CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Did Nephi Commit Murder or was it self-defense?

by CougarClaw · 2/2/2012

Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BoiseBYU
I don't want to belabor this but a couple of extra thoughts. The overarching principle is to obey. As it says in 1 Samuel, it is better to obey than to sacrifice. God is not arbitrary, but some times he does command us to do things that are not inherently or intuitively "moral" in and of themselves.. For example, we believe we have been commanded not to drink cafeinated tea. There is nothng morally wrong with drinking tea as far as I can tell except that God has commanded us to heed this restriction. What is always moral is obeying God in whatever He asks of us.
B
BroncoBot
BoiseBYU wrote:
I don't want to belabor this but a couple of extra thoughts. The overarching principle is to obey. As it says in 1 Samuel, it is better to obey than to sacrifice. God is not arbitrary, but some times he does command us to do things that are not inherently or intuitively "moral" in and of themselves.. For example, we believe we have been commanded not to drink cafeinated tea. There is nothng morally wrong with drinking tea as far as I can tell except that God has commanded us to heed this restriction. What is always moral is obeying God in whatever He asks of us.

Where is that commandment? I thought we were commanded to not partake of "hot drinks" which has been described as "coffee and tea" more recently but I've never seen the term caffeinated in describing D&C 89. And I would argue that there IS something morally wrong with partaking of substances or practices that become addictive.



But I do agree with your point. Nephi still had his agency. He had the choice to obey personal revelation, which must have been pretty clear cut, or obey the law of Moses. He chose to "murder" Laban which absolutely the right choice given the circumstances. Joseph Smith learned this lesson the hard way when he ignored personal revelation and continued to plead with the Lord to allow Martin Harris to take the manuscript.
J
jvquarterback
CougarClaw wrote:
Here are a few more arguments. What do you guys think?



yes I am saying that Nephi was justified in killing Laban even without the coxing from the spirit. If the spirit told him it was ok to do so then it must have already been ok to do so. The spirit cannot change the nature of something from bad into something that is good merely because he says so; the spirit testifies of truth but he doesn't manufactuer it. Neither the spirit nor God are arbitrary.



You ask why Nephi hesitated and he explains in his own words the reason: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man." I'm sure I too would be scared and hesitate to kill for the very first time even if it was for a righteous and just reason such as defending my family from a home invader.



God is not arbitrary (or he wouldn't be God). If we see what appears to be inconsistencies in gospel principles then either someone is acting in error or more likely we don't have a complete understanding of the principle. Eternal principles are literally universally applicable. In the example of Nephi specifically Laban had already ordered his goons to hunt down and murder Nephi and his brothers so killing Laban was literally in self-defense not murder (or we are missing some other pieces of the story).


Nothing wrong in paragraph 1 or 2. Paragraph 3 is OK too, although most people nowadays consider self-defense something that has to occur in the moment of danger. You have to remember Nephi was a young man at the time and he probably hadn't dealt with a death penalty case up to that point and clearly hadn't acted as executor in such a case. The spirit guided him to truth and to make a righteous decision which I don't think was contrary to the law. We don't know but it sounds like Nephi went through the proper steps to obtain the revelation - ie he had thought it out in his mind and made a decision that was confirmed by the spirit. Nephi's concern when he received the inspiration was never that the act was contrary to the law of Moses, it was that he hadn't killed anyone before.



Also I think your friend is extending an olive branch by saying we don't know the whole story as opposed to being the final arbiter.
S
SpiffCoug
Am I wrong in thinking God IS arbitrary? He has different laws for different people and different times and different circumstances.
G
Guest
SpiffCoug wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking God IS arbitrary? He has different laws for different people and different times and different circumstances.


God wants us to become perfected and become like him. In order to get there different peoples need different laws based on where they are. Clearly, at least I think it's clearly, the laws that are given to us are steps on a journey and should not be confused as the Universal Law.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BBP
SpiffCoug wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking God IS arbitrary? He has different laws for different people and different times and different circumstances.


So you think that makes Him arbitrary? You answered it yourself with "different circumstances." He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He has commanded us in general for general situations (a default setting, if you will). That is our baseline requirement for obedience. He makes all other commandments, which we may see as contradictory, according to specific circumstances, with his eternal perspective, for our ultimate (eternal) good. What is best for one (individual/group/nation/civilization), or at one time, may not be best for another, or at another time, even though we may not see why.



Remember, He cannot lie or sin (be unclean) in any way, or He would cease to be God. Everything He does is for one purpose: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, in other words to give His kingdom eternal progression. There can be no mistakes. Nothing happens by chance. All comes from a master plan set in motion before the foundation of this world, in a grand counsel. He has never deviated, and never will. We just don't always see the plan, because we only have a finite, earthly perspective.
B
BoiseBYU
hawkwing wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking God IS arbitrary? He has different laws for different people and different times and different circumstances.


God wants us to become perfected and become like him. In order to get there different peoples need different laws based on where they are. Clearly, at least I think it's clearly, the laws that are given to us are steps on a journey and should not be confused as the Universal Law.

