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Lucread. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)

THAT said, changed brought up a good point... and in actuality, in many religions, and in many modern translations of the bible, the commandment given is "you shall not murder," rather than "thou shalt not kill." Indicating a significant difference between the two... this would make the command of "going to war in defense" entirely legitimized... however, that would not change the original issue with Nephi.

Taking a man's sword while he sleeps and smiting off his head can in no way be legitimized as anything but murder. So essentially, Nephi was commanded to murder Laban... and even that would still conflict with the commandment given (if you take the modern translation).

I think it's important to define what you mean by murder. What is murder? More importantly, how does God define murder?

Not to put to fine a point on it, but your argument is circular. You are defining Nephi's actions as murder, therefore proving that Nephi was commanded to murder. Instead, you need to prove that Nephi's action is murder. Asserting that it is murder, is insufficient.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niether, really... I like the discussion, but most of these conflicts are coming up as being told one thing and then another... none of them really conflict with the broad standard ten commandments given. I don't have a problem with God "changing his mind" persay, but I don't feel as though he would order someone to specifically break one of his ground rules.

It's fine you feel that way. However I wonder would you listen and break the commandments if revelation said if you didn't your children would be in danger?

That was what Nephi was facing. Also would you seriously put the ten commandments before God Himself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Lucread. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)

Hello!!! :D

I think it's important to define what you mean by murder. What is murder? More importantly, how does God define murder?

Not to put to fine a point on it, but your argument is circular. You are defining Nephi's actions as murder, therefore proving that Nephi was commanded to murder. Instead, you need to prove that Nephi's action is murder. Asserting that it is murder, is insufficient.

Regards,

Finrock

Murder is the act of killing someone who is not placing you in any particular harm. Killing as a last resort to a necessity I wouldn't honestly quantify as an act of murder, much as it would be in self-defense given no other out. Nephi's actions fall under this category inasmuch that he was presented with a sleeping man, and rather than figure out a less violent way to get what he needed from him, he took up the man's own sword and cut of his head. This was not a necessity, he could have gotte nthe plates through other means, and even if he had to resort to murder, cutting the dudes head off was still pretty extreme... unless Laban was an immortal, and Nephi either knew how to kill an immortal or was also one himself... in which case, where's the verse about the quickening he recieved?!

As for what God considers murder... this has been the plague of humanity for centuries. Killing other people became common place, so the definition of murder was slightly different from place to place throughout the dark and middle ages. Regardless, however, the punishments for murder were almost always (in European society) set forth as God's will. Clearly this wasn't an accurate display of what God meant, but it is something that has even remained until this day, with people on death row being given their last rights before they are executed. But all of that is beside the point.

If we take the commandment as to meaning murder, then we are left without precise definition of what constitues murder in God's eyes simply because we do not have a verse where he, himself, explains it. Therefore we are left to discern for ourselves what constitutes the act of "murder." By revelation we should believe as our lands believe. "Abiding by the laws of the land" would indicate what murder is for you given where you are, so the term would be justifiably varied from country to country, as would the temporal punishment for such an act.

But bringing it all back to Nephi... I think a better question would be how is it that someone can justify killing a sleeping person who is unaware of your pressence, be you them justified in their purpose or not, as NOT being an act of murder?

It's fine you feel that way. However I wonder would you listen and break the commandments if revelation said if you didn't your children would be in danger?

That was what Nephi was facing. Also would you seriously put the ten commandments before God Himself?

To address the latter question first; I believe that if I were commanded by a spiritual being to break one of the ten commandments, that it wouldn't be through God... if you catch my drift.

As for the first question... unlike as I am meant to as church teachings persist (placing God above all else), I would freely break a commandment to save my children... but thats me. And like I said, thats not what we're SUPPOSED to do. We actuallly had a discussion about this sort of thing in Elder's Quorom recently, and it made me realize how little I hold to the proper order of things.

See, the line of importance presented by the church is thus: God/Christ> Self> Spouse> Children/Family> Church> so on and what not. This would indicated that God's commandments are greater than your children, your spouse, and even yourself... the church itself, not sso much, but God and his Son, Jesus Christ, most definately (and the commandments are an extension of God inasmuch as they are the basics... the Core Rulebook of life, if you will).

I differ in this teaching by placing things of importance as thus: Children> Spouse> Rest of Family> God/Christ> Self> Church> so on and what not... so fundamentally my answer cannot play into your argument, as I do not hold to the standard of importance presented by the church.

(I never said I was perfect.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Nephi is going to be so self-serving in his account, why doesn't he simply omit the fact that Laban was passed out and drunk? Come to think of it, why does he need to mention Laban's actually dying--or dying by Nephi's hand--at all?

If Nephi fudges part of the account, then we really can't guarantee he hasn't made the whole thing up. In which case, the only semi-logical explanation for the presence of this story (other than historicity) would seem to be that Nephi as an author is deliberately trying to challenge us.

If that is indeed the case, then simply dismissing the story as fiction dodges the issues that Nephi wants us to confront head-on.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did not God give conflicting commandments to Adam and Eve in the garden to serve a higher purpose? Why couldn't he to Nephi as well?

Joseph Smith taught, “That which is wrong under any circumstance may be and often is, right under another…Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 255-256 as taken from Latter-day Commentary on the Book of Mormon compiled by K. Douglas Bassett, p. 17)

“Some people have wondered why God needed to have Nephi kill Laban instead of telling him simply to put on Laban's clothes and go forth in disguise to get the plates. Leaving the drunken Laban alive, however, would probably have created serious problems…Even if Laban spent the night in the streets, the next morning he would have regained his senses and would have been furious. He would have led a search party to pursue and kill Nephi and his brothers and recover the plates of brass…With Zoram gone, people in Jerusalem could well have assumed that Zoram was the one who had killed Laban…If Laban had not been killed, however, he would have known Zoram and the circumstances well enough to have suspected what had happened and to have led an effective pursuit against Nephi and his brothers. These reasons explain why it was virtually essential to the completion of Nephi's task that Laban be killed, and with a little imagination several other reasons can probably be suggested.” (John W. Welch, “Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban,” FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1992), 132.)

