Could It Happen Today
By: StillConfused
StillConfused is a regular stalker here at fMh. She is Virginia bred and Utah living and runs a post crisis education center for women, among other things.
Recently, fMh Lisa wrote an article entitled “Oh Shut Up Already” which discussed some of the early happenings of the Church. From a link therein, I came across and am currently reading Ann Eliza Snow’s book detailing her experiences with the early Church. My desire is not so much to critique what she recounts as none of us were alive then. My desire is to say that IF those things were true, could they happen today?
For Instance:
You are on a jury. The defendant is accused of heinous crimes. The evidence clearly indicates that he is guilty. The defendant is Mormon. The prophet comes to you and tells you to vote innocent. Would you do it?
The Church comes to you and asks for all of your “excess” possessions to pay off the prophet’s personal debts. Would you do it?
~You hear two Mormon men talking about how they tortured two defenseless Muslims traveling though the Uintah National Forest. Your Bishop tells you to tell no one about it. The FBI comes to you and asks you if you have heard anything about the murders. Do you remain quiet?
~The prophet declares he has received holy revelation which states that all LDS women must marry at the age of 16. You have a daughter who is 16. Do you sign for her to get married?
~The prophet tells you that anyone who harms the Mormons is guilty of a sin against God punishable by immediate death. What do you do?
~A new prophet is put in place. He makes some bold and aggressive statements. Certain people publicly disagree with him. One by one, those people meet fatal accidents. What do you do?
The desire of the post is not to critique the scenarios… you may insert different ones if you desire. The purpose of the post is to
determine what you will agree to in the name of religion and why.
I would only agree to something in the name of religion if it was also something that agreed with my own sense of right or wrong.
Comment by barmy stoat — December 4, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
I asked my adult daughter these questions. I was very shocked when she said that she would find a guilty man innocent if the prophet asked her to saying “Because he is the prophet.” However, she said she would not do it for a bishop, stake president or seventy.
Comment by StillConfused — December 4, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Not as dramatic, but how many times have heard statements that people who belong to some “tribe” (BYU grads, Texas natives, US citizens, etc.) should support some other member of tribe simply because it’s all the same tribe?
(I.e., BYU alumni should hire other BYU alumni, people who believe in X aren’t real US citizens, you can be a Democrat and a Mormon, etc., etc., etc.)
Comment by queuno — December 4, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
And, I hate to admit it, but if the prophet came to me personally and asked me to do something … I’d have a really hard time saying no, if in fact I could at all. So I can kinda relate to #2.
Comment by queuno — December 4, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
I completely agree with barmy, leaving open a loophole for some intense personal revelation.
But, boy howdy, for any of the above scenarios, an angel would have to be showing up at my bedside.
Comment by Reese Dixon — December 4, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
No to all of the above. But I stopped thinking of God’s chosen leaders as infallible a long time ago. I have to say, though, that in that time and place, I might have acted differently.
Comment by Alyssa — December 4, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
My LDS secretary says that she would find a guilty man innocent if the prophet told her to because “if I believe he receives revelation from God then I must support him in all things.” But when I asked her about if the prophet mandate that her daughter marry at 16, she said no.
Comment by StillConfused — December 4, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Curious about the book, would you share the title or a link?
Thank you.
Comment by Heidi — December 4, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Wow. My response to all of those were “RUN AWAY!!!”.
Comment by kew — December 4, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
I’m with barmy stoat in #1.
Depends on the situation, but most likely no.
most likely no.
Definitely no!
Um, no.
Harm the closest Mormon and get the hell out of that insanity!
Publicly disagree with the prophet and wait patiently for that fatal accident and get out of that madness.
Comment by Dan — December 4, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Personally, I think it’s impossible to discuss most decisions in the hypothetical because you can’t get revelation for hypotheticals.
(I think this post (disclaimers notwithstanding) risks making us sound like we are (or the early Church folks were) crazy weird people, or at least that our prophets/leaders are/were.)
Comment by m&m — December 4, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Wait… Do these actually correspond to things that she witnessed (and who is Ann Eliza Snow? Or do you mean Ann Eliza Young?)?
I don’t think any of those things could happen today, except among the most fanatic, fringe members. We no longer have a theocratic mindset, thank goodness.
Comment by Mytha — December 4, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Hey Dan, my g-g-grandma’s 2nd husband was one (and, I believe, the best-documented) that had that fatal accident. It wasn’t pretty. I think your strategy should be to get out of Dodge(replace with appropriate city.) He tried that, but too late. Whee!
