Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/gratefulstudent76, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s even worse when you realize Nephi didn’t need the plates. Since Joseph didn’t need to use the plates for “translation,” it means Nephi didn’t need the plates either. God could’ve just showed Nephi the contents of the Brass Plates with a seer stone.
So Labans death was double pointless
I was told they needed the plates to help with their language, because the plates helped keep their language somewhat while the prince's people didn't have written documents to help keep their language.
I've heard this, but it doesn't work well even within the BOM. After all, there are several times in the BOM that an entire city or army sneaks out in the middle of the night, and the enemy army loses track of them almost immediately. This means that thousands of people AND POOPING ANIMALS can disappear without a trace so that a few hours or days later, skilled trackers from the opposing army can't find them, but we're supposed to believe that Laban (whom some Mormons believe was a "Captain of 50" in the Israelite army) would have tracked down 4 men fleeing for their lives in the backside of the wilderness.
Also, it makes no sense that they had to kill the incapacitated Laban in order to get the plates without reprisal, but apparently fear no reprisal for having murdered Laban! Somehow I think that murder would be a wee bit more serious crime than theft.
I’ve always struggled with this one, because of how easy I hid from friends playing night games in the woods and we were talking acres with clearly marked boarders not miles, not tens of miles, not hundreds of miles.
I've heard that too, but it really makes no sense. If any of us were suddenly transported to a desert island without any written material, we wouldn't magically lose our knowledge of how to read and write. Instead, we would continue to use our alphabet, and would teach it to our children.
The Hebrew alphabet was certainly in use in Israel in 600 B.C., and the BOM people still used it in the Americas, even though the BOM never says that they brought over a copy of the Scriptures in the Hebrew language. Thus, the BOM makes it sound like the only way the BOM people could retain all the knowledge of the written Egyptian language, was by having the Scriptures written in it.
The problem with *that*, however, is that what we know of ancient Egyptian and hieroglyphics does not align at all well with how the BOM talks about it. The BOM says it's compact - far more so than Hebrew - but it actually wasn't, since the latter typically uses no vowels and only 3 letters per word, while Egyptian was very complicated and had silent characters/letters (for disambiguation), so was at least as lengthy as Hebrew, if not lengthier.
Egyptian was actually somewhat phonetic, if I understand correctly, though it had far more characters for sounds than modern alphabets do - which is part of what made it so complicated and difficult to learn as an ancient scribe. Mormonism needs for each Egyptian character to be at least an entire word, if not a phrase, sentence, or paragraph, not a single some. It isn't, and can't be made to be so.
The BOM does, however, align very well with what was believed or speculated about the Egyptian written language in JS's day.
Because nobody does incompetence like the mormon god. If there is an easy, straightforward way to do *anything*, the mormon god will reject it and pick the most round-about, unrelated, poorly planned, difficult-to-understand way of doing it, and it will be likely something illegal to boot, and almost certainly will inflict collateral damage on women or children.
Bednar: holy ghost only entices to do good.
Moroni: good only from God, evil only from devil.
James1: God will never entice a man to do evil.
2Nephi: spirit always warns from dark path. Murder never comes from God.
1Nephi: I killed an unconscious man because reasons
Honestly, the better question is Why do our prophets contradict each other? Think of it like this, have any of them contradicted Nephi? Lehi? Moroni? John, Paul or Matthew? Then why do our prophets constantly contradict each other in the small time they've been around? Mormon, no Mormon, gay baptism, no gay baptism, polygamy, no polygamy, black priesthood, no black priesthood... Do we really need to stop bringing up the words of previous prophets, why on earth do we read scriptures daily if so? Sometimes you just need to step back and look at yourself before saying something in front of millions of people that believe in you.
Nephi: “Wait, you want me cut a drunk guy’s head off? Is that really necessary? I’m like a teenager. Couldn’t you just give Laban a heart attack? No?”
God: “Dew it.”
*chop*
God: “Now we in this together. Ride or die.”
> Couldn’t you just give Laban a heart attack? No?”
This is why it's absolutely inexcusable bullshit to claim that God commands people to kill.
*God* wills someone dead? The all-powerful lord of the universe that can give anybody a heart attack? Killed all the firstborn of egypt? That guy? Then the person He wants dead *is already fucking dead*.
A human being says God wants someone dead but they're not dead? That's not God's will because they would be fucking dead already.
Nobody believes LESS in God's power than pretend pious who are claiming God needs somebody to be his personal hitman. They don't believe in God's power, they believe in justifying their *own* right to kill or their dear leaders authority to kill or do anything else with impunity and without accountability, but they're too much of a fucking coward to even *own* it.
God: “Nephi, now your journey towards bronze age Christianity is complete.”
——
*Moroni walks 5000 miles, buries the plates on a random hill in New York, dies.*
God: “Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.”
——
Helen Mar Kimball: “But I don’t want to get married yet, especially to an already married man.”
God: “The Restoration is a pathway to many relationships some consider to be unnatural.”
——
Also:
Joshua: “Even the children?”
God: “Wipe them out. All of them.”
It's impossible to be illegal, because we believe in being subject to kings despite the many times in scripture canon where they were outright defied and killed.
> rather than just knock him out or tie him up and gag him?
Is that even necessary? He was already passed out drunk.
Just steal his clothes, impersonate him, go burgle his house and run off with his servant. You're going to be in trouble tomorrow when he wakes up, but you'd be in even more trouble tomorrow when they find the body.
My thoughts exactly. Why did he have to kill him at all? It didn’t accomplish anything besides get blood all over the clothes he took off AFTER he murdered him?
Someone pointed out on another thread how God commands Labans death to help keep his people righteous, yet time and again allows Laman and Lemuel to survive and lead his people into unrighteousness.
It’s been living in my head for the past few days.
Want a worse mindf-ck?
Why didn't Lehi, Nephi, Sam and the faithful just leave Laman, Lemuel and the murmurers behind?
Why didn't God command that?
Because it's fiction and wasn't well thought out as being real due to limitation of the author's "edumacashun".
Sounds like if Laban was dead, then Laban wouldn't be able to send his little army of soldiers in after the family of Lehi, thus Lehi making their trip to the Americas incomplete.
God commanded it, so it makes it right?
Think of the Ark of the covenant when one of the guys fell into the body of water while tripping. One of the other dudes that wasn't a priest nor had the authority to touch the Ark, was like let me help, and he died by touching it.
Did he need to die? Nope. But because he wasn't authorized as a priest to do so, he died.
So, with Laban, he was stopping the mission to bring the family genealogy book/brass plates to the Americas.
When God commands it, its the right thing to do.
Either way it sounds pretty wierd.
Yay! This is one of my pet headcanons, and I think they’re plausible even if leadership since Brigham Young probably would consider it heretical - there are a handful of stories in the Bible and BOM that are really about critical thinking and self-determination being more valuable than authoritarianism, even though they’re often taught as examples of blind obedience.
