We’ve all been there. You are sitting in some Sunday School or Auxiliary lesson and some chucklehead goes on and on about how they are so obedient that if God asked them to kill someone, they would. They think they are the height of righteousness because they are chomping at the bit to get some blood on their hands. These people are psychopaths; avoid them if possible. But sometimes they influence people, so here are a few things to help.
Ask them, “Why stop there?” If God asked them to sodomize babies, would they do that? If God asked them to get an abortion, would they do that? What if God asked them to make sweet, sweet love to ducks? Perhaps they’ll think, “That’s crazy! And offensive! There is no Biblical precedent for man-duck love!”
At this point, you can take a look at the Biblical precedent. And, you will note, that many of the people God has kill other people in scripture do not, in fact, want to. In fact, in at least a couple of instances, God appears to be more bloodthirsty than they are (see, for example Abraham and Nephi). Or, for instance, take the example of Gideon. God calls Gideon. Gideon says, basically, “Yeah, being your judge is a terrible job and I don’t want it.” God says, “You are what I’ve got.” Gideon then tests God to see if this is legit. There is a bunch of business with wool and dew, but the real moral here is that when the still, small voice is telling you to do something crazy, make yourself completely sure that this is coming from God, not your own misfiring neurons. To paraphrase an incident in Ezekiel, don’t eat the poop bread, unless you have no doubt that God wants you to eat the poop bread.
Which brings me to the title of this post. People seem to think that laws and societies and such should allow for miraculous crime. Sure, when most people murder someone, it is bad, but when I do it, God has inspired me to do it so you shouldn’t care. A serious stable society will throw you in jail (or kill you) anyway, especially one made up of good people. That isn’t religious persecution; that is sanity. Because the whole point of a miracle is that it is an incredibly unlikely occurrence. And the reason you are being thrown in jail is because no society can function if it is allows random people who are inspired by God decide to occasionally kill people.
With hypotheticals like a terrorist who knows the location of a ticking bomb, we often pretend that there is some circumstance that will justify our fulfilling some pretty dark desires. An angel with a flaming sword, perhaps? But if that angel hung around until the cops showed up, they’d just try to arrest him as well. Because God granting you a special dispensation to do something horrible means nothing to the courts and it shouldn’t. That was still a crime you committed, whether or not God approved. At the very best, God is telling you that the “righteous kill” won’t be a burden for you in the afterlife; on Earth, we’ve still got to live with you safely.
The moral of this particular story is that good societies don’t let people commit crimes just because the criminals think God made them do it (much less the Devil). So revel in your righteousness, I suppose, but don’t think it should get you a “Get out of jail free” card.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
Wait a minute here. It sounds like you are the one reveling in your own righteousness with this post and likely condescending thoughts as your peers fumble their way through awkward discussions as they try to demonstrate their faith in a trolley car situation.
It would have been nice if Nephi was so Christlike, that he was willing to lay down and say, no Lord, take my head instead if this is they will. Would God have given him a ram in the thicket? But it seems like from the hints in the text Laban deserved death; but that’s not what was said with the utilitarian calculus. But still, it would an interesting anti-nephi-lehi moment.
Someone could make exactly that argument — that the Book of Mormon was started with violence and ended that way. Lehi prophesying violence, the people responding with violence, Lehi’s kids trying to buy the plates and being met with violence (I assume some self righteous words were even spoken in that “negotiation” that angered Laban). Laban responding in violence, Nephi feeling he has no choice but to resort to violence (Laban and even Zoram threats).
So you might say, that the Book of Mormon is a tale of a family turned nation that ultimately went astray into murderous destruction and the roots were right there in the family all along. But Lehi’s children, they were also weighed down with the blood and sins of their own generation that were seemingly inescapable.
Indeed, it seems the ultimate end of every living thing is to be eaten by something else, sounds rather violent doesn’t it? Except, of course, Christ. He broke that pattern. His life, demonstrated he was the exception.
Back to your strong words. Psychopaths to be avoided? Sodomizing ducks? This is where your thoughts go as you condescend to others? I feel sorry for whatever burdens that you’re carrying as a result of your mortal experiences. I hope you find peace in Christ.
Whoa. Deznat came for dinner.
