DiscussMormonism.com

GR33N,

Thanks for your response.

GR33N wrote:beefcalf,

I think I did understand your central point but I probably addressed it poorly.

To restate it simply. How can God command murder when murder is against God's law for us? Further how are we to discern between those who claim to murder in the name of God whether they were truly acting at God's direction or not?

Yes, I do believe you have succinctly restated a key portion of my point. If I were to refine it just a bit further I would say: A God imbued with infinite wisdom and infinite intelligence would not command his children to kill in his name. Because man's inability to know for a surety whether his brother has actually been commanded to kill or is simply claiming that he has been commanded to kill, God doing so opens the door to virtually unrestricted killing by those who deceitfully invoke the name of God as an excuse.

In the Judeo-Christian culture, we have been exposed to the concept of God-sanctioned and God-commanded killings for two millennia, so it is difficult to back up and imagine it any other way.

Let me ask you to do the following though-experiment: Excise from the Old and New Testaments any and all references to God commanding a man (or men) to kill other men. Now imagine reading for the very first time the story of Nephi being commanded to kill Laban.

Instead of saying... "hey, that's just what God wanted... who are we to say?" we would more likely say: "This must be incorrect! God would never ask us to do that which is has commanded us not to do". And any despot who sanctioned the killing of his subjects by invoking the name of God would be dethroned. Any priest or prophet who urged his followers to eliminate by sword the ungodly tribe across the river would himself be defrocked.

Again I think the scriptures I quoted answer these questions although in re-reading my post I quoted the wrong verse in Nephi.

So I'll just copy and paste the verses here:

Nephi, 4:13 "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes."

It is important for me to point out that my objection is not to having God, Himself, personally kill the offending person, whether with lighting, whirlwinds of fire, aneurisms or cardiac arrest, whatever. So my question, in reference to 1 Nephi 4:13 is "why did the Lord not perform the deed himself"? He could look into Nephi's heart and know of his faith or lack thereof, right? This test of 'doing the dirty work' seems like something fit for a mobster who needs to know, absolutely know, that their made man is truly on their side. For a God, it seems quite unbecoming.

D&C 98:31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified. You may also want to read vs 23-32 of D&C 98.

If we found these words in the first few hundred pages of the Book of Mormon, I probably wouldn't be able to say this, but why does this sound so much like Moses' eye-for-an-eye jurisprudence, which is said to have been made obsolete with the atonement of Christ? What happened 'to turn the other cheek'?

So how can God command murder? Lets look at another verse in D&C 64:10. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

My personal interpretation this: God gives his children laws to live by ie: 10 commandments. Those laws are not self imposed by God in every instance. I believe God does have laws that do apply to Him but they are higher laws that in this case supersedes.

As a society we should hold anyone who commits murder accountable for that crime as the justice system dictates. If they claim that God told them to commit the crime then God will judge them accordingly at judgement day or protect them from human justice as in Nephi's case. God doesn't expect us to differentiate between those who think they kill for him and those who actually do. Let's let God do the distinguishing either in this life or the next one.

That little bit there at the end caught my eye. Permit me to ask you this: In considering all of scripture, including the Book of Mormon and D&C, including all history which has happened since the D&C was last given a new revelation, what might you say was the most recent example of a person being killed by righteous command from God? Since the story of Nephi and Laban dates to around 600 BC, are there more recent examples? It might be that sanctioned killing has stopped, but I am wondering if you (or anyone else) can think of a more recent example.

Thanks again, GR33N, for your thoughtful reply to my musings.

beefcalf wrote:
A God imbued with infinite wisdom and infinite intelligence would not command his children to kill in his name. Because man's inability to know for a surety whether his brother has actually been commanded to kill or is simply claiming that he has been commanded to kill, God doing so opens the door to virtually unrestricted killing by those who deceitfully invoke the name of God as an excuse.

In my opinion there is error in forming an opinion of what God would or would not do based on what a predisposed definition of what rules God must conduct Himself by.

I agree, as I have said, that man cannot be expected to accept at face value the claim that a person was commanded to kill by God without further light and knowledge from God. Absent that then human justice must prevail.

beefcalf wrote:
In the Judeo-Christian culture, we have been exposed to the concept of God-sanctioned and God-commanded killings for two millennia, so it is difficult to back up and imagine it any other way.

