Critical (but Polite) LDS Discussion (for Pa Pa)

[_beefcalf]

Pa Pa,

I would like to present myself as an example of someone who was a lifelong (40 years) member of the church, BIC, married in the temple, son on a mission, etc. who has listened to arguments and seen evidence presented from those who say the church is true and from those who say it is not, who has been swayed by the arguments and evidence to accept the critical position.

If there is an aspect of church teachings or church history that you would like to discuss, I feel able to converse with some knowledge about many of them. As a starter, I would suggest the following possible topics, as they are those which most affected my conclusion that the church is not what it claims to be, and about which I feel I have a sufficient level of comprehension and understanding.

• Book of Abraham/KEP/Papyri
• Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Polyandry
• Joseph Smith's Money Digging and Seer Stones
• Book of Mormon Lost 116 pages
• Three Witnesses
• Absence of LDS Doctrine in the Book of Mormon
• Critical changes to Book of Mormon, Book of Commandments, and D&C
• Brigham Young's teachings about Adam/God, Blood Atonement, and Death to Interracial couples
• D&C Revelations which cannot be from God
• Manifestations of the Holy Spirit with regard to Paul H. Dunn
• Gift of Discernment with regard to Mark Hofmann, Apostle Lyman, and Paul H. Dunn
• President Spencer W. Kimball's teachings about 'death before loss of virtue'
• President Benson's racism
• President Hinckley's remarks on closed LDS financials, Man->God, Negro priesthood ban
• Temple ceremony, including oaths of vengeance and gruesome penalties

I can promise that my remarks will be respectful or neutral, while, at the same time, attempting to explain why the critical argument holds more weight than the apologetic position.

If your stated interest in having respectful discourse is genuine, please respond here.

Thanks.

[_bcspace]

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.

[_beefcalf]

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.

I politely disagree, but would welcome you to join the polite discussion.

Perhaps a more measured approach is called for. Instead of making judgmental leaps about the other persons motives, disagreeable attributes and use of improper approaches, why not simply choose a topic, and, using neutral terms and non-judgmental prose, explain why your views seem, to you, to be valid and why the opposing view seems not to be valid.

I'm sure we can all get along!

[_beefcalf]

Let me kick this off with something that's been tickling my brain for a bit. Those among us who self-identify as philosophers could, no doubt, expound upon this approach better than I, but I don't mind giving it a whirl.

Like many of you, I frequently interact with my bank online or on the telephone. As an institution who deals primarily in 'trust', the bank has a vested interest in gaining my trust to the greatest extent possible.

When receiving various communications from my bank, I am frequently reminded that they will never, ever ask me to identify myself by disclosing my PIN over the phone or through online communications. This measure is clearly aimed at preserving the trust relationship I have with the bank. They ensure I know this rule so that if someone dishonestly poses as the bank and asks for my PIN, I have a reliable reason to be suspicious of their true identity and motives.

In the end, the bank would never ask me to accept a form of interaction which might be indistinguishable from a nefarious impostor.

Let us now turn our attention to two well-known examples of trust-interactions in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon: 'Abraham and Isaac' and 'Nephi and Laban.'

In Genesis 22, we read the story of Abraham being told by God to offer up his son Isaac as a blood sacrifice. With heavy heart, Abraham eventually brings himself to comply with this terrible duty, only to have his hand stayed at the last moment by an angel of God. God is pleased that Abraham has passed the test of his faith.

In 1 Nephi Chapter 4, we see a similar situation with Nephi and Laban. Nephi, after unsuccessful attempts at obtaining the brass plates from Laban, is then told by God to kill Laban in order to obtain the plates. Nephi is hesitant, but is told that the ends justify the means. Nephi is swayed and proceeds to kill Laban with his own sword.

These stories must be considered together with the proscription on killing God gives in the Ten Commandments. Although the chronology of the Old Testament places Abraham before the Ten Commandments, one would be hard-pressed to argue that the proscription on killing was not in effect at the time of Abraham (e.g. Cain and Abel).

Consider then, if you will, the situation we have here. God has laws he gives to the children of men. One important one is the prohibition on killing. Yet God himself asks his own children to deviate from this law.

From the perspective of a hypothetical third-party observer, looking upon the scene of Abraham securing his son to the altar, he would see a man claiming to have been commanded by God to shed the blood of an innocent child. That third-party observer will be unable to confirm that such a communication took place. He knows of God's law against killing, yet he sees someone making the claim that God has made an exception.

A similar third-party witnessing from a shadowed doorway as Nephi stands over Laban, would also be unaware of whatever interchange Nephi was having with the Holy Spirit. From the perspective of that third party, Nephi appears to be breaking the commandments of God.

Why would God, who has a vested interest in having his children develop and maintain a trusting relationship with Him, ask his children to do something which would cause all his other children to question the source of such a command to kill. By doing this, God is opening the door to those who would commit murder and then justify it by invoking His name.

In the end, God would never ask me to accept a form of interaction which might be indistinguishable from a nefarious impostor.

The bank would never ask me for my PIN because they know by doing this they would corrupt the protocol I (and all customers) use to verify their identity.

