Would You? Abraham/Isaac, Nephi/Laban, Saul/Amelikites

[askandanswer]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

It gets trickier because the question arises as to matter itself (atomic matter) having an individual spirit. This then creates a problem as I see it for it means that when Christ formed us spiritually, he would had to have done so from many smaller spirits (because spirit is fine matter) and I don't like that idea- it just feels too weird. Apparently our spirits cannot be un-created.

I suspect that all progress between different levels or types of existence is dependent on the combining of at least two seperate bodies - intelligence combining with spirit, then spirit combining with body, then one body to another as in marriage, then spirits combining with a glorified resurrected body. Lucifer's progress was stopped when his spirit could not combine with a body. Perhaps dust and such like are dust and such like because not enough combinations have yet taken place for them to become a higher form of life. It seems plausible to me that one way to increase in intelligence is to combine lots of individual intelligences together.  

Edited December 2, 2017 by askandanswer

[zil]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Hmm, first up, is it possible Zil that 'they were obeyed' means that the Gods watched over or observed to make sure what they had organized, didn't go off and mutate or adapt ? in other words the Gods directed the cycle of life so it would replicate itself into the future, for each generation of us to enjoy and live from? By setting the cycle of life on the earth to be self-fulfilling, it requires no oversight and therefore would require oversight only to make certain it was set to run properly from the start. 'Obey' not as a literal verb but obey as in check the course thereof.

It is entirely possible that English, or mortal languages at all, cannot relate what was going on during this part of the creation and that the way it is worded in Abraham is the way that the Lord felt best to teach us what we need to know (which has nothing to do with how to create a planet or life thereon).  But it would have been fairly easy to communicate the idea that the Gods verified that things were going according to plan using other words, and the meaning of "obey" hasn't changed much (and I see no evidence of it having ever meant "be checked up on" (which would have to be the form, not "check up on", given the subjects of the sentences)).

Anywho, because I'm willing to accept my utter ignorance on this, I'm willing to accept the idea that atoms and rocks and plants and whatnot didn't make any choices at all, they just did what they do all unawares.  But I'm also willing to accept the idea that they have the power to choose.  And I'm content to wait until the day when I remember / learn this in eternity.

53 minutes ago, Alex said:

((What you are suggesting runs very close to Spencer's account (Vision's of Glory) of the people within the earth who talk to inanimate objects and ask the objects spiritually to alter their state of being. Q- Do I believe in that account? A- Not too sure about the mysterious lost peoples of God within the earth but willing to listen to how this spirit convincing and spirit commanding works.))

Never heard of it.  There is no scriptural evidence of people being able to communicate with inanimate objects beyond the accounts about commanding mountains to move and such.  I am 100% certain that when this is successful, it is the will of the Lord and He is involved in some way.

But the ability to obey God (or God's prophets) is not the same as the ability to communicate with humans:

"Why hello there, Mr. Rock.  I wonder if you couldn't turn into a little tiny diamond for me."

"Why of course, Mr. Human, just give me a few eons."

...or, a rock turning into a plant / animal / human?  No.  There is no evidence at all that any of us can change our "species" (for lack of a better word - though this gets less absolute as one gets closer to the building blocks all of us are made of, which building blocks can combine to form something more complex).  (And that little complexity is why I don't try to figure out this kind of thing in any level of detail - it's not for me to know, and there are more important things for me to spend my time on.  It's enough for me to be open to the possibility - or the impossibility.)

 

[seanzy10]

Fascinating topic. However, I think we need to reframe the question just a little bit. Instead we should be asking what are we willing to do for God? This will be different for everybody and is a very personal question. For me I would hope I am willing to do anything for God. Whatever he asks I want to do. As a side note Harold B Lee has said that the Lord would no longer require these things at our hands at least when it comes to killing. So I am not worried so much about this particular dilemma. But awesome thought provoking soul searching question. 

[zil]

Welcome, @seanzy10!  (Sorry for missing you on Wednesday - don't recall seeing any unread posts in this thread.)    Hope you stick around to join in our conversations.