Let me ask you to do the following though-experiment: Excise from the Old and New Testaments any and all references to God commanding a man (or men) to kill other men. Now imagine reading for the very first time the story of Nephi being commanded to kill Laban.

Instead of saying... "hey, that's just what God wanted... who are we to say?" we would more likely say: "This must be incorrect! God would never ask us to do that which is has commanded us not to do". And any despot who sanctioned the killing of his subjects by invoking the name of God would be dethroned. Any priest or prophet who urged his followers to eliminate by sword the ungodly tribe across the river would himself be defrocked.

Again I think my statement above applies. We can judge for ourselves whether God would or would not command us to do that which he has previously commanded us not to do. My opinion is that in certain situations God can and does make commandments that appear to go against previous commandments. Where is the rule book that God must live by?

beefcalf wrote:
It is important for me to point out that my objection is not to having God, Himself, personally kill the offending person, whether with lighting, whirlwinds of fire, aneurisms or cardiac arrest, whatever. So my question, in reference to 1 Nephi 4:13 is "why did the Lord not perform the deed himself"? He could look into Nephi's heart and know of his faith or lack thereof, right? This test of 'doing the dirty work' seems like something fit for a mobster who needs to know, absolutely know, that their made man is truly on their side. For a God, it seems quite unbecoming.

Of course God could look into Nephi's heart and see the strength of his faith. Consider the possibility that God had an additional purpose... possibly teaching Nephi something about himself in this moment. It would cause Nephi to grow in his confidence that he would be obedient to God above all else. (similar to Abraham's test) You may still perceive as unbecoming of God to handle the situation this way but until we know all that God knows we really are in not in a full position to make this judgement in my opinion.

beefcalf wrote:

D&C 98:31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified. You may also want to read vs 23-32 of D&C 98.

If we found these words in the first few hundred pages of the Book of Mormon, I probably wouldn't be able to say this, but why does this sound so much like Moses' eye-for-an-eye jurisprudence, which is said to have been made obsolete with the atonement of Christ? What happened 'to turn the other cheek'?

I think the verses in D&C 98:23-32 address turning the other cheek. You can apply these verses to Nephi's situation too. Laban had tried to kill him and his brothers when Nephi and his brothers went to ask (trade) for the plates of brass.

beefcalf wrote:

So how can God command murder? Lets look at another verse in D&C 64:10. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

My personal interpretation this: God gives his children laws to live by ie: 10 commandments. Those laws are not self imposed by God in every instance. I believe God does have laws that do apply to Him but they are higher laws that in this case supersedes.

As a society we should hold anyone who commits murder accountable for that crime as the justice system dictates. If they claim that God told them to commit the crime then God will judge them accordingly at judgement day or protect them from human justice as in Nephi's case. God doesn't expect us to differentiate between those who think they kill for him and those who actually do. Let's let God do the distinguishing either in this life or the next one.

That little bit there at the end caught my eye. Permit me to ask you this: In considering all of scripture, including the Book of Mormon and D&C, including all history which has happened since the D&C was last given a new revelation, what might you say was the most recent example of a person being killed by righteous command from God? Since the story of Nephi and Laban dates to around 600 BC, are there more recent examples? It might be that sanctioned killing has stopped, but I am wondering if you (or anyone else) can think of a more recent example.

Thanks again, GR33N, for your thoughtful reply to my musings.

In doing some quick googling for other instances of God sanctioning killing I found the following link which is an interesting read in my opinion. Especially in making the distinction between murdering and killing. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

GR33N

GR33N wrote:In my opinion there is error in forming an opinion of what God would or would not do based on what a predisposed definition of what rules God must conduct Himself by.

GR33N,

Yes, I suppose it must seem like the height of presumptuousness for a man to dictate what exactly God is or is not able or entitled to do. My point of view is that there are some aspects of the belief system of Christians, and LDS in particular, which don't seem to hold up to close inspection. One, for instance, is the notion of our God being 'just' and the concept of us inheriting a given kingdom based on our Earthly test. I will suppose at this point that you subscribe to the idea that the plan of salvation as taught by the LDS church is roughly as follows:
Gods multitude of spirit children are given the choice to come to Earth, inherit a physical body, make correct or incorrect choices, and then, based upon whether we made good or bad choices, inherit a level of exaltation in which we will forever live. Those who inherit the highest level of exaltation will progress to become Gods of their own spirit children and worlds.