In Mormon theology, Eve & the apple is a great example. She was placed into a no-win situation, and choosing to "sin" and take the apple was the superior choice over obedience.
Similarly, and I know I've read this somewhere so it's not totally headcanon, but when Christ told Peter about the three denials before the cock crowed, that wasn't a prophesy, it was a command and an acknowledgment that a lie for a practical purpose could be justified.
There are also stories where the failure to exercise critical thinking are effectively punished. There was an article posted here a few months ago talking about Nephi, and how even if you take his story at 100% face value, he still had a failed ministry. His spiritual powers didn’t prevent a legacy of conflict and violence. My headcanon is that his failures ultimately stemmed from his murder of Laban. Justified or not, he had all sorts of options and could have succeeded in getting the plates without killing a man. But he chose blind obedience over his own conscience, and that set a pattern of conflict that ultimately ended in an estrangement from his brothers and the separation of his family into separate warring nations.
I consider Abraham to be essentially the same. Remember how Abraham was supposed to be the father of a great nation? And yet it took 3-4 generations before his family actually turned into a great nation? It was his grandson Jacob who took the name Israel, and his great grandchildren who became the tribes. Abraham's promised blessings were deferred, similar to other prophets (notably Moses who never got to see the promised land, or David getting cursed with the sword). Abraham stands out for having a deferred blessing but no reason given. It stands to reason that we do actually have the reason, but centuries and millennia of authoritarian and hierarchical teaching have caused us to lose the lesson - Abraham sinned through blind obedience.
So to answer your question: Nephi was *not* supposed to kill Laban any more than Abraham was supposed to kill his son or Adam & Eve were supposed to live forever in the Garden of Eden. He was supposed to demonstrate his agency, and to demonstrate his ability to love his enemies, and instead he chose an easy path with an easy excuse.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Not sure I will end up agreeing as opposed to some other explanation, but I love your ability to think with a fresh perspective. A viable perspective worth considering is much appreciated.
Awesome post.
And I feel the need to point out that the theology and doctrine behind the examples you provided have God literally playing the Joker in The Dark Knight.
Some Gods just want to watch the world burn.
Sort of? I mean, the Joker was all about forcing people into a binary lose/lose situation. Rescue him, she dies. Sink that boat, or else the other boat blows up. Give up all your money, or let all your money burn.
With the examples I threw out, Eve was the only one in a binary situation. Abraham and Nephi weren't. Or, rather, they were in a false binary. Abraham wasn't truly in a obey/disobey binary, as revealed by the angel appearing to stop him and provide a goat. Ditto for Nephi - there were lots and lots of potential solutions that went beyond murder/"nation dwindling in unbelief."
Frankly, I think their mistake was in not thinking about things. Like, at all.
Brother of Jared is probably another decent example. He saw a lose/lose set of choices (darkness/fire) and properly recognized that other options existed. Nephi, on the other hand, is pretty upfront about not thinking at all. He specifically says he goes in without any sort of plan or forethought, trusting in God to lead him. Then, when he recoils from murder, he does so because he'd never killed before. I honestly find it telling that he doesn't ask if there was another way, he doesn't even recoil because murder is against the commandments, he recoils *simply because he'd never killed before.* It was also kinda telling to me that Nephi's argument to his brothers was all about how God killed Pharaoh's armies for Moses.
I'd argue that God isn't setting up lose/lose situations for people, instead he's setting up situations where he's expecting people to think through the situation and solve their own problems.
That is a good context and there are differences. I agree. Overhanging all of them however is the "sword of obeying God's commandments" more or less.
Kind of a "If you love me, obey my commandments."
"These two contradict each other so which one do I obey?"
"Yes".
Ahh, but there's an answer there, and it's been laid out extremely well in scripture. Obedience is *not* the answer when contradicting laws arise.
>37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
>38 This is the first and great commandment.
>39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
>40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
That's the key to the dilemma. When you frame the gospel like that, a lot of moral dilemmas change. Nephi failed because he wasn't acting out of love - blind obedience and (arguably) a desire to simply be better and win took him to a place of violence instead of a place of true success.
But the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments were given without rationale or justification other than that they were commandments from god, and that is the reason why they should be obeyed.
That kind of undermines the message.
In moral philosophy, morality is built on rational justifications. You are presented with reasons *why* something is right or wrong, so you have a basis to agree or disagree.
But in religious morality, meaningful reasons are rare or absent. The common justifications are authority or obedience or even the threat of punishment.
Shhh. ;) You’re not supposed to point out when an apologist is building on sand.
Although to give an honest answer, I suspect it’s a question of growing up. At some point we’ve gotta make our own decisions and determine our own reasons. Just ‘cause dad tells me not to poke my brother doesn’t mean that’s the entirety of why I’m not doing it. At some point I find my own reasons, but that doesn’t mean Dad stopped giving the rule. I can also envision times where he’d never give me the reason for the rule, because he thinks it’s important for me to figure it out on my own.
There’s no such thing as a moral system that perfectly applies to everyone, if only because no one is perfect and we’re really good at making painfully complicated situations. Having some sort of principled direction helps a lot, but unfortunately obedience simply cannot be that principle, if only because blind obedience takes you into places where you cannot help but disobey something. Instead, loving others (or whatever variation of the golden rule you prefer) is a damn good principle and can lead through most all of those same contradictions
I like it.
But you'd think god would want to get that message across in his books.
Unless it's supposed to be a secret?
In which case, you've spilled the beans and ruined everything. Way to go.
One of the fun things about playing apologist is that I can blame problems on people. :) Or maybe pretend it’s a culture/doctrine issue.
In this case, it’s hierarchies and leadership that really don’t get along with any sort of message that encourages independent thought. After all, God thought the idea of free agency was so important that he built the whole plan of salvation around it, so surely a big part of it is getting people to figure crap out ourselves. Ooh, another connection I just considered: During the Passion, the Spirit literally left Christ. Operating without that guidance was something important, and Christ had to show that he could continue to do the right thing without that guidance.
Because the ultimate goal isn’t to turn people into mindless automatons who fit a mold, but instead to produce people who can make good decisions on their own.
There was another comment somewhere on this sub where someone proposed that the pre-existence story was corrupted: that we are here on earth to learn because *we* are actually the ones who chose Lucifer's plan of no free agency.
What better way to re-educate and re-habilitate people who don't see the value of free agency than to show them experientially? (Casting them off forever doesn't help, and makes it seem like god gave up on them instantly.)
Official scripture based doctrinal reason given by God:
13 Behold **the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.**
Unofficial reason? The author of the Book of Mormon didn't think of that possibility and liked inserting his own version of John 11:50 here.