[Alex]

On 12/2/2017 at 2:52 PM, zil said:

It is entirely possible that English, or mortal languages at all, cannot relate what was going on during this part of the creation and that the way it is worded in Abraham is the way that the Lord felt best to teach us what we need to know (which has nothing to do with how to create a planet or life thereon).  But it would have been fairly easy to communicate the idea that the Gods verified that things were going according to plan using other words, and the meaning of "obey" hasn't changed much (and I see no evidence of it having ever meant "be checked up on" (which would have to be the form, not "check up on", given the subjects of the sentences)).

Anywho, because I'm willing to accept my utter ignorance on this, I'm willing to accept the idea that atoms and rocks and plants and whatnot didn't make any choices at all, they just did what they do all unawares.  But I'm also willing to accept the idea that they have the power to choose.  And I'm content to wait until the day when I remember / learn this in eternity.

Never heard of it.  There is no scriptural evidence of people being able to communicate with inanimate objects beyond the accounts about commanding mountains to move and such.  I am 100% certain that when this is successful, it is the will of the Lord and He is involved in some way.

But the ability to obey God (or God's prophets) is not the same as the ability to communicate with humans:

"Why hello there, Mr. Rock.  I wonder if you couldn't turn into a little tiny diamond for me."

"Why of course, Mr. Human, just give me a few eons."

...or, a rock turning into a plant / animal / human?  No.  There is no evidence at all that any of us can change our "species" (for lack of a better word - though this gets less absolute as one gets closer to the building blocks all of us are made of, which building blocks can combine to form something more complex).  (And that little complexity is why I don't try to figure out this kind of thing in any level of detail - it's not for me to know, and there are more important things for me to spend my time on.  It's enough for me to be open to the possibility - or the impossibility.)

 

Hmm, first things first. You mention the word 'obey' but did you know that obey had its peak usage in the English language in the 1800's. That's important because of what the church says of the language deployed in the scriptures:

"The book of Abraham was the last of Joseph Smith’s translation efforts. In these inspired translations, Joseph Smith did not claim to know the ancient languages of the records he was translating. Much like the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s translation of the book of Abraham was recorded in the language of the King James Bible. This was the idiom of scripture familiar to early Latter-day Saints, and its use was consistent with the Lord’s pattern of revealing His truths “after the manner of their [His servants’] language, that they might come to understanding.”

 So, consider this use of the word obey in this scripture: Romans 6:12  'Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.'

Consider also this use of obey in James 3:3:  Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.

See, those uses of obey plus the fact that Joseph Smith was right in the era that the word was most used, suggest obey means to follow a course or law as in I dropped my pen and it obeyed the law of gravity.

You're saying obey has always meant to choose but I'm thinking obey has often meant to follow without option.

 

[Guest]

On 12/1/2017 at 6:19 PM, Anddenex said:

Yes, it will be a question I will have to further my understanding of why He did spill blood, innocent blood, in His name, and why he commanded Nephi to kill Laban, which some are calling "greatly evil" and yet there is no "evil" that comes from God. So yes, it will be a good conversation of learning.

I can't find the post now.  But @Vort had done a great write-up on the reason for God's directive to kill Laban:

Laban had already called Laman a thief for simply asking for the plates.  Laban then pronounced sentence upon Laman by telling his men to kill him.

Later Nephi and the others take all their wealth to try to buy the plates from Laban.  Laban then steals it from them and tries to kill them again.

The Lord said, "Ok, Laban.  You believe execution is just punishment for theft -- which they were not guilty of but you were -- then I'll have someone execute you for committing an even greater crime."

LABAN WAS NOT INNOCENT.  Remember "innocent" blood?

[Guest MormonGator]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

LABAN WAS NOT INNOCENT.  Remember "innocent" blood?

It was a different time back then as well. I'm 100% certain that Thomas Monson will not be calling you up tomorrow telling you to take vengeance on the guy who robbed a bank last week in San Diego. 

 

I know you aren't saying this @Carborendum but if you think God is a-ok telling you to kill people, then if radical Muslims kill your family in a terrorist attack, it's slightly hypocritical to say anything. After all, I'm sure that they are also convinced that God is telling them it's okay to kill people as well. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by MormonGator

[Anddenex]

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I can't find the post now.  But @Vort had done a great write-up on the reason for God's directive to kill Laban:

Laban had already called Laman a thief for simply asking for the plates.  Laban then pronounced sentence upon Laman by telling his men to kill him.

Later Nephi and the others take all their wealth to try to buy the plates from Laban.  Laban then steals it from them and tries to kill them again.