If that is a correct summation of the plan of salvation, please allow me to offer a point of criticism which makes this, for me, difficult to believe.

If the results of our earthly sojourn determine our status in the hereafter for eternity, then God cannot be considered 'just'. If I tell my kids that the reward for Straight-'A's is 50 years of monthly trips to Disneyland, very few kids would complain (think... Celestial Kingdom). If I tell my kids that any 'C's on their report card will earn them 50 years of monthly whippings, I would be considered an insane tyrant. The maximum time any of us will spend on this Earth is ~100 years. That is the most time we have to 'get it right.' No matter what, when that 100 years is up, we will inherit our reward. Let's just say eternity is seventeen-thousand-million-trillion-quadrillion centuries (although it is infinitely longer than that). But let's just say. Now compare that very long time to the 100 years you had to get the right answer. It's like me saying "Kids! You've got 16.2 nanoseconds to clean your rooms or I take away your Nintendo for 5 years" (time a billion).

Bottom line on God being 'Just': The 'plan of salvation' cannot be true because it is not 'just'. It is simply not fair. The punishment (or reward) does not fit the crime (or heroic action). This cannot be construed as 'just'. If the very foundational doctrine of LDS theology is illogical at it's core, what are we to think? Perhaps it might be incorrectly understood and preached by the Prophets of God. Or it might be an example of just another myth, devised by men to create comforting stories to tell their children when their grandmother passes away. Or God might actually be crazy and unjust and is just playing with us, like a kid sticking his popsicle stick into an anthill. In any case, I do not think it is too much to ask that it make sense. Further, I think it does very little good to say "Some things we are not meant to understand". That seems like such a cop-out to me.

GR33N wrote:I agree, as I have said, that man cannot be expected to accept at face value the claim that a person was commanded to kill by God without further light and knowledge from God. Absent that then human justice must prevail.

GR33N wrote:Again I think my statement above applies. We can judge for ourselves whether God would or would not command us to do that which he has previously commanded us not to do. My opinion is that in certain situations God can and does make commandments that appear to go against previous commandments. Where is the rule book that God must live by?

Obviously there is no rule book that God must live by, but I do think that a being who is imbued with infinite wisdom and infinite intelligence would not appear to us to have the attitudes and characteristics we see him display in the Old Testament. Human Slavery is implicitly sanctioned in the Ten Commandments, for heaven's sake. Death for mixed-fabric clothing. Death for dishonoring your parents. These are the commandments of an eternal God? Does God adjust and modify his eternal code of conduct to fit the cultural expectations of whatever paleolithic tribe he is currently dealing with?

You know that saying... "I don't know what it is, but I know what it isn't"? I can't tell you what rules a true and actual God must abide by, but I think it is obvious that there are some rules that a truly loving, truly merciful and truly just God simply will not do. The sanctioning of human slavery is one of them. Demanding death for wearing the wrong mixture of fabrics is another. I think that any person who did not grow up with the Old Testament, who was introduced to it as an adult, would easily accept it as a mixture of interesting, engaging, inspirational, horrific, bloody, and evil stories of an ancient desert tribe, and reject any possibility that it is somehow and accurate account of a loving, merciful and wise God interacting with his earthly children.

GR33N wrote:Of course God could look into Nephi's heart and see the strength of his faith. Consider the possibility that God had an additional purpose... possibly teaching Nephi something about himself in this moment. It would cause Nephi to grow in his confidence that he would be obedient to God above all else. (similar to Abraham's test) You may still perceive as unbecoming of God to handle the situation this way but until we know all that God knows we really are in not in a full position to make this judgement in my opinion.

Couldn't God have found a nicer way to get the plates without having to resort to such terrible choice? God has all the power, after all. Joseph Smith didn't need the Golden Plates to be in the same room when he translated them. Couldn't Nephi have used the same technique and transcribed the brass plates while they sat in Laban's treasury? And didn't God deprive Laban of his agency by cutting short his life. Perhaps Laban was about to turn his life around and repent of his sins... Now he is stuck in spirit prison waiting for someone to do his temple work. Just sayin'.