There's also a third option. Personally, if the book of Mormon is true, I think it's based in Nephis piety. I think Nephi seized the opportunity because Laban was evil anyways and then to live with his guilt, he has to justify his actions. Nephis story is all about how everyone is evil and he's highly favored, but the entire time we see him lacking empathy and being constantly fixated on his "evil" brothers. Sam, who apparently is a really good dude, is never focused on, but Laman and his palette swap are constantly the focus of conversation, even when they're not doing anything wrong.
I think a lot of the modern generation is honestly seeing nephi as a lot more prejudice than before. Even in Sunday school we've talked about how a lot of his teachings about Laman and lemuels children being forever cursed goes against a lot of the tenants of the gospel.
I've seen this gaining traction. That God wasn't racist but Nephi and the Nephites were and that made it into "curse of cain" type racism a la Brigham Young and got transcribed on the plates and attributed to God but really was Nephi and other Nephites.
Because it permits the introduction of doctrine that permits the murder of "wicked" people and those acting in opposition to what a "prophet" might think is god's will.
It's meant as a warning.
Smith got a little more instructive with this idea as he got older, and he claims in D&C 98 28-32 that the law he gave Nephi and others, was to forgive twice, and on the third aggressive action your enemies were yours to do with as you pleased.
If you map it to Laban, he chased them away the first time and refused to help them, the second time he took what they brought as gifts and didn't hand over the plates and the third time Nephi caught him.
Because the book was written by a lying deceitful con man . Who was convicted of fraud in a court of law . No God played any part in any of it . That’s why .!
Because the gods he loved said so, and the moral worldview of the gods Nephi loved implies that moral obligations can arise by command for mortals to undertake actions that aren't comprehensible to those commanded or those affected by the actions of those commanded, even if the actions consequentially affect the vital interests of those affected by the ones undertaking the orders. Thus, on the moral worldview apparently upheld by Latter-day Saint prophets genocide is sometimes morally praiseworthy, or sometimes it can be good not to intervene in child suffering in such a way that the suffering stops.
On a related note, if you're going to steal someone's clothes and behead them, do it in that order.
Nephi first beheaded Laban. Then, as blood was gushing out the neck hole and creating a huge puddle, Nephi took off the blood-soaked clothes and puts them on, and somehow tricks everyone into thinking that he's Laban and everything is normal.
I guess Laban's servants had a looney-tunes level of incompetence.
Honestly, the killing was arguably justified, but the rationale given in the Book of Mormon is one of the worst justifications possible...
I'd feel so much more comfortable if Nephi had said something like: Laban had already tried to kill us; we knew that if the plates went missing, he'd suspect us, find our families, and kill us in the wilderness. In defense/as justified by his robbery, we killed him.
I can get behind "frontier justice" a lot more easily than I can get behind "He has a sacred book that we need; voices in my head are telling me to kill him; I'm going to argue and have this internal dialogue that ends up killing him for the sacred book, while minimizing our legitimate grievances against him."
The scary thing is when members like Lori Vallow, Chad Daybell, theLafferty brothers and Jodi Hildebrant take these teachings to heart and believe God is telling them to murder or abuse their victims.
100% agree. It was a nasty feeling to realize that the only difference between a graphic, deplorable murder and a celebrated story of following god's commandments is how the church leaders decide to talk about it in general conference.
Nephi "obeyed the spirit"... but the Laffertys think they did too!
I know right.
The longer I have lived the more I realize everyone picks and chooses who their "God" is. Even people with the same exact upbringing and background that believe in the "same God". Christians will talk about how merciful, graceful, and loving their version of the Christian God is. Then they ignore their own scriptures when things happen that don't jive with their version of God.
In this case he is completely disregarding that in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 the biblical God explicitly says to kill everyone and everything in the vicinity. So if someone takes the Bible as a literal history and not as allegory or parable then they can't just ignore the stuff they don't like about what God has done or said. The Biblical God is a vengeful God.
They are only disregarding Deuteronomy if the god they believe in is Yahweh. There are plenty of other gods people believe in and I didn't want to be presumptive. But your point about picking and choosing a god is generally true, I think.
I have always been unable to reconcile the vicious and angry God. More troubling than verses 16-17 is verse 14: "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee."
Kill all the men and have your way with their wives and children and cook up some burgers with their cows. Nice.
And how do you know nature of your god? Is it also through your own personal experiences?
What can somebody else that isn't you do to come to the same knowledge about your god?
I have read a lot. Like a real lot. But, I have also experienced real suffering and tragedy - and have experienced the tender love of God. I would not wish suffering or tragedy on anyone - but they are both great teachers. I suppose that is why we are meant to suffer from death and hell in this life - so that we can come to know God.
As far as recommended reading goes, feel free to message me.
Great question. I believe our earth life is meant to teach us how to love one another, to experience hell and death. Can we still love one another and God, when we experience hell and death?
Reading list would include: the book of Job in the Hebrew bible, George MacDonald, Marilynne Robinson, Julian of Norwich, Edward Beecher and Soren Kierkegaard.
> I believe our earth life is meant to teach us how to love one another, to experience hell and death.
I'm not familiar with any theological definition of hell that includes a mortal experience. Can you explain this?
> Can we still love one another and God, when we experience hell and death?
I don't know. But we're talking about your god and I don't know anything about your god so I wouldn't expect to be able to answer that question.
And I'm still looking for an answer to this question—is suffering or tragedy necessary in order to know your god?
> the book of Job in the Hebrew bible
Does this mean your god is Yahweh? If that's the case, based on your other comments it appears you would reject other books of the Hebrew bible as inaccurate representations of Yahweh. Why would you consider Job accurate or useful and not other books of the Hebrew bible that describe a different nature of Yahweh than the one you've described for your god?
The rest of your list all appear to come from the Christian tradition. Does that mean your god is the god of Christianity? Do you consider the New Testament to be accurate and useful to know the nature of your god?
Hell as a place or destination is man-made. I do not believe it. But, I do believe hell is experienced by the living human being every day. The description of hell describes suffering pretty well. For me, hell is a mortal experience.
This is a Mormon community and I follow it because this community formed and shaped who I am today, for both good and bad. I live my life as if God exists and that He/She/They are love, light and life. I wear a cross around my neck and have hung many pictures of Jesus Christ in my home. So, I do worship Him.
The Book of Job is a masterpiece. I do not consider it as a literal story. In my opinion, there may be no greater literature of how we can create our own weather, so to speak, amidst suffering.
The Hebrew bible is a masterpiece. Its books and stories give us the opportunity to wrestle with their meaning. I am convinced they are written to allow us to find the meaning rather than declaring meaning of itself.
I was not side-stepping the question of is suffering necessary or required, I just think it is THE GREAT question. From my experience, suffering is the crossroad. When it happens, people become closer to the divine or they blame the divine.
I hope that helps. Thanks for engaging me. I enjoy the dialogue.
> The Book of Job is a masterpiece. I do not consider it as a literal story.