“We’ve all been there. You are sitting in some Sunday School or Auxiliary lesson and some chucklehead goes on and on about how they are so obedient that if God asked them to kill someone, they would.”
I don’t think we’ve all been there. I know I certainly haven’t. I’d be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with any of this post.
I come at this as one who believes Nephi engaged in post hoc rationalization for a rash decision with dreadful consequences. Who believes the best reading of the Akedah (binding of Isaac) is that Abraham failed his test. So it’s easy to agree that a well formed criminal justice system should not make allowance for the God told me to do it defense.
However, I’m thinking more these days about restorative justice, which challenges me to think about the victim’s point of view, about accountability, and ultimately about healing. In that world I think I do want to give weight to the God told me to explanation. I don’t know and I’m clearly in a period of contemplation, but I’m not sure a life sentence for Nephi as a murderer is the right answer, for the people who knew and loved Laban, for Nephi, or for society.
WVS, Deznat came ready to eat the gruel John C has been stewing and delivered it for a feast. Your dessert didn’t satisfy either.
Sure,
You know, you can just say “bless your heart,” and you don’t actually have to invoke Christ when you want to be snide.
OP, please correct me if I have misunderstood what you are saying. I understood your point to be: Do what you truly believe that God has told you to do (after long questioning to make sure it truly is His will), then willingly pay the price. If you believe the Lord has commanded you to kill someone, then you should immediately surrender yourself to local law enforcement, plead guilty without conditions to your actions, without asking for variance because you’re doing the Lord’s will; then gladly pay whatever price society demands of you.
This doesn’t protect society from people with bad brain chemistry or who have just taken a one-way trip to Crazytown, but it does seem to balance “I know not save the Lord commanded me,” with “We believe in being subject to kings, rulers, etc,” allowing everyone to live in a civilized society.
“You are sitting in some Sunday School or Auxiliary lesson and some chucklehead goes on and on about how they are so obedient that if God asked them to kill someone, they would.”
I’ve never heard that expressed in Sunday School–not that I recall. Even so, the scriptures present the “Laban” question here and there in various ways–and I think there’s good reason for that. While none of us is likely to be challenged to the degree that Nephi was I think all of us at some point will be placed in the position of having to choose God over our own ethical and even religious sensibilities.
Sute,
I believe Reed Benson said it best. “Hit pigeons flutter”
Alternative History
Nephi and brothers return to Lehi’s camp in the wilderness without Laban’s plates. Lehi asks what happened. The brothers explain: Well first Laman asked politely for the records and Laban accused him of being a robber and said he would kill him. Then we decided to buy the records from Laban. We offered the family gold and treasure to Laban for the plates. Laban stole our gold and tried to kill us. So we quit trying and here we are.
Lehi looks at his sons and sighs. Boys, this man tried to kill you and stole our gold and you came back without the plates or Laban’s head? Boys, go help your mother and tell her I will be back in a month. If I don’t return assume I am dead.
A month later Lehi returns with the plates, Laban’s sword and Laban’s servant Zoram. And that is all about the incident Nephi records in his journal.
better alternative history
God gives Lehi or Nephi a magical stone that he puts into a hat and produces a copy of Laban’s record with. No killing necessary.
The weirdest thing about the Laban story is that, of course, the Jews didn’t have the Brass Plates (because Nephi took them) and they were, actually able to preserve (or create, as the case may be) their scriptures pretty well down to the very present day. Makes the whole “murdering the defenseless drunk” story seem a bit more suspect.
The fact that the dude had already stolen all their stuff seems like a better rationalization. But…Jerusalem was already a Babylonian colony by the time King Zedekiah’s reign started (having been placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar after the first sacking of Jerusalem) so why not go let the Babylonian constabulary know that their stuff had been stolen and get it all back?
Such a weird story, that has bred a lot of weird exceptionalism in Mormon culture.
John C.
You consistently have the strangest articles and comments on this site. It seems to me that you were either forced to associate with an absolutely looney member of the church at some point or that you like to imagine one.