GR33N wrote:I think the verses in D&C 98:23-32 address turning the other cheek. You can apply these verses to Nephi's situation too. Laban had tried to kill him and his brothers when Nephi and his brothers went to ask (trade) for the plates of brass.

I did actually go back and read the entire series you selected (after I wrote what I wrote (!)) Yes, there is a strong reference in the earlier verses to turning the other cheek. I just don't think Christ gave the option of determining when 'enough is enough' and finally striking back. I am not saying Christ is right and Joseph Smith's D&C revelation is wrong, or vice versa, but I am pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between those two approaches.

GR33N wrote:In doing some quick googling for other instances of God sanctioning killing I found the following link which is an interesting read in my opinion. Especially in making the distinction between murdering and killing. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

That was actually a very interesting read. I hope that by providing the link you are not saying you agree with that author's conclusions, because they seem to be very puerile, indeed.

He is defending the idea that Noah's flood killed only wicked people. He addresses the criticism that, surely, not everyone could be evil by arguing that Nazi Germany was a culture completely devoid of innocent people. This is what he wrote:

Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the point rather well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed. When they began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along with the plan.

No mention of the White Rose society. No mention of Schindler. No mention of Victor Kugler, Johannes Kleiman, Miep Gies, or Bep Voskuijl. The entire page is littered with equally anemic argumentation. He anticipates that a critic will say 'What about the little kids?'. He already has that one covered:

Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors.18 They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children.19 Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East.

I have not followed any of the links on that page, but I fully expect to find much more of this comedic gold once I do.

Anyway, GR33N, I again thank you for being willing to engage in my little experiment on politeness. I look forward to your future contributions.

beefcalf wrote:
Yes, I suppose it must seem like the height of presumptuousness for a man to dictate what exactly God is or is not able or entitled to do. My point of view is that there are some aspects of the belief system of Christians, and LDS in particular, which don't seem to hold up to close inspection. One, for instance, is the notion of our God being 'just' and the concept of us inheriting a given kingdom based on our Earthly test. I will suppose at this point that you subscribe to the idea that the plan of salvation as taught by the LDS church is roughly as follows:
Gods multitude of spirit children are given the choice to come to Earth, inherit a physical body, make correct or incorrect choices, and then, based upon whether we made good or bad choices, inherit a level of exaltation in which we will forever live. Those who inherit the highest level of exaltation will progress to become Gods of their own spirit children and worlds.

Roughly, yes.

beefcalf wrote:
If that is a correct summation of the plan of salvation, please allow me to offer a point of criticism which makes this, for me, difficult to believe.

If the results of our earthly sojourn determine our status in the hereafter for eternity, then God cannot be considered 'just'. If I tell my kids that the reward for Straight-'A's is 50 years of monthly trips to Disneyland, very few kids would complain (think... Celestial Kingdom). If I tell my kids that any 'C's on their report card will earn them 50 years of monthly whippings, I would be considered an insane tyrant. The maximum time any of us will spend on this Earth is ~100 years. That is the most time we have to 'get it right.' No matter what, when that 100 years is up, we will inherit our reward. Let's just say eternity is seventeen-thousand-million-trillion-quadrillion centuries (although it is infinitely longer than that). But let's just say. Now compare that very long time to the 100 years you had to get the right answer. It's like me saying "Kids! You've got 16.2 nanoseconds to clean your rooms or I take away your Nintendo for 5 years" (time a billion).

Bottom line on God being 'Just': The 'plan of salvation' cannot be true because it is not 'just'. It is simply not fair. The punishment (or reward) does not fit the crime (or heroic action). This cannot be construed as 'just'. If the very foundational doctrine of LDS theology is illogical at it's core, what are we to think? Perhaps it might be incorrectly understood and preached by the Prophets of God. Or it might be an example of just another myth, devised by men to create comforting stories to tell their children when their grandmother passes away. Or God might actually be crazy and unjust and is just playing with us, like a kid sticking his popsicle stick into an anthill. In any case, I do not think it is too much to ask that it make sense. Further, I think it does very little good to say "Some things we are not meant to understand". That seems like such a cop-out to me.

These are great representations of the concept of justice and the plan of salvation does include the concept of Justice and of course, God, according to His plan, requires justice. There is although, a piece of the plan that I think you have left out.