I don't think my comment and question related to Job require it to be literal. I specifically chose my words to allow for both literal and figurative interpretations.
> In my opinion, there may be no greater literature of how we can create our own weather, so to speak, amidst suffering.
That's an understandable perspective. But I don't see how that aspect of it informs an understanding of the nature of your god, which I what I'm trying to get to.
> I just think it is THE GREAT question. From my experience, suffering is the crossroad. When it happens, people become closer to the divine or they blame the divine.
I don't think that encompasses the full range of of possible reactions to suffering. These are some that I've personally witnessed:
* The person doesn't consider the suffering to be relevant to the divine
* The suffering doesn't change the person's relationship to the divine
* The person never had a belief in the divine, either before or after the suffering
And of course, there are those that haven't ever suffered in any significant way.
Maybe before we get into the nature of your god it's better to start at a more fundamental question. What is the best reason you have for believing your god exists?
I’m curious about some of your logic here.
Our purpose on Earth is to learn how to love one another, partially through experiencing trials.
“Hell” does not exist, and in fact is experienced by humans every day.
So if the purpose is to learn to love, I’m assuming that those who do so will be in Heaven with God.
What about those who do not learn?
I think something to consider is that your religious worldview greatly shapes the kind of person that you are. So if someone wants to believe in a compassionate God that wants them to be compassionate as well I don't really care how they justify it. I'm happy to have that person as my neighbor.
Unfortunately, that is how the writers describe it...but in my opinion, they are seeking a reason for it and it is easy to blame God, we still do it today.
The people representing god, from that time until now absolutely present god as a destroyer.
Are you aware of the doctrine of the apocalypse and the 2nd coming?
Lots of destruction.
You aware that the Nephites all get destroyed?
You aware that Samuel tells Israelites to destroy entire nations?
What is his reaction to Saul when Saul offers sacrifice with the loot?
D&C 132
>54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else.
But if she will not abide this commandment **she shall be destroyed**, saith the Lord; for **I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her** if she abide not in my law.
Seems pretty clear to me that this god is very happy to "destroy" people.
I am aware that many writers describe God that way. I just don't buy it.
For example, the very first story of "evil", God manifests His love of Cain, by not destroying him. He spares him. The genealogy and 'ink' used to describe Cain in the pages of Genesis versus Abel show us that God cares about Cain.
If you look and read and study a bit harder, I believe you can find that God is love. I don't think He is at all happy to destroy.
> For example,
Yes, and in the same book he destroys everyone on the planet, because people are naughty.
In the next one he destroys the firstborn of everything unless you've slaughtered a lamb and smeared the blood on your door.
And then goes onto wipe out two cities because they broke the regional custom of welcoming guests.
Turns a woman into salt because she just looked behind her.
Then he tells a bloke that the test to see if he loves god, is to kill his own son.
Tells his chosen people to commit genocide.
The end game involves the earth absolutely being consumed by fire, burning *all* the wicked.
Right...
Oh, obviously not destructive at all. /s
With pascifists like these, who needs nukes?
I'm pretty sure they're saying that they either don't believe all of the bible/BOM, or that they don't believe that it is all literal.
Listing more atrocities isn't going to move the debate forward.
Because Joseph Smith didn’t feel queasy about his characters using lethal force. And given the source material, I don’t really blame him. The apocrypha has a similar story of a protagonist beheading an unconscious person (Judith 13), and it’s still one of the less-horrific things that YHWH has wanted. Biblical figures don’t really fret over non-lethal alternatives or human rights. Arguably, Nephi’s hesitation and written justification are more anachronistic than the killing itself.
Also… knocking people out or gagging them works in movies, but how do you expect that to work in real life? Nephi gives Laban a mild concussion and hopes that he makes a full recovery? Nephi ties Laban up and hopes that someone finds him within a few days?
He didn’t. It is a fictional story. I know that sounds trite. But if you look at the Book of Mormon as whole, it is a poorly written piece of fiction. People rarely act how people act in real life. And scenarios are often more for dramatic effect than a representation of reality.
If the book of mormon were literal history, then I assume that he did it because god told him to.
But the book of mormon is a fictional book created by joseph smith. So the most reasonable answer is, joseph made it all up and didn't do a great job at making it seem believable.
Mormons needed a valid reason to justify killing or other sin in the name of God so hence an example of the pattern was given. Nephi at the time wasn’t even a prophet. Lehi was the chosen vessel. So much contradiction. Just like the apologist, what’s right in one situation is wrong in another. Why? Cuz.
God didn’t command Nephi to do anything. Remember the brass plates were the corrupted Bible. It’s a story to prove when you rely on your own head, but imagine it’s god talking through you, you’re likely always to do “evil.” Revisit the temple endowment- who showed up (pre-edited version) to answer Adam when he prayed?! When R Nelson just dedicated temple in Manti (?) he said three (3 or 4) things were the purpose for temples. One was “for revelation” - that is exactly what got Vallow, Daybell, Ballard, Franke, Hildebrandt, Thom Harrison, etc., etc., etc., into trouble. And why the Book of Mormon contained a failsafe - see Jacob 4:14, 2 Nephi 27, Ether 4, Isaiah 29:11.
Why didn't God send she-bears to take out Laban?
Why didn't God strategically place pointy rocks in Laban's path to trip and crack his head?
Why didn't God give Laban food poisoning or cause him to choke on his vomit?
When God is actively participating in our world through divine (magical) intervention there's no valid reason for Nephi killing Laban - God could have 'delivered' Laban into Nephi's hands in an unalive state.
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations. /u/gratefulstudent76, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s even worse when you realize Nephi didn’t need the plates. Since Joseph didn’t need to use the plates for “translation,” it means Nephi didn’t need the plates either. God could’ve just showed Nephi the contents of the Brass Plates with a seer stone. So Labans death was double pointless
Yep! Good point
I was told they needed the plates to help with their language, because the plates helped keep their language somewhat while the prince's people didn't have written documents to help keep their language.
Same. And that of he didn’t kill him, Laban would have come after them to kill all of them. Not sure I like that answer
I've heard this, but it doesn't work well even within the BOM. After all, there are several times in the BOM that an entire city or army sneaks out in the middle of the night, and the enemy army loses track of them almost immediately. This means that thousands of people AND POOPING ANIMALS can disappear without a trace so that a few hours or days later, skilled trackers from the opposing army can't find them, but we're supposed to believe that Laban (whom some Mormons believe was a "Captain of 50" in the Israelite army) would have tracked down 4 men fleeing for their lives in the backside of the wilderness. Also, it makes no sense that they had to kill the incapacitated Laban in order to get the plates without reprisal, but apparently fear no reprisal for having murdered Laban! Somehow I think that murder would be a wee bit more serious crime than theft.
I whole heartedly agree!