John C,
No, I’m just a mix of appalled and in disgusted awe (maybe I’m repeating myself) that sexual acts with ducks and babies is where your mind goes when wanting to respond to someone *in sunday school* of all places. I mean, I guess it’s good that you’re consistent in your pathology. Really, I do hope you can overcome whatever hard things have created this mindset in you. Maybe throw away the phone and tv and radio and just get outside more if your mind goes to sexual acts on children in sunday school that you feel make a pithy blog post.
The content of the post could be interesting. You can simply say, “crazy depraved people insist God told them to do something terrible all the time.” and we’re all on the same page.
You sarcastically (I hope!) called for someone to throw out some trump card in sunday school to another’s awkward expression of faith; again revealing a mixture of seems like disdain for your brother or sisters in the pews and pathological reading/entertainment choices.
My first comment actually engages with the issue about violence and its origins in the Book of Mormon rather seriously. I think there’s an interesting discussion there. Who throws out gutter sophistry and then complains that someone objects?
Cdawg,
Laban have been the “Babylonian constabulary.”
“Laban might have been…”
Jacob H – the magical stone is bad narrative. It certainly provides some lessons, but we can’t just magic stone hat all solutions in life. The Nephi story has a lot going on. Allegedly, middle eastern people (not that there is such a monolith) were the least offended by it, if I recall my Hugh Nibley stories correctly.
I’m not even sure how much the magical stones explains the JS translation story. I’ve read the same sources, and there are others that have to be ignored to buy into the stone being for all translation all the time in all places and all people. It’s still a mystery.
God ultimately did provide a Liahona, which could have done exactly what you suggest. Brigham Young even spoke against the concept of prioritizing ancient scripture when you have a prophet at hand. Maybe that’s why this situation is so hard for us to grasp. In the modern world, we don’t “idolize” (to use that word a little harsh and unfairly) the scriptures as ancient Israel did. But to them, the written scriptures were as much a part of their faith (to my understanding) as the meaning itself from those words.
So to them, the physical possession of the words maybe was a life and death significance that we don’t really have. It certainly provides some insight to the mindset of Brigham vs. Lehi, doesn’t it? Lehi apparently needed more than just the revelation, but wanted the tangible authority those words, written by others, gave him to his posterity.
It’s tragedy how that process further deepened the divide between Lehi’s children. Maybe Lehi hoped he would send his kids out on a mission and they’d come back united after going to scout camp together. Ooops.
Sure, Sute. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
I was taught growing up that you should make moral decisions while you’re young so when faced with the temptation you already know what you’re going to do. When I was a kid I decided that if God approached me and wanted me to kill someone, I was going to say, “no”. Same with marrying more than one person. No way, God! I’m not doing any crime for you.
Good Lord, the Nephi debate is how you know this blog’s readership is overwhelmingly white, middle-class, Americans. “Why didn’t Nephi just call the local constabulary to help him? The police are only here to serve and protect us, after all! And the killing of a local unelected autocrat who just confiscated all their family wealth, tried to have them executed on false charges, and would likely try to finish the job once he woke up again, was totally uncalled for! Why didn’t they just trust in the local justice system–one administered under the corrupt puppet-regime of a colonizing empire–to protect their rights under the law?” No one from a developing country is confused by Nephi’s account; hell, no one from minority communities here in the US of A is confused by it.
Listen, I’m not arguing Nephi was beyond reproach; I actually appreciate that more and more people are willing to interrogate his post-hoc narrative. But to go full-on “Nephi is the villain” is just as un-nuanced a reading as “Nephi is the hero.”
The word I’ve often found most interesting in the Nephi/Laban story is ‘constrained.’ Over the years I’ve encountered the ‘constrained’ concept in the scriptures, which seems to be applied at times to instances where promptings from the Holy Ghost guide a righteous person to take a course of action seemingly in contradiction to the gospel plan.
1 Ne 4:10 – Nephi kills Laban
2 Ne 4:14 – Nephi’s teachings stir up family animosity
Jacob 2:9 – Jacob’s plain speaking offends people
Alma 14:11 – Alma refrains from using the priesthood to halt the murder of innocents
Alma 60: 34 – Captain Moroni challenges the duly elected civilian government
4 Ne 1:48 – Ammoron hides the scriptures from the people
Now the trick of course is whether one is sufficiently in tune with the Spirit / spiritually mature enough to discern when a ‘constrain’ comes from God, and when it might be born of our own imperfect or selfish desires. Not an easy task, to be sure.