The Lord said, "Ok, Laban.  You believe execution is just punishment for theft -- which they were not guilty of but you were -- then I'll have someone execute you for committing an even greater crime."

LABAN WAS NOT INNOCENT.  Remember "innocent" blood?

On 11/28/2017 at 12:12 PM, Anddenex said:

Fifth, being blown away by this conversation would be similar to being blown away by people who protect in self-defense, and yes brother, God could command you (general) when you see someone in danger to kill in order to protect the life about to be taken. Laban wasn't innocent. (emphasis added)

Thank you for seeking to help clarify; although, it was solely based within one of my comments. As you can see from this thread, in a response to MormonGator, I already added "Laban wasn't innocent. Here is the my first response on this thread regarding Laban, "If I experienced what Nephi experienced, yes, I would not have any reserve to kill a "Laban." Laban sought to kill them twice. Nephi received three witnesses before slaying Laban." I am familiar with why Laban was killed, and at the same time, I would like to understand the principles/laws God works under. It is one of the many questions I will have.

The reference to the "innocent" in the quote you responded to was in reference to Saul who was commanded to kill man, women, and children (the children being fully innocent). In reference to the flood which also killed "innocent" children who were born during this time. In reference to the innocent firstborn (children) who would have died in Egypt because the pharoah would not let them go. From scripture, "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" (Source) The "infant" and the "suckling" they were commanded not to spare (the innocent I am referring to).

Thus the statement I made, and what you responded to.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It was a different time back then as well. I'm 100% certain that Thomas Monson will not be calling you up tomorrow telling you to take vengeance on the guy who robbed a bank last week in San Diego. 

I know you aren't saying this @Carborendum but if you think God is a-ok telling you to kill people, then if radical Muslims kill your family in a terrorist attack, it's slightly hypocritical to say anything. After all, I'm sure that they are also convinced that God is telling them it's okay to kill people as well. 

Yes, life was harsher then.  And the Old Testament ways of doing things is different than the way we live today.  Therefore, God deals with us differently because we as a people and a society are different.

As to the second paragraph, I don't believe it to be a good comparison.  As a book of scripture, we KNOW that God told Nephi to do this.  That is not in doubt.  When a terrorist kills someone under the notion that God TOLD him to do this, does anyone really believe that?  First of all, most terrorist attacks don't happen because anyone who carried out the deed believes they received word directly from God to do this.  They had orders from someone in a military unit.  That leader may have claimed it.  But did they really hear the word of the Lord?  

Now we get to the belief question.  I'm going to ask you to stick a pin in that for a moment as I lead up to it.

I'd turn to Paul.  As Saul, he did cause many Christians to be executed.  This was following the law at the time.  We can't blame an executioner for pulling the switch or applying the injection or pulling the trigger.  He was not guilty of murder.  Paul was in such a position.

If Nephi received such directive from God, would he not be justified under the Law of God to perform an execution?  That is exactly what it was. I doubt anyone would defy a direct order from God. Nephi shied away from it simply because he was not a soldier or executioner or anything that would kill other than for sustenance.

The only argument against it is: If anyone today were told that... (such as a terrorist)... how understanding would we be?  That's where the believability comes in.

In a court of law today where we have physical evidence requirements and the court of public opinion where no evidence is required for anything, we have different ways of proving things really happened.  And that's the problem we tend to have with this.  Proof that God actually said...

I'll say it again.  As a book of scripture, we KNOW He said to do it.  Take that argument away and what have you got?  If we KNOW that God told a "terrorist" to go kill an entire city of people, then why would that not be justified?  God said to do it.  We obey God in all things.  Abraham knew this.  Why don't we?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Thank you for seeking to help clarify; although, it was solely based within one of my comments. As you can see from this thread, in a response to MormonGator, I already added "Laban wasn't innocent. Here is the my first response on this thread regarding Laban, "If I experienced what Nephi experienced, yes, I would not have any reserve to kill a "Laban." Laban sought to kill them twice. Nephi received three witnesses before slaying Laban." I am familiar with why Laban was killed, and at the same time, I would like to understand the principles/laws God works under. It is one of the many questions I will have.