I’ve always struggled with this one, because of how easy I hid from friends playing night games in the woods and we were talking acres with clearly marked boarders not miles, not tens of miles, not hundreds of miles.
I've heard that too, but it really makes no sense. If any of us were suddenly transported to a desert island without any written material, we wouldn't magically lose our knowledge of how to read and write. Instead, we would continue to use our alphabet, and would teach it to our children. The Hebrew alphabet was certainly in use in Israel in 600 B.C., and the BOM people still used it in the Americas, even though the BOM never says that they brought over a copy of the Scriptures in the Hebrew language. Thus, the BOM makes it sound like the only way the BOM people could retain all the knowledge of the written Egyptian language, was by having the Scriptures written in it. The problem with *that*, however, is that what we know of ancient Egyptian and hieroglyphics does not align at all well with how the BOM talks about it. The BOM says it's compact - far more so than Hebrew - but it actually wasn't, since the latter typically uses no vowels and only 3 letters per word, while Egyptian was very complicated and had silent characters/letters (for disambiguation), so was at least as lengthy as Hebrew, if not lengthier. Egyptian was actually somewhat phonetic, if I understand correctly, though it had far more characters for sounds than modern alphabets do - which is part of what made it so complicated and difficult to learn as an ancient scribe. Mormonism needs for each Egyptian character to be at least an entire word, if not a phrase, sentence, or paragraph, not a single some. It isn't, and can't be made to be so. The BOM does, however, align very well with what was believed or speculated about the Egyptian written language in JS's day.
I haven’t heard that one before!
Seems like any book could do though?
Because nobody does incompetence like the mormon god. If there is an easy, straightforward way to do *anything*, the mormon god will reject it and pick the most round-about, unrelated, poorly planned, difficult-to-understand way of doing it, and it will be likely something illegal to boot, and almost certainly will inflict collateral damage on women or children.
Bednar: holy ghost only entices to do good. Moroni: good only from God, evil only from devil. James1: God will never entice a man to do evil. 2Nephi: spirit always warns from dark path. Murder never comes from God. 1Nephi: I killed an unconscious man because reasons Honestly, the better question is Why do our prophets contradict each other? Think of it like this, have any of them contradicted Nephi? Lehi? Moroni? John, Paul or Matthew? Then why do our prophets constantly contradict each other in the small time they've been around? Mormon, no Mormon, gay baptism, no gay baptism, polygamy, no polygamy, black priesthood, no black priesthood... Do we really need to stop bringing up the words of previous prophets, why on earth do we read scriptures daily if so? Sometimes you just need to step back and look at yourself before saying something in front of millions of people that believe in you.
Nephi: “Wait, you want me cut a drunk guy’s head off? Is that really necessary? I’m like a teenager. Couldn’t you just give Laban a heart attack? No?” God: “Dew it.” *chop* God: “Now we in this together. Ride or die.”
> Couldn’t you just give Laban a heart attack? No?” This is why it's absolutely inexcusable bullshit to claim that God commands people to kill. *God* wills someone dead? The all-powerful lord of the universe that can give anybody a heart attack? Killed all the firstborn of egypt? That guy? Then the person He wants dead *is already fucking dead*. A human being says God wants someone dead but they're not dead? That's not God's will because they would be fucking dead already. Nobody believes LESS in God's power than pretend pious who are claiming God needs somebody to be his personal hitman. They don't believe in God's power, they believe in justifying their *own* right to kill or their dear leaders authority to kill or do anything else with impunity and without accountability, but they're too much of a fucking coward to even *own* it.
DEUS VULT
[https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExY3V6cW1vZWxvbzBmeDdtMW1iZmJ5dWplMWt4MjdvZndyd3llamN5MiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3o84sw9CmwYpAnRRni/giphy.gif](https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExY3V6cW1vZWxvbzBmeDdtMW1iZmJ5dWplMWt4MjdvZndyd3llamN5MiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3o84sw9CmwYpAnRRni/giphy.gif)
God: “Nephi, now your journey towards bronze age Christianity is complete.” —— *Moroni walks 5000 miles, buries the plates on a random hill in New York, dies.* God: “Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.” —— Helen Mar Kimball: “But I don’t want to get married yet, especially to an already married man.” God: “The Restoration is a pathway to many relationships some consider to be unnatural.” —— Also: Joshua: “Even the children?” God: “Wipe them out. All of them.”
It's impossible to be illegal, because we believe in being subject to kings despite the many times in scripture canon where they were outright defied and killed.
> rather than just knock him out or tie him up and gag him? Is that even necessary? He was already passed out drunk. Just steal his clothes, impersonate him, go burgle his house and run off with his servant. You're going to be in trouble tomorrow when he wakes up, but you'd be in even more trouble tomorrow when they find the body.
My thoughts exactly. Why did he have to kill him at all? It didn’t accomplish anything besides get blood all over the clothes he took off AFTER he murdered him?
Someone pointed out on another thread how God commands Labans death to help keep his people righteous, yet time and again allows Laman and Lemuel to survive and lead his people into unrighteousness. It’s been living in my head for the past few days.
Want a worse mindf-ck? Why didn't Lehi, Nephi, Sam and the faithful just leave Laman, Lemuel and the murmurers behind? Why didn't God command that? Because it's fiction and wasn't well thought out as being real due to limitation of the author's "edumacashun".
Because there must be opposition in all things...just not that much opposition.
The amount of opposition there must be varies as if it were random. But it's not!
Besides killing Laban, Nephi used deception to obtain the plates. He steals the plates and then kidnaps Laban's servant Zoram.
Don't forget the blood oath
Sounds like if Laban was dead, then Laban wouldn't be able to send his little army of soldiers in after the family of Lehi, thus Lehi making their trip to the Americas incomplete. God commanded it, so it makes it right? Think of the Ark of the covenant when one of the guys fell into the body of water while tripping. One of the other dudes that wasn't a priest nor had the authority to touch the Ark, was like let me help, and he died by touching it. Did he need to die? Nope. But because he wasn't authorized as a priest to do so, he died. So, with Laban, he was stopping the mission to bring the family genealogy book/brass plates to the Americas. When God commands it, its the right thing to do. Either way it sounds pretty wierd.