To say that Nephi lied seems unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Nephi is going to be so self-serving in his account, why doesn't he simply omit the fact that Laban was passed out and drunk? Come to think of it, why does he need to mention Laban's actually dying--or dying by Nephi's hand--at all?

Good argument. :)

But its flawed... see, he would have had to tell his family what he did, having commited an act that would obviously not be a secret for very long, as Laban's body would without question be found. Thus an excuse becomes a more likely (and logical) lie than a complete account of having say... just stumbling upon the plates ungaurded, taking them and making a run for it.

If Nephi fudges part of the account, then we really can't guarantee he hasn't made the whole thing up. In which case, the only semi-logical explanation for the presence of this story (other than historicity) would seem to be that Nephi as an author is deliberately trying to challenge us.

If that is indeed the case, then simply dismissing the story as fiction dodges the issues that Nephi wants us to confront head-on.

This execution of the story would actually make sense in a way... much as the Old Testament was put together as parables and stories based on truth with holy implications throughout, why could Nephi, or Mormon, even, have entered a story of half truths in order to teach us and/or challenge us in our faith.

I don't think I could really ever subscribe to such being the case with this story, however, I can see the validity of the argument (whether you meant such to be a valid point or not).

To say that Nephi lied seems unreasonable.

Perhaps... but to say that Nephi never lied seems outrageous... so where do you draw the line? Where CAN you draw the line?

(heh, my persona of the ever questioning, ever challenging theologian is cropping up... boy did my parents name me right)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niether, really... I like the discussion, but most of these conflicts are coming up as being told one thing and then another... none of them really conflict with the broad standard ten commandments given. I don't have a problem with God "changing his mind" persay, but I don't feel as though he would order someone to specifically break one of his ground rules.

The ten commandments are the ground rules. Being commanded to preach and then do something else... these are differing commands, yes, but niether conflict with the solid ground rules set down during the time of Moses, and are therefore not something that are really comparable to the Nephi/Laban story.

The most compelling evidence against you're assertion that "The Ten Commandments are the "ground rules" (which no scripture anywhere substantiates), is the fact that exceptions to those rules have occurred time and time again. The one over-riding authority is not the commandments themselves but the giver of them which is God.

Being allowed to go to war in defense is the closest thing that has been brought up, imo (the stuff Wingnut posted I've similarly always taken as authorial liberties and justifications)... but even that seems more like a "don't let yourself be killed" sort of thing. Its not exactly a commandment to go kill their enemies... they just take it as such (another example of humanity)... war can be waged without a death toll, its difficult, but maming isn't against the commandments and would leave your enemies incapable of hurting you, or anyone, ever again.

You might have missed the example I offered. The commandment was to kill every person and all the life-stock. When Saul showed mercy and took the King of the Amalekites captive alive, the prophet of God reprimanded him and Saul was chastened by the Lord as well.

Taking a man's sword while he sleeps and smiting off his head can in no way be legitimized as anything but murder. So essentially, Nephi was commanded to murder Laban... and even that would still conflict with the commandment given (if you take the modern translation).

Again, from the example that I provided, Samuel hacked the helpless, unarmed, prisoner king of the Amalekites to death, and chastised King Saul for not doing it himself. King Agag was every bit as helpless as Laban. This was the beginning of the end of Saul's authority over Israel.

Whether you understand it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the Lord has commanded the death of a helpless but wicked person in more than one instance. You cannot say that Nephi slaying Laban is a unique occurrence. It isn't.

Another such example is:

1 Samuel 17:49-51

49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

This is very similar to the case of Laban. A wicked man who defied the Lord lies helpless at the feet of the servant of the Lord. David had knocked Goliath unconscious, but the giant man was still alive. David took Goliath's own sword and cut Goliath's head off. This action was accounted as an action of righteousness for David. Yet according to the rules you're imposing upon Nephi, David should have spared Goliath's life.

There are probably many other examples that I can't think of right at this moment. The point is that the Lord can make exceptions and as such, killing is not always a sin.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the Lord can make exceptions and as such, killing is not always a sin.

My assertion is that being "commanded of God" is an excuse utilized more than once, but using the Nephi/Laban story as a focus.

As for this...

evidence against you're assertion that "The Ten Commandments are the "ground rules" (which no scripture anywhere substantiates)

Uhhhhh... actually... thats exactly what they are, as they were asserted as such. If you don't think any scripture substantiates this, you need to reread Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5... more potently Deuteronomy 5 for its first 3 verses (mostly the first verse), all listed below:

1. And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

2. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

3. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.

Sure the words "these are the ground rules" are never said, but thats as close to a biblical declaration thereof that you could hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nephi didn't lie. The Book of Mormon contains the truth, Lucread. I don't have the time or energy to read every post on this thread, but it boils down to the following:

-GOD is the master of life and death.

-The Book of Mormon is scripture, translated by the gift and power of GOD. Therefore, if it is grievously wrong then GOD has prepared, preserved, and perpetuated a falsehood.

-Obedience to the word of GOD is righteousness; disobedience is sin.

Brother, I implore you to reconsider your position on this. Search your soul and ask yourself WHY you feel that there is a contradiction here, and then seek the real reason you doubt the scriptures.

GOD bless and good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share