I look forward to meeting Nephi in the next life and getting his first person account of this stumper of an experience!
The issue of breaking the law (just or unjust) in the name of God or the greater good is an interesting one. Think of Robin Hood, for example. Robbing the rich to pay the poor.
One humanitarian in a popular book admitted to stealing an unused microscope from a rich hospital to give to a medical facility in Haiti. Stealing is a crime. Is it okay to try to accomplish the greater good by breaking the law? How about breaking an unjust law? Should we play MLK or Gandhi? How far should we go? Past civil disobedience?
Should we steal the Church’s tithing money? It’s easy to do. Instead of giving it to the Church, we contribute directly to humanitarian causes.
“People seem to think that laws and societies and such should allow for miraculous crime.”
Who thinks this? Is this OP a criticism of something from church history? Or am I missing a connection with something that happened recently? Or is the whole thing an argument against something “chucklehead” “psychopaths” say?
I’m of two minds about this.
On one hand, I don’t believe it would be all that hard for god to kill anyone themselves at any time. All it takes is a little blood clot in the wrong place and you’re done. To misquote, “what does god need with an assassin?”
On the other hand, I’ve had a few times in my life where I felt I have gotten direct revelation for thugs I had not been considering before, not the least of which being my transitioning to present as female. None of the directions have been anything to the level of killing someone, but transitioning is directly against the current policy of the church. The consequence of losing my recommend was sad, but expected.
.
So I don’t know how I fall on this. The line should be somewhere below injury to others, but where is that exactly? Some would say I’ve injured my family by transitioning.
.
Though one last thing I believe; whatever gods plans for their children, it can’t be frustrated by our choices. So let god do their own killing.
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/was-nephis-slaying-of-laban-legal
The above article is a thoughtful analysis of the legal environment of Nephi’s day. It is not appropriate or relevant to try to put our legal code today into his story. The most important part as discussed, in my opinion, is the piece about how there wasn’t a lack of punishment. His exile from the Holy Land was his punishment. There really was no turning back now on their mission to travel to the Promised Land.
It seems to me that one of the most fundamental challenges in this life is to re-imagine God.
This world is governed by scarcity. It drives almost every decision and action we make as individuals, churches and governments. We are terrified of not having enough; enough food, security, righteousness, wealth, power, justice. As such, we spend most of our time and effort in securing the aforementioned things.
The rest of our time is spent constructing a God that will validate our violence toward others because God is primarily concerned with our well being, as we suppose. This way of thinking creates a God that not only condones our violence, but often commands it.
I find it fascinating that the saying that God’s ways not being our ways is almost always twisted into a canard to perpetrate some kind of violence against others that we don’t like, instead of inspiring us to override our selfishness and fear to extend kindness and long suffering to those we innately don’t like.
Perhaps a critical reason Christ came to the world was to show us that what had been insisted upon in scriptures was backwards. Perhaps the reason he died was not to pay for some collective guilt to appease the demands of scarce justice, but rather to show his commitment to the principle of loving our enemies, of doing good to those that do despitefully use us.
Maybe His kingdom is really not of this world. But rather of a world where we live according to His teachings in the sermon on the mount. And where our guiding impulses are forbearance, patience, love and mercy.
Folks,
Your efforts to pretend that Nephi’s murder wasn’t a murder both miss the point of the post and exemplify the problem. That said, i don’t find it all that relevant. I tell you what, let’s not discuss whether Nephi should have murdered the helpless, sleeping Laban. Let’s instead discuss whether Samuel was justified in hewing Agag to pieces.
JB-Lehi was a rich Jewish dude, which is weird considering that by the time Zedekiah was king, all the rich Jewish dudes had been forcibly expatriated to Babylon (Jeremiah calls the people left in Jerusalem “rotten figs”). But, nonetheless, given that he was a rich Jewish dude, I think it’s safe to assume that Lehi’s male kids probably could have gotten some assistance (source: am rich dude and, for better or worse, the police are basically at my beck and call).
John C., Agag is presented in the Bible as a war criminal who got what he deserved based on the rules of war and Jewish law at the time (basically he ordered the genital mutilation and torture of every jewish male captured by the Amalakites, so was tortured and executed for his crimes once captured by the Jewish forces). Saul got in trouble for not carrying out the punishment as soon as possible and thus violating Jewish law.