Let me illustrate with a representation of my own.

There was once a young girl who wanted a bicycle more than anything in the world. Her father took her to the bike shop and she found a bicycle just her size painted pink with spring flowers and a basket on the handle bars. She instantly started asking her father to buy it for her. Her father pulled her aside and offered a way for her to obtain her bike. He told her that if she would work hard and save all her money for one full year she would have enough money and he
would bring her back to the store and she could then purchase her beloved bike. The young girl believed the words her father had spoken and worked every chance she got and saved every cent. Everytime she earned some money she would run with the money and put into her piggy bank. After a year went by her little bank was heavy and full. She went to her father and asked him if they could take her money and go buy the bike she'd been dreaming of. He agreed and they returned to the bike shop to purchase the little pink bike. She was so excited and told the shopkeeper of how she had worked so hard and saved all her money waiting for this day. The shop keeper pulled the bike from the rack for her and walked it to the counter. The little girl opened her bank and poured out all her money onto the checkstand. The shop keeper rang up the bike and started counting the many coins piled there. As the shop keeper neared the end of his counting he realized that there wasn't near enough money to purchase the bike. The little girl saw the look on the shopkeeper face and instantly knew there was something wrong. The shopkeeper with a sad voice explained to the little girl that there just wasn't enough money to purchase the bike. The little girl looked up at her father standing next to her with tears in her eyes. Her father looked down at her and thought of how he had promised her that if she would work hard and save her money she would be able to obtain the bike. He knew she had worked hard and he knew that she saved all the money she could and yet she still came of short of the amount needed to satisfy the shopkeeper's price. He looked up from his little girls face and said to the shop keeper, "I'll make up the difference."

None of us can satisfy the demands of justice when it comes to God. He knew that so he tempered justice with mercy. Mercy is made available through the Atonement of Jesus Christ for all of us.

beefcalf wrote:Couldn't God have found a nicer way to get the plates without having to resort to such terrible choice? God has all the power, after all. Joseph Smith didn't need the Golden Plates to be in the same room when he translated them. Couldn't Nephi have used the same technique and transcribed the brass plates while they sat in Laban's treasury? And didn't God deprive Laban of his agency by cutting short his life. Perhaps Laban was about to turn his life around and repent of his sins... Now he is stuck in spirit prison waiting for someone to do his temple work. Just sayin'.

If you think about it there is a lot of this story that is unknown to us. You speculate about Laban possibly turning his life around etc. If God could look into Nephi's heart couldn't also look into Laban's heart? Is it possible Laban had deliberately defied God (how he treated Lehi's sons comes to mind as an indication of the kind of man Laban was) and maybe another of God's messengers had prophesied unto Laban that if he didn't heed God's word he would be killed? Speculation can work either direction when large portions of the story are unavailable.

beefcalf wrote:That was actually a very interesting read. I hope that by providing the link you are not saying you agree with that author's conclusions, because they seem to be very puerile, indeed.

I am not saying I agree with all of the author's conclusions on his website. I just appreciated the point he made about how some words in the Old Testament appear to have been mistranslated. I wish I had the time to research the Hebrew (or even Aramaic) language to gain a better understanding of the Bible and study one written in Hebrew.

Just to jump in with one point re: Nephi and Laban.

GR33N wrote:
I think the verses in D&C 98:23-32 address turning the other cheek. You can apply these verses to Nephi's situation too. Laban had tried to kill him and his brothers when Nephi and his brothers went to ask (trade) for the plates of brass.

I did actually go back and read the entire series you selected (after I wrote what I wrote (!)) Yes, there is a strong reference in the earlier verses to turning the other cheek. I just don't think Christ gave the option of determining when 'enough is enough' and finally striking back. I am not saying Christ is right and Joseph Smith's D&C revelation is wrong, or vice versa, but I am pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between those two approaches.

The Nephi story does not follow the law that is outlined in D&C 98.

The law states, you must bear him coming upon you 3 times, forgiving him each time. Then, you must warn him in the name of Jesus Christ to leave you and your family alone. IF he comes upon you a FOURTH time, you may do what you wish. Killing is justified, but sparing him will be rewarded for righteousness.