If there is a universal law, perhaps it is this: Obey God in whatever He commands. Stay on His side and seek and do His will, and all will be well.
B
BoiseBYU
declocoug wrote:
I don't want to belabor this but a couple of extra thoughts. The overarching principle is to obey. As it says in 1 Samuel, it is better to obey than to sacrifice. God is not arbitrary, but some times he does command us to do things that are not inherently or intuitively "moral" in and of themselves.. For example, we believe we have been commanded not to drink cafeinated tea. There is nothng morally wrong with drinking tea as far as I can tell except that God has commanded us to heed this restriction. What is always moral is obeying God in whatever He asks of us.

Where is that commandment? I thought we were commanded to not partake of "hot drinks" which has been described as "coffee and tea" more recently but I've never seen the term caffeinated in describing D&C 89. And I would argue that there IS something morally wrong with partaking of substances or practices that become addictive.



But I do agree with your point. Nephi still had his agency. He had the choice to obey personal revelation, which must have been pretty clear cut, or obey the law of Moses. He chose to "murder" Laban which absolutely the right choice given the circumstances. Joseph Smith learned this lesson the hard way when he ignored personal revelation and continued to plead with the Lord to allow Martin Harris to take the manuscript.

Actually Jospeh taught from the beginning that hot drinks referred to coffe and tea and while it did not become a commandment right away, it did become a commandment upon the church when Brigham Young was prophet. I do not see or feel the same moral component when I see a person who is not a member of the Church drink tea as when I observe someone, for example, steal money. But God commanding me to abstain from tea makes it a very moral issue for me to adhere to and observe.
C
CougarClaw
hawkwing wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking God IS arbitrary? He has different laws for different people and different times and different circumstances.


God wants us to become perfected and become like him. In order to get there different peoples need different laws based on where they are. Clearly, at least I think it's clearly, the laws that are given to us are steps on a journey and should not be confused as the Universal Law.


Hawk's argument is exactly what "Kevin" didn't agree with. "Kevin" argued that if something is a commandment one place, it also must be a commandment every place because God is Universal and does not change or vary. I brought up Nephi as contrary example since he received a very specific commandment contrary to one of the 10. His defense was that nephi acted in self-defense and didn't receive a contrary commandment at all so it wasn't an example of a contrary commandment.



It's an interesting point, and at least he can justify himself in the face of a strong counter-example but i still side with Hawk.
M
Mars
CougarClaw wrote:
Hawk's argument is exactly what "Kevin" didn't agree with. "Kevin" argued that if something is a commandment one place, it also must be a commandment every place because God is Universal and does not change or vary. I brought up Nephi as contrary example since he received a very specific commandment contrary to one of the 10. His defense was that nephi acted in self-defense and didn't receive a contrary commandment at all so it wasn't an example of a contrary commandment... i still side with Hawk.

Jesus turned water into wine. We are commanded not to drink wine today. The Law of Moses is another example- It is not a sin for me to eat calamari, but it was for Isaiah. Your friend is on tenuous ground if he thinks that what applied to one person once applies to everyone at all times. Polygamy is a third example.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BBP
CougarClaw wrote:
SpiffCoug wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking God IS arbitrary? He has different laws for different people and different times and different circumstances.


God wants us to become perfected and become like him. In order to get there different peoples need different laws based on where they are. Clearly, at least I think it's clearly, the laws that are given to us are steps on a journey and should not be confused as the Universal Law.


Hawk's argument is exactly what "Kevin" didn't agree with. "Kevin" argued that if something is a commandment one place, it also must be a commandment every place because

1.God is Universal and does not change or vary. I brought up Nephi as contrary example since he received a very specific commandment contrary to one of the 10. His defense was that nephi acted in self-defense and

2.didn't receive a contrary commandment at all so it wasn't an example of a contrary commandment.



It's an interesting point, and at least he can justify himself in the face of a strong counter-example but i still side with Hawk.


1. He's right. God is universal and does not change. What changes is us, the situation and the world. He varies only in what he commands us to do in different situations. Scripture is full of different instructions/ commandments under different situations. The ten commandments and The Savior's higher law are very contradictory if you can't allow for that. People have been directed or commanded to live polygamy at different times, but told that it is an abomination at other times. That has hppened both ways in this dispensation alone. If Heavenly Father didn't make those "contradictory" commandments, then we have been led astray by one prophet or another, and the Church would, of necessity be false (it is not).

2. The Spirit "constrained him," then told him twice more to kill Laban. In my book, that means commanded. It also means commanded in Mormon's book, according to the publishers (The LDS Church, under the direction of the first presidency), because they stated so in the chapter introduction. No justification under earthly or heavenly law is necessary, because he was following heavenly (eternal) law in following the direction given by the Spirit (that means by Heavenly Father, because all three members of the Godhead give the same directions, or they would cease to be members of the Godhead).