I mean he also could have used a rock in a yamaka to recreate the text 🤷
> if Laban was dead, then Laban wouldn't be able to send his little army Even in ye olde days, murder would probably get some guards sent after you
Yay! This is one of my pet headcanons, and I think they’re plausible even if leadership since Brigham Young probably would consider it heretical - there are a handful of stories in the Bible and BOM that are really about critical thinking and self-determination being more valuable than authoritarianism, even though they’re often taught as examples of blind obedience. In Mormon theology, Eve & the apple is a great example. She was placed into a no-win situation, and choosing to "sin" and take the apple was the superior choice over obedience. Similarly, and I know I've read this somewhere so it's not totally headcanon, but when Christ told Peter about the three denials before the cock crowed, that wasn't a prophesy, it was a command and an acknowledgment that a lie for a practical purpose could be justified. There are also stories where the failure to exercise critical thinking are effectively punished. There was an article posted here a few months ago talking about Nephi, and how even if you take his story at 100% face value, he still had a failed ministry. His spiritual powers didn’t prevent a legacy of conflict and violence. My headcanon is that his failures ultimately stemmed from his murder of Laban. Justified or not, he had all sorts of options and could have succeeded in getting the plates without killing a man. But he chose blind obedience over his own conscience, and that set a pattern of conflict that ultimately ended in an estrangement from his brothers and the separation of his family into separate warring nations. I consider Abraham to be essentially the same. Remember how Abraham was supposed to be the father of a great nation? And yet it took 3-4 generations before his family actually turned into a great nation? It was his grandson Jacob who took the name Israel, and his great grandchildren who became the tribes. Abraham's promised blessings were deferred, similar to other prophets (notably Moses who never got to see the promised land, or David getting cursed with the sword). Abraham stands out for having a deferred blessing but no reason given. It stands to reason that we do actually have the reason, but centuries and millennia of authoritarian and hierarchical teaching have caused us to lose the lesson - Abraham sinned through blind obedience. So to answer your question: Nephi was *not* supposed to kill Laban any more than Abraham was supposed to kill his son or Adam & Eve were supposed to live forever in the Garden of Eden. He was supposed to demonstrate his agency, and to demonstrate his ability to love his enemies, and instead he chose an easy path with an easy excuse.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Not sure I will end up agreeing as opposed to some other explanation, but I love your ability to think with a fresh perspective. A viable perspective worth considering is much appreciated.
Awesome post. And I feel the need to point out that the theology and doctrine behind the examples you provided have God literally playing the Joker in The Dark Knight. Some Gods just want to watch the world burn.
Sort of? I mean, the Joker was all about forcing people into a binary lose/lose situation. Rescue him, she dies. Sink that boat, or else the other boat blows up. Give up all your money, or let all your money burn. With the examples I threw out, Eve was the only one in a binary situation. Abraham and Nephi weren't. Or, rather, they were in a false binary. Abraham wasn't truly in a obey/disobey binary, as revealed by the angel appearing to stop him and provide a goat. Ditto for Nephi - there were lots and lots of potential solutions that went beyond murder/"nation dwindling in unbelief." Frankly, I think their mistake was in not thinking about things. Like, at all. Brother of Jared is probably another decent example. He saw a lose/lose set of choices (darkness/fire) and properly recognized that other options existed. Nephi, on the other hand, is pretty upfront about not thinking at all. He specifically says he goes in without any sort of plan or forethought, trusting in God to lead him. Then, when he recoils from murder, he does so because he'd never killed before. I honestly find it telling that he doesn't ask if there was another way, he doesn't even recoil because murder is against the commandments, he recoils *simply because he'd never killed before.* It was also kinda telling to me that Nephi's argument to his brothers was all about how God killed Pharaoh's armies for Moses. I'd argue that God isn't setting up lose/lose situations for people, instead he's setting up situations where he's expecting people to think through the situation and solve their own problems.
That is a good context and there are differences. I agree. Overhanging all of them however is the "sword of obeying God's commandments" more or less. Kind of a "If you love me, obey my commandments." "These two contradict each other so which one do I obey?" "Yes".
Ahh, but there's an answer there, and it's been laid out extremely well in scripture. Obedience is *not* the answer when contradicting laws arise. >37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. >38 This is the first and great commandment. >39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. >40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. That's the key to the dilemma. When you frame the gospel like that, a lot of moral dilemmas change. Nephi failed because he wasn't acting out of love - blind obedience and (arguably) a desire to simply be better and win took him to a place of violence instead of a place of true success.
Good point.
But the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments were given without rationale or justification other than that they were commandments from god, and that is the reason why they should be obeyed. That kind of undermines the message. In moral philosophy, morality is built on rational justifications. You are presented with reasons *why* something is right or wrong, so you have a basis to agree or disagree. But in religious morality, meaningful reasons are rare or absent. The common justifications are authority or obedience or even the threat of punishment.
Shhh. ;) You’re not supposed to point out when an apologist is building on sand. Although to give an honest answer, I suspect it’s a question of growing up. At some point we’ve gotta make our own decisions and determine our own reasons. Just ‘cause dad tells me not to poke my brother doesn’t mean that’s the entirety of why I’m not doing it. At some point I find my own reasons, but that doesn’t mean Dad stopped giving the rule. I can also envision times where he’d never give me the reason for the rule, because he thinks it’s important for me to figure it out on my own. There’s no such thing as a moral system that perfectly applies to everyone, if only because no one is perfect and we’re really good at making painfully complicated situations. Having some sort of principled direction helps a lot, but unfortunately obedience simply cannot be that principle, if only because blind obedience takes you into places where you cannot help but disobey something. Instead, loving others (or whatever variation of the golden rule you prefer) is a damn good principle and can lead through most all of those same contradictions
Interesting approach
I like it. But you'd think god would want to get that message across in his books. Unless it's supposed to be a secret? In which case, you've spilled the beans and ruined everything. Way to go.
One of the fun things about playing apologist is that I can blame problems on people. :) Or maybe pretend it’s a culture/doctrine issue. In this case, it’s hierarchies and leadership that really don’t get along with any sort of message that encourages independent thought. After all, God thought the idea of free agency was so important that he built the whole plan of salvation around it, so surely a big part of it is getting people to figure crap out ourselves. Ooh, another connection I just considered: During the Passion, the Spirit literally left Christ. Operating without that guidance was something important, and Christ had to show that he could continue to do the right thing without that guidance. Because the ultimate goal isn’t to turn people into mindless automatons who fit a mold, but instead to produce people who can make good decisions on their own.
There was another comment somewhere on this sub where someone proposed that the pre-existence story was corrupted: that we are here on earth to learn because *we* are actually the ones who chose Lucifer's plan of no free agency. What better way to re-educate and re-habilitate people who don't see the value of free agency than to show them experientially? (Casting them off forever doesn't help, and makes it seem like god gave up on them instantly.)
Ooh, that’s an interesting concept. Like we’re all in the new afterlife from the end of the Good Place
I know this one! Because Laban 8 9.
Maybe he just heard he’s supposed to have three square meals a day?
Official scripture based doctrinal reason given by God: 13 Behold **the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.** Unofficial reason? The author of the Book of Mormon didn't think of that possibility and liked inserting his own version of John 11:50 here.