Comment by djinn — December 4, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Vote innocent: I’d pray about it…
Pay prophet’s debts: I’d do that in a heartbeat. I expect he would pay off mine, too, if I needed it.
Tell no one: He wouldn’t ask me that if he knew how hard it was for me to keep my trap shut.
16-yr-old daughter: Up to her. But if an angel with a drawn sword appeared, I’d give my consent
Punish by death: OK. But if the Lord passes the sentence, he’ll have to execute it, too.
Publicly disagree & meet fatal accidents: THAT might make me learn how to keep my mouth shut.
Thank you, SC. This was an uncomfortable but interesting exercise. I know there are a lot of shadows in our history, but in a way I really admire how far they were willing to go for what they believed. That angel with a drawn sword was actually very symbolic for the early Saints, because it dramatically illustrated that they were putting some of their beliefs or preconceptions on the altar to accept what Joseph was telling them about what God wanted.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — December 4, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
I have always been troubled by the oft-quoted maxim that if we follow our leaders, even in doing wrong, we will be blessed. This always sounds suspiciously like The Nuremberg Defense (”Only following orders, Sir!”) which I think will be no more effective at the last judgment, than it was at Nuremberg.
I don’t think you can delegate your own moral agency and safely ignore your own conscious or promptings by the spirit. Choose the Right, and all that.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — December 4, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
That is the impression I get when I read any history stuff not specifically sanctioned by the church.
I wonder what most people’s answers from the early church would have been.
For me, comments #1 and #9 sum up how I would react. But Alyssa (#6) has a good point. I wonder if that would always be the case, or if my ideas would have been different in a different time and place.
Comment by Theolina — December 4, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Well, for me, highly non-ambiguous personal revelation would have to play an enormous role in any decision on my part to violate my own sense of ethics.
Comment by Matt A — December 4, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
14.Vote innocent: that’d take personal revelation
Pay prophet’s debts:I’d do that unless I REALLY strongly felt I shouldn’t
Tell no one: again with the revelation
16-yr-old daughter: serious revelation
Punish by death: I don’t even want to think about it…unless someone was actively hurting children-or maybe trying to rape someone, I can’t imagine even striking anyone. If the angel came with the sword, he might as well be the one to use it.
Publicly disagree & meet fatal accidents: ugh. My foot is so close to my mouth as it is…and I’m pretty used to speaking my mind…
Comment by britt — December 4, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
What a thought-provoking post!
Considering my overall position regarding the church my answers would not count. However I am really enjoying the interesting responses. Keep them coming!
Comment by numi — December 4, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Also, how does the 12th and 13th Articles of Faith fit into these questions?
Comment by numi — December 4, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Numi #19, I’m in your boat, but I’m excruciatingly obedient by nature so I’m really afraid to think of what I would have done in these scenarios back when I was a TBM!
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 4, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Barmy (#1), amen.
Comment by lache — December 4, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
I need to go stick my head in the snow, I am feeling genuinely unmoored.
My first thoughts were uncomfortably close to m&m’s. My brain threw up an immediate barrage of, “but things are so different now- and you’re drawing comparisons were none could logically exist!”
Which is nonsense! It is a great question and I’m totally surprised that it was SC who asked it. I’m going to go out for martini’s and tappas tonight And remind myself that I think that skeptical inquiry is the ballast on this crazy ship, the hook I hope to hang my hat on and the cup of tea that always tastes right. Skeptical inquiry is NOT the enemy. (This isn’t addressed at you m&m, I’ve been genuinely delighted by your lack of (I’m sorry) m&m-ness of late. More thoughtfull, less flying in with a GA quote and a neon “the church is never wrong” banner.) This is me being honestly chagrined by how far my smitten-ness with you peculiar people has moved me.
Sheesh.
Comment by crazywomancreek — December 4, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
1. I would ask if Jury tampering is moral & ethical, and remind him of Jury fixing that let others off the hook who were charged with crimes against Church members: Joseph Smith, Joseph Standing, etc.
2. I would ignore the Bishop, & talk to the FBI, since D&C Section 134:8 says:
8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.
And, I would remind that Bishop to read the part of “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” about how JS would stand up for the religious rights of others. And, the comments by GA’s that have NOT attacked Islam.
3. It would depend on the situation. In Central America, there are places where women get married after their first period, averaging around 15 years old there. And, it may not be any different for members of the Church there.
4. I would disagree in light of D&C 134:8 above, and 134:10 for Member vs. Member issues:
…but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
Summary Judgment is very dangerous, especially Capital actions. How often have Vigilantes & Lynchers been wrong in their rush to punish?
