Was Abinadi's Death Necessary?

[_Dr. Shades]

But MOCKERY will always be the order of the day among the unbelievers, and it's also the "order of the day" on this vile board. You can repent and choose to leave it, or at the very least not assent to the spiritual blindness that prevails here, but better still - denounce it. The choice is yours. You can begin a renewal and spiritual growth, and let the Light shine through, or be enveloped by the darkness within, until you know nothing of "the mysteries of God", and even eventually mock that which is sacred. . . Mock on, as is the custom here.

Ray:

Have you repented and been re-baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If not, what are your reasons for not doing so?

[_RayAgostini]

Ray:

Have you repented and been re-baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If not, what are your reasons for not doing so?

Next question.

[_Dr. Shades]

Have you repented and been re-baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If not, what are your reasons for not doing so?

Next question.

No, former question.

You've cycled back to your "hellfire and brimstone" mode, but I'm wondering whether you're practicing what you preach and, if not, A) why you're so antagonistic toward those whose membership status in the LDS church precisely matches yours, and B) whether the impact of your words needs to be disregarded to the degree that you're not practicing what you preach (if indeed you haven't been re-baptized into the LDS church or aren't otherwise taking steps toward that goal).

[_Drifting]

In fact, when you think about it, there is very little 'Gospel' in the Book of Mormon that isn't more credibly articulated in the Bible.

The whole book seems pretty pointless.

Perhaps that's why Joseph never, ever used it...

[_just me]

In fact, when you think about it, there is very little 'Gospel' in the Book of Mormon that isn't more credibly articulated in the Bible.

The whole book seems pretty pointless.

Perhaps that's why Joseph never, ever used it...

I think the whole point of the book was to provide evidence that God gave the Jesus gospel to everyone in the world.

There was also an interest in that time period to convert the Native Americans to Jesus. This seems like a good way (to them at that time). Pratt was one who wrote specifically about wanting to convert the Native Americans in his autobiography.

[_sock puppet]

I wish you well in your eternal wild goose chase.

Ray, really? For theists whose only 'logic' is to chase their own tails in circles?

[Guest]

In fact, when you think about it, there is very little 'Gospel' in the Book of Mormon that isn't more credibly articulated in the Bible.

+1.

That's perhaps why the Book of Mormon was referred to as Joe Smith's 'Gold Bible' in the 1830s.

[_sock puppet]

In fact, when you think about it, there is very little 'Gospel' in the Book of Mormon that isn't more credibly articulated in the Bible.

The whole book seems pretty pointless.

Perhaps that's why Joseph never, ever used it...

I think the whole point of the book was to provide evidence that God gave the Jesus gospel to everyone in the world.

Yeah, that's the old LDS explanation. But the Book of Mormon is not evidence that god gave the Jesus gospel to everyone in the world. How about the east Asians? the Eskimos? to name a few. All the Book of Mormon did was give JSJr a prop for organizing followers that would give him adoration, adulation and money. As the 'gentiles' of the 1830s rightly dubbed it, it was just Joe Smith's "Gold Bible". Bible in the sense it is nothing more than a re-hash; gold in that it meant JSJr would not have to labor in farm fields to make a living.

There was also an interest in that time period to convert the Native Americans to Jesus. This seems like a good way (to them at that time). Pratt was one who wrote specifically about wanting to convert the Native Americans in his autobiography.

Yeah, that was until DNA studies shot the crap out of that modern Lamanites notion.

[_sock puppet]

...
Why God allows one to die, and another to live, is certainly a "mystery" in our eyes
...

We all die, sooner or later.

Yeah, and if Abinadi was god's prophet, what was left for him to prove?

While a matter of days or years may seem important to some of us, caught up in the situation of daily life, there is really very little difference between somebody dying today or next year, or next decade --- It's all about the same.

From the decedent's point of view, no doubt. But it was probably tragic for Abinadi's wife, children and other friends. A real occasion for sadness.

Perhaps the more interesting question would be: "How might a situation have been different, if death were somehow delayed?"

Suppose Abinadi escaped King Noah's perverted justice and lived on for another ten or twenty years. What then?

Other evil kings with Biblical names, perhaps 'Moses' or 'Abraham', to be excoriated and called on the carpet by a preserved Abinadi?

Or, suppose that Jesus or Joseph Smith had been spared for another decade or two. To what purpose?

I don't think there is much "mystery" involved. Given the events of those various accounts, leading up to the demise, there would have been no obvious use in any of the subjects living.

UD

Humans seem to wonder what if's about those that died young. Americans do it about JFK. Mormons do it about JSJr. JFK probably would have gone on to win a second term over Goldwater in 1964, dealt with the problems LBJ had to, and left office on 1/20/1969 with a very mixed record, and Nixon been elected and taken office that very day. As it was, what JFK didn't is the stuff of speculative legend.

JSJr? I think having devoted so much to the building up of Nauvoo, he would not have been willing to flee to the Rocky Mountains--having gotten no further westward than Montrose IA before turning back to Nauvoo. JSJr's death left the bulk of the Church membership in the hands of the 12, that had been gone from Nauvoo a good part of its time under JSJr, out to the world on their missions. BY was not nearly as wedded to staying in Nauvoo, and led the trek westward to Utah where the Church does best--with few if any neighbors. And so it was able to grow.

[_just me]

There was also an interest in that time period to convert the Native Americans to Jesus. This seems like a good way (to them at that time). Pratt was one who wrote specifically about wanting to convert the Native Americans in his autobiography.

Yeah, that was until DNA studies shot the crap out of that modern Lamanites notion.

I don't think people who wanted to convert the NAs necessarily cared about their actual heritage. They wanted to make them Christians and"civilize" them. I think that writing the Book of Mormon was an attempt at that and also an attempt to answer the unknown of where the NAs came from. One of the very first things Mormon's did was send missionaries to "the Lamanites."

We see imprints of the time period the Book of Mormon came out of everywhere in it. Did Abinadi have to die? Well, according to the author(s) he did. And dying for one's beliefs was considered noble and heroic...still is to many people thanks to stories such as this.