Putting aside the fact that we live in more enlightened times and that victors always tell their side of the story (and that the Jewish law at issue in the story probably didn’t exist at the time Agag was captured, etc. etc.), I don’t think the example fits what you’re getting at.
I think former Vice President Mike Pence is known as having said that he loves God first, then his wife. The scenario in the OP is clearly unlikely to occur (even accounting for mental illness.) With more and more people becoming nones, former V.P. Pence’ stance is tested in many families. It is not hypothetical.
How do couples who were sealed in the temple respond to one spouse having a faith transition? How does a couple respond when one spouse comes out? How are their children impacted? How do adult children respond when their parents separate?
I’m interested in the experiences of either spouse. Did the faithful spouse believe their mate was disloyal to vows they made? That the other would then not be true to them? Did they listen to the reasons that their spouse’ beliefs changed? Did they still love them? Did they try to change them back to former beliefs?
How about the lived experiences of the spouse whose beliefs changed? How does it feel to find out that their still-believing spouse questions their loyalty? That their beliefs could not change with more knowledge? That their spouse’ love for them is conditioned on both believing essentially the same? When the marriage remains intact, how do they navigate the nuts and bolts?
Not the same scenario but the morality of personal justice is questioned in some popular music. Perhaps the most well known is Independence Day, sung by Martina McBride, about a beaten woman who chooses freedom by torching her husband.
“Well, she lit up the sky that fourth of July
By the time that the firemen come
They just put out the flames
And took down some names
And send me to the county home
Now I ain’t sayin’ it’s right or it’s wrong
But maybe it’s the only way
Talk about your revolution
It’s Independence Day”
I’ll add that as it concerns Nephi, he opposed violence the rest of his life. When the conflict between Nephi and his brothers turned to violence in the New World, Nephi chose to flee with his followers, rather than fight.
John C., what is your point? This is a really bizarre post that seems to be responding to an argument that is never made in the real world outside of the occasional whacko that no one takes seriously. So it might be useful to clarify exactly why you posted this to begin with.
I find myself relating (in general) with most of the posts at BCC. But I have to say, this one seems to come out of left field, and I’m not sure what it’s getting at.
I’ve never heard anyone in Sunday School argue that civil society shouldn’t hold people accountable for crimes they say God told them to commit. Were people arguing about this? I guess don’t know where this post is coming from.
There’s clearly some unresolved tension between our professed obligation to be subject to governments and laws and our (general) belief in the righteousness of Nephi, Joseph, or Brigham, who all acted contrary to the law. But even Elder Renlund admitted that there may not be a completely satisfactory answer to questions about Nephi’s actions. I’m not entirely comfortable with what Nephi did, but I’m not ready to label as psychopaths those who aren’t as troubled.
The vast majority of us probably won’t be challenged by inspired counsel in ways that will cause the world to view us as psychopaths. As a bit strange? Maybe. As bit old fashioned? Perhaps. As bigots? Probably.
Being misunderstood goes with the territory.
I don’t know anyone who has claimed that specifically in Sunday school, but I did have someone say that something like telling a dying child that they’d get better was a lie and therefore a sin (I’m talking here about grieving parents trying to comfort their child and themselves). Taking questions to extremes can (sometimes) be useful in highlighting issues.
So yes, I can see church members taking extreme theoretical questions about faith to extremes that indicate that they’ve never really thought about it in a realistic way.
Aside from that, it might be a bit of an out-there post, but I always appreciate anything that allows us to examine something familiar from a different/new angle.
Clearly the purpose of John C’s counter questions is to provide a parallel: killing someone is bad. It is bad, even if it is for your own strongly-held beliefs.
If killing someone for one’s convictions gets a pass, then what other awful crimes ought to?
Exes who weaponize their children in divorce proceedings? It happens, the children carry scars, fight demons.
And yes, we have all heard this in Sunday School. Every lesson, straight from the manual, that rationalizes Abraham’s “offering up” his son Isaac as a sacrifice, or parrots back the rhetoric that it was *good* for Nephi to kill Laban teaches this. Every lesson that presents a “miracles happened” history of the horribly executed Martin & Willie handcart companies does this.