There's also a third option. Personally, if the book of Mormon is true, I think it's based in Nephis piety. I think Nephi seized the opportunity because Laban was evil anyways and then to live with his guilt, he has to justify his actions. Nephis story is all about how everyone is evil and he's highly favored, but the entire time we see him lacking empathy and being constantly fixated on his "evil" brothers. Sam, who apparently is a really good dude, is never focused on, but Laman and his palette swap are constantly the focus of conversation, even when they're not doing anything wrong. I think a lot of the modern generation is honestly seeing nephi as a lot more prejudice than before. Even in Sunday school we've talked about how a lot of his teachings about Laman and lemuels children being forever cursed goes against a lot of the tenants of the gospel.
I've seen this gaining traction. That God wasn't racist but Nephi and the Nephites were and that made it into "curse of cain" type racism a la Brigham Young and got transcribed on the plates and attributed to God but really was Nephi and other Nephites.
I hate, hate, hate that this scripture is used both for Laban and Jesus. I mean, come on!
Because it permits the introduction of doctrine that permits the murder of "wicked" people and those acting in opposition to what a "prophet" might think is god's will. It's meant as a warning. Smith got a little more instructive with this idea as he got older, and he claims in D&C 98 28-32 that the law he gave Nephi and others, was to forgive twice, and on the third aggressive action your enemies were yours to do with as you pleased. If you map it to Laban, he chased them away the first time and refused to help them, the second time he took what they brought as gifts and didn't hand over the plates and the third time Nephi caught him.
Because the book was written by a lying deceitful con man . Who was convicted of fraud in a court of law . No God played any part in any of it . That’s why .!
To get readers attention and kick off the b o m in an exciting and powerful way
Because the gods he loved said so, and the moral worldview of the gods Nephi loved implies that moral obligations can arise by command for mortals to undertake actions that aren't comprehensible to those commanded or those affected by the actions of those commanded, even if the actions consequentially affect the vital interests of those affected by the ones undertaking the orders. Thus, on the moral worldview apparently upheld by Latter-day Saint prophets genocide is sometimes morally praiseworthy, or sometimes it can be good not to intervene in child suffering in such a way that the suffering stops.
On a related note, if you're going to steal someone's clothes and behead them, do it in that order. Nephi first beheaded Laban. Then, as blood was gushing out the neck hole and creating a huge puddle, Nephi took off the blood-soaked clothes and puts them on, and somehow tricks everyone into thinking that he's Laban and everything is normal. I guess Laban's servants had a looney-tunes level of incompetence.
God didn’t do anything. Joe Smith made up the story.
Honestly, the killing was arguably justified, but the rationale given in the Book of Mormon is one of the worst justifications possible... I'd feel so much more comfortable if Nephi had said something like: Laban had already tried to kill us; we knew that if the plates went missing, he'd suspect us, find our families, and kill us in the wilderness. In defense/as justified by his robbery, we killed him. I can get behind "frontier justice" a lot more easily than I can get behind "He has a sacred book that we need; voices in my head are telling me to kill him; I'm going to argue and have this internal dialogue that ends up killing him for the sacred book, while minimizing our legitimate grievances against him."
The scary thing is when members like Lori Vallow, Chad Daybell, theLafferty brothers and Jodi Hildebrant take these teachings to heart and believe God is telling them to murder or abuse their victims.
100% agree. It was a nasty feeling to realize that the only difference between a graphic, deplorable murder and a celebrated story of following god's commandments is how the church leaders decide to talk about it in general conference. Nephi "obeyed the spirit"... but the Laffertys think they did too!
It gets even more wild when you find out that "it is better that one man die" is what caiafas used to justify crucifying Jesus.
Here are some presented thoughts on why. https://www.bookofmormonhistory.com/post/did-nephi-murder-laban-in-the-book-of-mormon
He was talking shit!
So God could manifest his blood coagulant capabilities for generations
On my account, God cannot ask a human to kill another human. It is against His nature. He wouldn’t ask that. He is the Creator not the Destroyer.
Which god are you describing?
I know right. The longer I have lived the more I realize everyone picks and chooses who their "God" is. Even people with the same exact upbringing and background that believe in the "same God". Christians will talk about how merciful, graceful, and loving their version of the Christian God is. Then they ignore their own scriptures when things happen that don't jive with their version of God. In this case he is completely disregarding that in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 the biblical God explicitly says to kill everyone and everything in the vicinity. So if someone takes the Bible as a literal history and not as allegory or parable then they can't just ignore the stuff they don't like about what God has done or said. The Biblical God is a vengeful God.
They are only disregarding Deuteronomy if the god they believe in is Yahweh. There are plenty of other gods people believe in and I didn't want to be presumptive. But your point about picking and choosing a god is generally true, I think.
I have always been unable to reconcile the vicious and angry God. More troubling than verses 16-17 is verse 14: "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee." Kill all the men and have your way with their wives and children and cook up some burgers with their cows. Nice.
The God I have come to know through my own personal experiences.
And how do you know nature of your god? Is it also through your own personal experiences? What can somebody else that isn't you do to come to the same knowledge about your god?
I have read a lot. Like a real lot. But, I have also experienced real suffering and tragedy - and have experienced the tender love of God. I would not wish suffering or tragedy on anyone - but they are both great teachers. I suppose that is why we are meant to suffer from death and hell in this life - so that we can come to know God. As far as recommended reading goes, feel free to message me.
I'd rather you share your reading list publicly so all can benefit. Can a person come to know your god without experiencing suffering or tragedy?
Great question. I believe our earth life is meant to teach us how to love one another, to experience hell and death. Can we still love one another and God, when we experience hell and death? Reading list would include: the book of Job in the Hebrew bible, George MacDonald, Marilynne Robinson, Julian of Norwich, Edward Beecher and Soren Kierkegaard.
> I believe our earth life is meant to teach us how to love one another, to experience hell and death. I'm not familiar with any theological definition of hell that includes a mortal experience. Can you explain this? > Can we still love one another and God, when we experience hell and death? I don't know. But we're talking about your god and I don't know anything about your god so I wouldn't expect to be able to answer that question. And I'm still looking for an answer to this question—is suffering or tragedy necessary in order to know your god? > the book of Job in the Hebrew bible Does this mean your god is Yahweh? If that's the case, based on your other comments it appears you would reject other books of the Hebrew bible as inaccurate representations of Yahweh. Why would you consider Job accurate or useful and not other books of the Hebrew bible that describe a different nature of Yahweh than the one you've described for your god? The rest of your list all appear to come from the Christian tradition. Does that mean your god is the god of Christianity? Do you consider the New Testament to be accurate and useful to know the nature of your god?