The reference to the "innocent" in the quote you responded to was in reference to Saul who was commanded to kill man, women, and children (the children being fully innocent). In reference to the flood which also killed "innocent" children who were born during this time. In reference to the innocent firstborn (children) who would have died in Egypt because the pharoah would not let them go. From scripture, "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" (Source) The "infant" and the "suckling" they were commanded not to spare (the innocent I am referring to).

Thus the statement I made, and what you responded to.

Sorry.  I missed that post.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

When a terrorist kills someone under the notion that God TOLD him to do this, does anyone really believe that? 

Yes, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Zihad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour really believed it. They believed it so much that they were willing to kill and die for it. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Yes, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Zihad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour really believed it. They believed it so much that they were willing to die for it. 

I look at that in two different ways.

1) After the experiences I had in Afghanistan, the people that were interrogated, and responses I've heard, I don't believe they did.  That's a yarn that the media likes to spin.  Very few are really religious zealots.  Sure you could find some.  But they are the great minority.  And I personally don't believe these men ever said that God told them to kill anyone.  They simply interpreted their right to kill based on their desire for blood.  Many can interpret their right to do anything from scripture.  But how many do so without malice or evil intent to begin with?  Nephi never had malice in his heart.

2) Let's take my argument from #1 away (for discussion's sake).  I somehow am led to believe that they were deranged enough to actually believe God told them to do it.  I deny any hypocrisy here.  Two reasons:

1. If I also knew God told them to kill my family, I'd accept it.  I'd have tears in my eyes.  And I'd be heartbroken.  But I'd accept it with grief for the rest of my life.  You know I mean that.
2. One day that terrorist will have to stand before God to be judged.  God will determine whether he really thought he was "just carrying out orders" or if he did it with malice.  Whether I know of it or not, the word was either given or not given.  How does that change anything?

[Sunday21]

Ok..Hands up! How many of us, now that we have spent Xmas with the family, have a list of people we would like to kill? Me! Me!

Wishing you all a Happy Mirkwood New Years!

Edited December 28, 2017 by Sunday21

[zil]

30 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Ok..Hands up! How many of us, now that we have spent Xmas with the family, now have a list of people we would like to kill? Me! Me!

Wishing you all a Happy Mirkwood New Years!

Apparently, when Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy were asked in a TV interview if they had ever considered divorce, the answer was, "murder often, divorce never".

[clbent04]

On 11/25/2017 at 11:50 PM, lostinwater said:

i have thought a lot about this.  Would i take the life of another when my blood was 'cold'.

i guess my answer would be no - i hope it would be no at least.  i suppose a lot of that is based on the assumption that any prompting to do so even in the slightest resembles what i've experienced to this point in my life.  Even if it weren't and i was more sure than i have ever been about anything else, i still feel like i hope i would refuse.  

Not looking to argue the point - but i have seen inferences to things like that pop up in other threads, and want to see how other people deal with questions like this.  If your answer is yes, i would be interested to know what intensity or form of prompting it would require to justify it - if you feel that is relevant.

When I was younger and read of the Nephi/Laban story, it made me think of how extreme we were meant to be as Mormons. Were we meant to be diehard zealots ready to perform Jihad at any moment? Were we to be groomed in the Church to the point a secret word could be spoken into the microphone at Church that could trigger all of us into action?  This, of course, was mostly the imagination of a younger me trying to comprehend taking a life in “cold blood” as you say, or imagining how one could feel the Holy Spirit to be prompted to commit such an act.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

mostly

mostly?

[clbent04]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

mostly?

Well I didn’t make up the Nephi/Laban story, so as far as Mormons believe God can command someone like Nephi to righteously kill in His name, that part doesn’t come from my imagination, but my exaggerated application of it did.

Edited January 5, 2018 by clbent04

[askandanswer]

I was thinking about this story the other day and I started to wander why Nephi had to kill Laban rather than just temporarily disabling him. Surely a temporary disabling would have accomplished the same effect as killing with, with fewer adverse consequences? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[NeuroTypical]

You'll have to ask God on that one.  An even better thing from our mortal eyes is if Nephi just crept in and stole everything while everyone was asleep.

Or if God had softened the heart of Laban the first time when Nephi and bros tried to purchase the records.

Or if God sent an angel to command or constrain Laban.