1 Nephi 3:13 We have our first encounter with Laban. He tries to have Laman killed.

1 Nephi 3:25 We have our second attempt to get the plates-this time by purchasing them. Laban tries to have them killed.

1 Nephi 4 we have Nephi going alone to retrieve the plates. He does not warn Laban, since Laban is passed out. He kills Laban and uses deception to steal the plates.

Nephi did not follow this law as outlined in D&C 98. Laban only "came upon" Nephi and his brothers TWO times. Plus, there was no warning given.

GR33N wrote:Let me illustrate with a representation of my own.

There was once a young girl who wanted a bicycle more than anything in the world. Her father took her to the bike shop and she found a bicycle just her size painted pink with spring flowers and a basket on the handle bars. She instantly started asking her father to buy it for her. Her father pulled her aside and offered a way for her to obtain her bike. He told her that if she would work hard and save all her money for one full year she would have enough money and he
would bring her back to the store and she could then purchase her beloved bike. The young girl believed the words her father had spoken and worked every chance she got and saved every cent. Everytime she earned some money she would run with the money and put into her piggy bank. After a year went by her little bank was heavy and full. She went to her father and asked him if they could take her money and go buy the bike she'd been dreaming of. He agreed and they returned to the bike shop to purchase the little pink bike. She was so excited and told the shopkeeper of how she had worked so hard and saved all her money waiting for this day. The shop keeper pulled the bike from the rack for her and walked it to the counter. The little girl opened her bank and poured out all her money onto the checkstand. The shop keeper rang up the bike and started counting the many coins piled there. As the shop keeper neared the end of his counting he realized that there wasn't near enough money to purchase the bike. The little girl saw the look on the shopkeeper face and instantly knew there was something wrong. The shopkeeper with a sad voice explained to the little girl that there just wasn't enough money to purchase the bike. The little girl looked up at her father standing next to her with tears in her eyes. Her father looked down at her and thought of how he had promised her that if she would work hard and save her money she would be able to obtain the bike. He knew she had worked hard and he knew that she saved all the money she could and yet she still came of short of the amount needed to satisfy the shopkeeper's price. He looked up from his little girls face and said to the shop keeper, "I'll make up the difference."

None of us can satisfy the demands of justice when it comes to God. He knew that so he tempered justice with mercy. Mercy is made available through the Atonement of Jesus Christ for all of us.

The shopkeeper watched as the happy little girl and her father left the Bike Shop with the beautiful new bicycle. As they turned the corner and disappeared from view, the bell over the door jingled, announcing the arrival of another customer.

The shopkeeper, still buoyant from his uplifting experience with his previous customers, greeted the man with a smile. "What may I help you with?" he asked.

The man, with a peaceful smile, extended his hand in greeting and said, "My name is Mr. Smith, and I am your representative on the city council, overseeing zoning and code compliance. It is nice to meet you".

"Nice to meet you, Mr. Smith. Are you looking to purchase a bicycle?" asked the shopkeeper.

"No, my business here is official. Being that you have just recently purchased this shop, I need to ensure you understand and are in compliance with the city code. It is for that purpose that I have come to deliver you a copy of the code. Please read it and ensure you are in compliance. I will return next week to answer any questions you may have."

The shopkeeper thanked Mr. Smith and saw him to the door.

One week later, Mr. Smith returned and was greeted at the door by a flustered and somewhat anxious shopkeeper.

"Your code is very exacting. The requirements seem, if I may be blunt, rather arbitrary and expensive to comply with. In fact, it seems like some of the items are simply not possible to comply with regardless of the amount of money I might spend." the shopkeeper lamented.

"My dear sir, this code is meant to be a protection to us all, as a means to ensure business/customer relationship is not unduly abused. Surely you do not suggest that we grant you exceptions?" asked Mr. Smith.

"No," replied the agitated shopkeeper, "It's just that you require that which is simply not possible. Your code mandates that I install and maintain a fire prevention system which guarantees that fires cannot even start. Your code requires me to maintain an on-site staff of medical personnel trained in all manner of trauma and life-resuscitation techniques, and to equip them with very expensive medical equipment which rivals that found in a hospital, and that I must guarantee that no person can die on my property for any reason. Your code requires that, should any of my customers be unhappy, I am to replace their merchandise and still refund triple the money they paid! I cannot stay in business and comply with your codes, yet your code forbids me from closing my business, on penalty of me being sent to prison. There is no way for me to comply!"