Apparently, "Keven" doesn't understand that things on earth are given for the earth in finite, earthly terms, and that for all earthly laws, there are higher, eternal laws that supercede or override them. They may sound contradictory to our finite minds, but they are not at all contradictory, just higher, and they can be invoked at any time by the Lord, who's purposes are always pure.
G
Guest
Mars wrote:
Hawk's argument is exactly what "Kevin" didn't agree with. "Kevin" argued that if something is a commandment one place, it also must be a commandment every place because God is Universal and does not change or vary. I brought up Nephi as contrary example since he received a very specific commandment contrary to one of the 10. His defense was that nephi acted in self-defense and didn't receive a contrary commandment at all so it wasn't an example of a contrary commandment... i still side with Hawk.

Jesus turned water into wine. We are commanded not to drink wine today. The Law of Moses is another example- It is not a sin for me to eat calamari, but it was for Isaiah. Your friend is on tenuous ground if he thinks that what applied to one person once applies to everyone at all times. Polygamy is a third example.


Exactly. Lots of periods of times where people were given different commandments. The commandments were for the people to help them progress to the best of their situation and understanding.



This makes me worried about Kevin, this is a very basic principal of the gospel, but a misunderstanding of it is also one of the primary reasons why I think most people become apostate and join fundamentalist groups. They believe, erroneously that for example because polygamy was a commandment for a short time during Joseph Smith's life that it is impossible for it to have been rescinded.



Your friend will probably be following the Parowan Prophet within a few years.
B
BBP
hawkwing wrote:

Exactly. Lots of periods of times where people were given different commandments. The commandments were for the people to help them progress to the best of their situation and understanding.


The lord also sets a standard for his people, then backs off (to a point) to what they are able or willing to live. He did that with the children of Isreal, and the ten commandments and law of Moses were the lower standard. He did that in this dispensation with the law of consecration, among many things. He has even done it within this dispensation. The commandment to store food and supplies was originally given as a two year supply.
S
SpiffCoug
As was stated earlier, the underlying principle is obedience. Nephi was obedient to promptings of the Spirit/commandment form the Lord. As such he was doing what was right and justified.



If another one of us killing a passed out drunk who had run us off his property and stolen our money (precious things), we would be wrong and unjustified.



Be obedient to the Lord. Some of us (the extremely few of us) are lucky enough to be able to get specific, arbitrary and unique commandments from the Lord/Spirt. While the rest of us get to live by the relatively more universal guidance found in the everlasting Gospel contained in the Standard Works.



Great discussion on CC by the way.



Hawk, can you tell us more about this prophet in Parowan?
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
scott715
Hawk you got to that website awfully quick, is there something we should know about? When that website said meet the prophet I expcect to see Jack in the Box.
S
scott715
Also wasn't Noah commanded to build an Ark? Is Kevin building his yet?
G
Guest
There is a billboard along I15 in Parowan for the guy. For some reason I've always gotten a chuckle out of it as I drive past.



Sadly though, it's one of those things where LDS people get caught up in misunderstanding exactly what revelation and commandments are that lead to people becoming so fixated on one thing that despite the whole beauty of the gospel they only keep playing and harping on one key, and leads to things like following this so-called prophet of Parowan.
C
CougarClaw
SpiffCoug wrote:
As was stated earlier, the underlying principle is obedience. Nephi was obedient to promptings of the Spirit/commandment form the Lord. As such he was doing what was right and justified.



If another one of us killing a passed out drunk who had run us off his property and stolen our money (precious things), we would be wrong and unjustified.



Be obedient to the Lord. Some of us (the extremely few of us) are lucky enough to be able to get specific, arbitrary and unique commandments from the Lord/Spirt. While the rest of us get to live by the relatively more universal guidance found in the everlasting Gospel contained in the Standard Works.



Great discussion on CC by the way.




I'm all for the obedience principle and so is he. But the argument is moot against kevin's position because he postulates that if nephi was already justified by the law of the time, then the spirit plays no pivotal role. Therefore it was not a question of obedience but one of law and justice. Laban had stolen a considerable amount from him (offense worthy of death) threatened his family (clan warfare) sent people after him(clan warfare) and the government was corrupt (vigilante justice) so Nephi, he claims, was fully justified in taking Laban's life. I'd never heard that before, and so I asked him what role the spirit had in the narrative and he said essentially nothing. The spirit can't change something from wrong to right, it had to already have been right. otherwise God changes.



In his context of universal law, the argument is fairly logical -- it has to be. if Nephi had a commandment changed, like I believe he did, then it disproves his Universal law theory which is why I brought it up in the first place. I just disagree that Nephi was justified in killing Laban even in under their laws, but that is a harder argument to win.
S
SpiffCoug
Kevin is so right. The Spirit played "no pivotal role" other than leading Nephi during the entire ordeal. Nephi had NO CLUE what he was going to do. He had NO IDEA how he was going to get the plates. He just knew he had to obey whatever promptings the Spirit he gave him because he trusted in the Lord.



Kevin can't have it both ways. He can't take Nephi at his word (he hesitated) and then disregard Nephi's word that the Spirit guided him. You simply can't discount the Spirit in this narrative because it plays a central role.
Page 3 of 4
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.