In commanding these killings after proscribing them, God corrupts the very protocol we might use to verify that a commandment truly comes from Him.

I deduce from this line of reasoning that the story of Abraham and Isaac's sacrifice cannot be looked upon as literal.

Similarly, I conclude that the story of Nephi and Laban must also be viewed as non-literal.

When a book which purports to be a true history is determined to have portions therein which are untenable to the rational and reasoning mind, the shadow of doubt must, by necessity, fall upon the balance.

[_GR33N]

Ok, I'm game.

Your making some assumptions concerning the mind and will of God. Comparing God to a financial institution and implying that the behavior of God fits into the box of "Banking rules".
I understand the analogy but I don't believe you can fit God into a box of rules of your making.

For the case of discussion I'll go along with your premise including the premise that there is a God.

The literal stories of Abraham and Nephi are similar in the point that they are both tests of each subject as to their ability to show ultimate obedience to their God and that both of them recognized when it was God who was communicating with them. They both had experiences communicating with God previous to the events discussed. They do differ when you put their similarities back in context of each ones story.

Abraham tells us that he was almost offered in sacrifice on an alter by the wicked priests in Egypt. (Abraham 1:7-19) It's easy to consider the emotional trauma that would instill in a young boy and the strong emotions the memory of that event would bring up when God asked Abraham to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice. This would only add to the test of his obedience to God. God rewarded Abraham greatly for his obedience.

Nephi's obedience was also tested and Nephi too had to overcome his natural tendency as evidenced in his story. (1 Nephi 4:10) The commandment to kill Laban also came with the explanation from the Lord reminding Nephi of Laban's crimes and God's authority to take Laban's life.

In verse 13 of 1 Nephi, the Lord tells us what I think is the ultimate answer to your ticklish brain.

And the Lord expounds on this in D&C 98:31-32

[_beefcalf]

Ok, I'm game.

Your making some assumptions concerning the mind and will of God. Comparing God to a financial institution and implying that the behavior of God fits into the box of "Banking rules".
I understand the analogy but I don't believe you can fit God into a box of rules of your making.

For the case of discussion I'll go along with your premise including the premise that there is a God.

The literal stories of Abraham and Nephi are similar in the point that they are both tests of each subject as to their ability to show ultimate obedience to their God and that both of them recognized when it was God who was communicating with them. They both had experiences communicating with God previous to the events discussed. They do differ when you put their similarities back in context of each ones story.

Abraham tells us that he was almost offered in sacrifice on an alter by the wicked priests in Egypt. (Abraham 1:7-19) It's easy to consider the emotional trauma that would instill in a young boy and the strong emotions the memory of that event would bring up when God asked Abraham to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice. This would only add to the test of his obedience to God. God rewarded Abraham greatly for his obedience.

Nephi's obedience was also tested and Nephi too had to overcome his natural tendency as evidenced in his story. (1 Nephi 4:10) The commandment to kill Laban also came with the explanation from the Lord reminding Nephi of Laban's crimes and God's authority to take Laban's life.

In verse 13 of 1 Nephi, the Lord tells us what I think is the ultimate answer to your ticklish brain.

And the Lord expounds on this in D&C 98:31-32

GR33N,

Thanks much for your polite response.

It seems that you did not address the central point I was making. I believe it is likely that I did not sufficiently explain myself, therefore, the fault is mine. So, let me try to clarify what I believe the issue to be:

By creating the precedence of asking one of His own children to something which is abominable, something which He has otherwise commanded them not to do, He sets the stage for making the murderous actions of evil men indistinguishable from the actions of a just and righteous God.

If God never, ever, ever commanded his chosen people to slaughter a neighboring tribe (every man, woman and little boy, but sparing the youngest virgin girls to become wives/concubines) then a corrupt and evil dictator will find it difficult to himself command such an abominable action and then proceed to excuse himself before his critics by claiming he was commanded of God. If he did so, the people could easily observe that God simply doesn't do those kinds of things. Thus, the frequency of God-sanctioned killing would be diminished

As an additional point, let us observe that if God created us, he created within some of us the propensity to mental illnesses. We all understand that there are mentally ill people, even in our day and age, who are clearly mentally ill, who you and I both disbelieve when they say that God spoke to them and commanded them to kill in his name. It is beyond the capacity of reason to believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving and merciful God would create a human race which is sometimes subject to the deleterious effects of schizophrenia and other pathologies, and then require us to differentiate between those who think they kill for him and those who actually kill for him.

I look forward to your polite and well-reasoned response.

[_OSWIT]

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.

I think the OP is a great idea, the type of discussion I'd like to see occur with genuine input from both sides - and I'll bet there are quite a few others. I challenge everyone on both sides to stay away from comments like those quoted above.

[_harmony]

Abraham and Nephi... shrouded in myth, applicable only to their own tribe.

The will of God always gets tangled up in the agenda of the men who created the myths. Generally speaking, people either gravitate towards that with which they instinctively agree, or else they are born into it and either can't or won't see the way out.

Amazing how that works.

[_GR33N]

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?

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."

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.

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.

[_harmony]

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?

This is the most important part of your post.