Mr. Smith listened politely as the shopkeeper outlined his concerns. When the shopkeeper finished, Mr. Smith said calmly, "Yes, we understand the position you are in. These things are difficult. Nevertheless, they are extremely important, and, for the greater good, we cannot modify these requirements. However, there is another way. We have a compliance specialist who can assist you in coming into compliance."

"Compliance Specialist?" whispered the shopkeeper. "How exactly does that work?"

"It's quite simple, really" said Mr. Smith. "You add him to your… payroll… and he ensures that you do not have a problem with code compliance. His name is Jesse Christiansen. I'll have him report for work tomorrow morning."

"Jesse Christiansen? ...add to my... my payroll?"

"Yes", replied Mr. Smith. "And be sure to thank him regularly for his kind service on your behalf. He really enjoys being thanked for the important work he does"

To make my position clear: If an all-powerful God created us, he had the power to create us as perfect beings or beings who suffer from imperfections. Either way, it was his choice. The imperfections we all have were a result of a decision God himself made to specifically give them to us. To assume these imperfections happened by chance, or were out of God's control would, I believe, be an assumption that most monotheists would reject.

Given that God made us (and made us imperfect), it seems rather NOT like mercy to demand we live up to an unreachable standard, and then provide an intercessory savior who will allow us to reach that goal. Actually, that plan wouldn't be so bad if it stopped at that point, but the problem is that we now owe a debt to that intercessor.

The guy running the race provides you an inferior race car. He then demands that you spend money you don't have to repair the car to a condition that can't actually be attained. When you can't fix your car, he graciously provides you with a 'maintenance consultant' who will allow you to use the crappy car, but you gotta pay the consultant. If you withhold from the consultant the fee he expects, you will lose the race.

When the one who rigs the system to be unwinnable is the same one who offers 'mercy' for the losers (i.e. everyone) it kinda makes you think you're dealing with a crook.

just me wrote:Just to jump in with one point re: Nephi and Laban.

I did actually go back and read the entire series you selected (after I wrote what I wrote (!)) Yes, there is a strong reference in the earlier verses to turning the other cheek. I just don't think Christ gave the option of determining when 'enough is enough' and finally striking back. I am not saying Christ is right and Joseph Smith's D&C revelation is wrong, or vice versa, but I am pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between those two approaches.

The Nephi story does not follow the law that is outlined in D&C 98.

The law states, you must bear him coming upon you 3 times, forgiving him each time. Then, you must warn him in the name of Jesus Christ to leave you and your family alone. IF he comes upon you a FOURTH time, you may do what you wish. Killing is justified, but sparing him will be rewarded for righteousness.

1 Nephi 3:13 We have our first encounter with Laban. He tries to have Laman killed.

1 Nephi 3:25 We have our second attempt to get the plates-this time by purchasing them. Laban tries to have them killed.

1 Nephi 4 we have Nephi going alone to retrieve the plates. He does not warn Laban, since Laban is passed out. He kills Laban and uses deception to steal the plates.

Nephi did not follow this law as outlined in D&C 98. Laban only "came upon" Nephi and his brothers TWO times. Plus, there was no warning given.

Just_me,

Thanks for that analysis. It seems to be similar to the pattern we see in D&C 132, where the rules for polygamy are laid out, but nowhere in Smith's practice of polygamy do we see him abiding by any of those rules.

bcspace wrote:I predict that you're generally not arguing against any actual LDS position or doctrine, but rather you're comming from a position of unreasonable expectations, vast leaps of faith, or you've bought into Fortigurn's Lazy research and Yellow Journalism.

Agreed

Pa Pa wrote:

bcspace wrote:I predict that you're generally not arguing against any actual LDS position or doctrine, but rather you're comming from a position of unreasonable expectations, vast leaps of faith, or you've bought into Fortigurn's Lazy research and Yellow Journalism.

Agreed

So, in a discussion dedicated to providing Pa Pa with a polite place to discuss issues, Pa Pa shows up and, ignoring all the very polite interchanges thus far posted, proceeds to agree with the singular example of rude behavior.

Nice.

Why don't you join us, Pa Pa, and show the world that critics and believers can discuss the issues without resorting to rude behavior?