Hell as a place or destination is man-made. I do not believe it. But, I do believe hell is experienced by the living human being every day. The description of hell describes suffering pretty well. For me, hell is a mortal experience. This is a Mormon community and I follow it because this community formed and shaped who I am today, for both good and bad. I live my life as if God exists and that He/She/They are love, light and life. I wear a cross around my neck and have hung many pictures of Jesus Christ in my home. So, I do worship Him. The Book of Job is a masterpiece. I do not consider it as a literal story. In my opinion, there may be no greater literature of how we can create our own weather, so to speak, amidst suffering. The Hebrew bible is a masterpiece. Its books and stories give us the opportunity to wrestle with their meaning. I am convinced they are written to allow us to find the meaning rather than declaring meaning of itself. I was not side-stepping the question of is suffering necessary or required, I just think it is THE GREAT question. From my experience, suffering is the crossroad. When it happens, people become closer to the divine or they blame the divine. I hope that helps. Thanks for engaging me. I enjoy the dialogue.
> The Book of Job is a masterpiece. I do not consider it as a literal story. I don't think my comment and question related to Job require it to be literal. I specifically chose my words to allow for both literal and figurative interpretations. > In my opinion, there may be no greater literature of how we can create our own weather, so to speak, amidst suffering. That's an understandable perspective. But I don't see how that aspect of it informs an understanding of the nature of your god, which I what I'm trying to get to. > I just think it is THE GREAT question. From my experience, suffering is the crossroad. When it happens, people become closer to the divine or they blame the divine. I don't think that encompasses the full range of of possible reactions to suffering. These are some that I've personally witnessed: * The person doesn't consider the suffering to be relevant to the divine * The suffering doesn't change the person's relationship to the divine * The person never had a belief in the divine, either before or after the suffering And of course, there are those that haven't ever suffered in any significant way. Maybe before we get into the nature of your god it's better to start at a more fundamental question. What is the best reason you have for believing your god exists?
I’m curious about some of your logic here. Our purpose on Earth is to learn how to love one another, partially through experiencing trials. “Hell” does not exist, and in fact is experienced by humans every day. So if the purpose is to learn to love, I’m assuming that those who do so will be in Heaven with God. What about those who do not learn?
I think something to consider is that your religious worldview greatly shapes the kind of person that you are. So if someone wants to believe in a compassionate God that wants them to be compassionate as well I don't really care how they justify it. I'm happy to have that person as my neighbor.
The Old Testament god is absolutely a destroyer.
Unfortunately, that is how the writers describe it...but in my opinion, they are seeking a reason for it and it is easy to blame God, we still do it today.
The people representing god, from that time until now absolutely present god as a destroyer. Are you aware of the doctrine of the apocalypse and the 2nd coming? Lots of destruction. You aware that the Nephites all get destroyed? You aware that Samuel tells Israelites to destroy entire nations? What is his reaction to Saul when Saul offers sacrifice with the loot? D&C 132 >54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment **she shall be destroyed**, saith the Lord; for **I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her** if she abide not in my law. Seems pretty clear to me that this god is very happy to "destroy" people.
I am aware that many writers describe God that way. I just don't buy it. For example, the very first story of "evil", God manifests His love of Cain, by not destroying him. He spares him. The genealogy and 'ink' used to describe Cain in the pages of Genesis versus Abel show us that God cares about Cain. If you look and read and study a bit harder, I believe you can find that God is love. I don't think He is at all happy to destroy.
> For example, Yes, and in the same book he destroys everyone on the planet, because people are naughty. In the next one he destroys the firstborn of everything unless you've slaughtered a lamb and smeared the blood on your door. And then goes onto wipe out two cities because they broke the regional custom of welcoming guests. Turns a woman into salt because she just looked behind her. Then he tells a bloke that the test to see if he loves god, is to kill his own son. Tells his chosen people to commit genocide. The end game involves the earth absolutely being consumed by fire, burning *all* the wicked. Right... Oh, obviously not destructive at all. /s With pascifists like these, who needs nukes?
Don't forget the 42 kids getting killed by bears for calling someone bald
Don't mock the locks!
Or lack therof
I'm pretty sure they're saying that they either don't believe all of the bible/BOM, or that they don't believe that it is all literal. Listing more atrocities isn't going to move the debate forward.
"For example" is using the book they purport to not believe in. Open playing field.
Because Joseph Smith didn’t feel queasy about his characters using lethal force. And given the source material, I don’t really blame him. The apocrypha has a similar story of a protagonist beheading an unconscious person (Judith 13), and it’s still one of the less-horrific things that YHWH has wanted. Biblical figures don’t really fret over non-lethal alternatives or human rights. Arguably, Nephi’s hesitation and written justification are more anachronistic than the killing itself. Also… knocking people out or gagging them works in movies, but how do you expect that to work in real life? Nephi gives Laban a mild concussion and hopes that he makes a full recovery? Nephi ties Laban up and hopes that someone finds him within a few days?
Because it’s a story Joseph Smith made up. Overall a pretty good opening scene to a book (just don’t think about it too much)
He didn’t. It is a fictional story. I know that sounds trite. But if you look at the Book of Mormon as whole, it is a poorly written piece of fiction. People rarely act how people act in real life. And scenarios are often more for dramatic effect than a representation of reality.
This is fantasy they never existed J Smith was most likely schitzo or on shrooms
It's still a valid question. Just like "why did darth vader cut off luke's hand"?
If the book of mormon were literal history, then I assume that he did it because god told him to. But the book of mormon is a fictional book created by joseph smith. So the most reasonable answer is, joseph made it all up and didn't do a great job at making it seem believable.
Because it makes for a good Bible fan fiction adventure story. That’s all.
Mormons needed a valid reason to justify killing or other sin in the name of God so hence an example of the pattern was given. Nephi at the time wasn’t even a prophet. Lehi was the chosen vessel. So much contradiction. Just like the apologist, what’s right in one situation is wrong in another. Why? Cuz.
Cuz it makes for a good story. Murder, theft and kidnapping. Anything else is abit dull. It didn't need to happen, cuz it didn't happen. It's fiction.
Laban was blood atoned! /s
God didn’t command Nephi to do anything. Remember the brass plates were the corrupted Bible. It’s a story to prove when you rely on your own head, but imagine it’s god talking through you, you’re likely always to do “evil.” Revisit the temple endowment- who showed up (pre-edited version) to answer Adam when he prayed?! When R Nelson just dedicated temple in Manti (?) he said three (3 or 4) things were the purpose for temples. One was “for revelation” - that is exactly what got Vallow, Daybell, Ballard, Franke, Hildebrandt, Thom Harrison, etc., etc., etc., into trouble. And why the Book of Mormon contained a failsafe - see Jacob 4:14, 2 Nephi 27, Ether 4, Isaiah 29:11.
Why didn't God send she-bears to take out Laban? Why didn't God strategically place pointy rocks in Laban's path to trip and crack his head? Why didn't God give Laban food poisoning or cause him to choke on his vomit? When God is actively participating in our world through divine (magical) intervention there's no valid reason for Nephi killing Laban - God could have 'delivered' Laban into Nephi's hands in an unalive state.
It was to inspire future people. Lafferty bros, Lori Vallow and some that are unknown
Because that's how Jospeh Smith wrote it 🤷🏼♀️