You can quickly drive yourself crazy with "why did God X when He could have Y" type questions. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, askandanswer said:

I was thinking about this story the other day and I started to wander why Nephi had to kill Laban rather than just temporarily disabling him. Surely a temporary disabling would have accomplished the same effect as killing with, with fewer adverse consequences? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The easy answer is, "Because God told him to do so." That begs the real question, of course: Why did God command Nephi to kill Laban instead of just disabling him?

To me, the answer is clear. Had Laban been left alive and bereft of the plates, knowing full well that Lehi's family had done it, he would have mounted a campaign to capture and execute the party. As it was, Laban was "murdered" (though we know it was not murder at all) by an unknown hand in the dark of night while he lay drunken. The record he was charged with was taken. Suspiciously, his right-hand man Zoram went missing at the same time. Conclusion: Zoram killed Laban and made off with the plates! Let's hunt down Zoram! Where to start? Obviously, at Zoram's abode, and then maybe at his ancestral home, etc. No thought would be given to a group who left the area of Jerusalem some months previously and were presently living as nomads a hundred miles or more to the south.

[askandanswer]

I think that enough people working in an organised manner on such questions could lead to a better understanding of God. Joseph Smith has instructed us on the necessity of comprehending God and analysing His actions and choices is one way of doing so as our motives and values are often revealed by our actions. God wants His children to know Him.

Edited January 5, 2018 by askandanswer

[zil]

53 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Well I didn’t make up the Nephi/Laban story, so as far as Mormons believe God can command someone like Nephi to righteously kill in His name, that part doesn’t come from my imagination, but my exaggerated application of it did.

OK, Nephi / Laban story not imagination.  The below, stuff of fiction.

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

Were we meant to be diehard zealots ready to perform Jihad at any moment? Were we to be groomed in the Church to the point a secret word could be spoken into the microphone at Church that could trigger all of us into action?

 

[zil]

50 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I was thinking about this story the other day and I started to wander why Nephi had to kill Laban rather than just temporarily disabling him. Surely a temporary disabling would have accomplished the same effect as killing with, with fewer adverse consequences? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Why did they insist Zoram come with them?  Cuz if he didn't, he'd tell the Jews and they'd come a-hunting.  Same deal with Laban.  Had he lived, and found the brass plates missing, he'd've come a-huntin'.

ETA: The scriptures tell us why it was important for Zoram to come with. I think we can assume the same as reason for Laban's death (that and swift justice rather than the usual delayed kind).

Edited January 5, 2018 by zil
double apostrophication seemed better

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Why did they insist Zoram come with them?  Cuz if he didn't, he'd tell the Jews and they'd come a-hunting.  Same deal with Laban.  Had he lived, and found the brass plates missing, he'd've come a-huntin'.

ETA: The scriptures tell us why it was important for Zoram to come with. I think we can assume the same as reason for Laban's death (that and swift justice rather than the usual delayed kind).

Also:  in the scriptures, “servant” is usually just a pretty word for “slave”.  Zoram was almost certainly a slave (a valued and trusted slave, but a slave nonetheless); and Nephi freed him.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[lostinwater]

5 hours ago, clbent04 said:

When I was younger and read of the Nephi/Laban story, it made me think of how extreme we were meant to be as Mormons. Were we meant to be diehard zealots ready to perform Jihad at any moment? Were we to be groomed in the Church to the point a secret word could be spoken into the microphone at Church that could trigger all of us into action?  This, of course, was mostly the imagination of a younger me trying to comprehend taking a life in “cold blood” as you say, or imagining how one could feel the Holy Spirit to be prompted to commit such an act.

Thanks.  i have wondered similar things. 

i'm pretty confident that in the Laban/Nephi situation, i'd have assumed a very different source for that prompting.  

But i have a harder time explaining the genocide in the bible, or recommending how a person should act while fighting in a war and you and 10 of your fellows capturing a single wounded enemy soldier and having to decide whether you kill him or risk having him tell his army about your plans/position.  i guess every situation is different. 

But just the idea of murdering someone else (or several people) based on a prompting and justified by a greater-good religious argument not shared by broader society - i'd be real leery about getting behind that.  i mean, how many tortured souls are there in our prison system who've thought exactly the same thing?  i'd rather explain to God why i didn't than trying to explain my misguided faith to my victim.

i honestly don't know if other people actually get prompting so strong that make them not automatically discard it as a possibility.  If other people do, it explains why they stayed in the church and i've largely left.  That would be one whale of a prompting.