It is manifest in every family that raises their numerous children in poverty to follow the prophet (and still pays a full tithe).
We can be better.
Sasso,
I find interesting that Latter-day Saints, generally speaking, are not committing horrible crimes even though we have those teachings in our canon. And I think there are two reasons for that: 1) We now that those extreme situations are rare and typically reserved for those who are dispensation heads and/or leaders of nations. And 2) we tend to view those extreme situations as archetypal rather than straight up examples of what we should be doing.
In other words, all of us will have opportunities to show our willingness to follow the Lord through the same *type* of challenge that Abraham experienced–though not to the same extreme comparatively speaking. Each one of us will be tried to an extreme that is commensurate with our individual preparations — which is typically far less than Abraham’s — in order to learn what we need to know about ourselves as we work out our salvation.
That said, I should clarify that I’m speaking of trials having to do with the seemingly counterintuitive counsel that the Lord’s people receive from time to time–and not the challenges that are common to all. Goodness only knows that many of the Lord’s children have suffered worse things than having to dispatch Laban just by living in a fallen world.
I have never been in a meeting where someone said “If I were asked to kill someone, I would.”
The article is what is dumb.
Yet we do have many many lds church members who make decisions, not using first their own god-given! critical thinking skills, taking into account their own particular needs, who pay 10% of their income to a church with vast wealth that looks past the great needs of all of God’s children, when they themselves are not saving nearly enough for a day of retirement (which will come, if they are fortunate). They may not have health and dental insurance for their children. Do you know that surgery to repair a very common broken arm costs upward of $20,000?
Families often don’t stop and consider how earlier latter-day prophets counted tithing (on the increase, as the D&C instructs).
We can be better.
We can teach and allow people to meet their own needs before they calculate tithing. We can emphasize that our loving Father in heaven asks us to not suffer our children (or their parents) to go hungry.
We can encourage families to own a home and finish educations before they have any increase to tithe.
I don’t feel lucky that my trials are not the supposed trials that Abraham or Nephi or the real trials my pioneer ancestors faced.
We can be better.
Just a friendly service reminder that the bible is a book confounded by Satan for the blinding and entrapment of minds, so I wouldn’t necessarily try to take too many ethical or moral lessons away from it – at least not at face value and without being very careful.
But every counterfeit, if it is a decent one and smartly designed, has at its core some element of truth that was perverted to create the deception, otherwise it wouldn’t be believed. Take for example the story of Abraham and Isaac mentioned as an example of God asking someone to do a terrible thing to someone else.
The bible story suggests Abraham was commanded to go kill Isaac on a mountain, and even went so far as to draw his knife only to be stopped at the last moment by an angel telling him he passed a test, and then blessing him because he was so willing to follow God and stab Isaac.
This dramatic and cruel story is so false. The devil’s fingerprints are all over this one. But it also, in my opinion, contains truths or shadows that point to a much larger and truer story buried under the false one. Here is how some elements of that story might go:
Abraham was indeed asked to sacrifice his son. But this sacrifice was after the pattern of Jesus’ own sacrifice, which was an infinite and eternal sacrifice, not a human sacrifice or one of blood. Meaning, the sacrifice was for Isaac to leave Heaven and enter the devil’s kingdom without power or glory, just as Jesus did. Both Abraham and Isaac had to (and perhaps still have to) trust in God’s promise that Isaac and all of Israel (which I think means something different than what many assume it does) would be redeemed. The sacrifice of Isaac not only is part of Jesus’ overall plan and covenant with Israel that they would be redeemed, but also that all nations – i.e., the Gentiles – would be blessed as part of this sacrifice and redemptive story.
In addition, the ram that was found to replace Isaac – let’s go ahead and call him Baal, given this is one of his forms – will be the real sacrifice or, more specifically, burnt offering. While God keeps his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and their family by redeeming them and raising them up, Baal/ Satan and all his minions will fill the pit that they dug for Abraham’s family in their hopes to frustrate Jesus’ plans and promises. They will become the burnt offering, destroyed in fire like tares bundled on the field.
And there you have it – a possible peak behind the confused and completely evil version found in the bible.