5. There’s already some real wackos telling the world that the LDS Church *IS* secretly killing enemies/dissidents right now. Yet, like the unemployed Hot Dog vendor who killed LDS Enemy Wally Tope during the Los Angeles riots of 1992 had no connect to the Church that could be found.
Sure, there’s suspicious incidents of death of bold people, like Karen Silkwood, or Buford Pusser, but not all accidents are foul play.
A woman I know who is pushing for gas drilling reforms in Texas has gotten some death threats.
And, what do you make of the statements attached to Official Declaration #1, about the Lord not letting the Prophet lead the Church astray? How much do we take that to heart.
As far as the book “The 27th Wife”, I’m not putting much stock into that, since even the revisionist studies of the Church have not put that work in high esteem.
Comment by Mike H. — December 4, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
This is not necessarily about this post specifically but i believe it relates. About 7 years ago i was in the YW presidency and we had a member of the police force (SWAT Team actually) come in to talk to the girls about safety. Eventually the discussion turned to what should you do if you were about to be raped. The speaker said that when you life is threatened it is usually best not to resist rather than risk being shot or stabbed, etc. The consensus among the girls was very disturbing and distressing to all of us as leaders and the speaker. Most of them stated emphatically they would rather die resisting than allow someone to rape them and we were not able to dissuade them of this conviction.
i have to say it really disturbed me.
Comment by StepfordWife — December 4, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
The only one I could even think to say yes to is paying off his debt, but then it would depend on why and what his situation is.
But, now that I’m thinking about it, if I knew and saw that Nephi killed Laban and was told to lie about that… hum…
Maybe there’s more to this than I thought.
Okay, so my saving grace… Personal Revelation!
Comment by Sunshine — December 4, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Personal revelation can trump all, but generally the answers to all above would be no. I don’t go along with someone who is choosing the wrong.
Comment by Tatiana — December 4, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
I forgot the debt issue question. I would try to help. Anyone want to discuss how that would deal with consecration? It may very well.
Although there are LDS members who would pay for a Prophet’s personal, but would not give time to a Bishop’s Storehouse, or work in a Family History Library, yet would say how faithful they are.
And, remember when Martin Harris was commanded to sell property & invest it into the first printing of The Book of Mormon?
Comment by Mike H. — December 4, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Mike H.
The 27th wife is the Irving Wallace novel based on Youngs memoir, the 19th wife. The latest novel is by David Ebershoff.
Reese Dixon
What would you say if a angel did show up at your bedside, with or without a fiery sword?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 4, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
It would depend entirely on the context, but it would most likely be a yes.
Of course you’d have to know a few dozen other of my beliefs in order for that to be true, like, I don’t think that polygamy was of God, so I don’t think an angel would come to me on that one. And I don’t think an angel coming to me and not the person involved (like, say, a 16 yr old daughter) is the way revelation properly works.
And an angel would have to do a whole lot of explaining (like Nephi’s angel as opposed to any flaming sword holders) for me to get behind anything else.
Comment by Reese Dixon — December 4, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
I did mean to say Ann Eliza Young. Sorry, I keep accidentally calling her Snow. I found the book by reading her info on wikipedia. Again, my concern was not so much whether you think her book is true — none of us were alive then. My concern was more with wondering how far we would go today in the name of religion. There were much worse things referenced in the book but my goal was just to have some basic samples.
Comment by StillConfused — December 4, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
The only possible yes for me would be paying the prophet’s debts under certain circumstances.
Otherwise, I don’t do anything without receiving direct revelation- especially when it goes against our own AoF or the commandments. That would take an angel paying me a visit and it would have to be obvious that there were special considerations. But, no, never just because the prophet asked, when it so patently goes against general morality…and I would say so, if asked.
Comment by Kimberly — December 4, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Just my personal view, but I believe Prop 8 does indeed show that it can happen today. There were faithful LDS members who were not crazy about the church getting involved in civil matters or don’t agree that SSM infringes on hetero marriage issues, but they donated and voted as they were told, despite misgivings, because leadership said so. This is not to threadjack or turn this into a 400+ comment thread about what anyone’s stance should be (and it doesn’t apply to the members who agree with leadership), just a modern example of a contingent of LDS members not being 100% on board with the church stance and being asked to do something uncomfortable per leadership. I see it as being the same thorny issue for members who were pro ERA (but voted against it and helped defeat it) or pro civil rights for blacks.
Comment by Kimberly — December 4, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
Nothing in the name of religion, but quite a lot based on personal revelation.
I have a hard time with the religion/politics mixing aspect of these scenarios. If the prophet tells me who to vote for, or how to behave on a jury, or to do anything else that goes against my own moral compass, he would need the backing of a revelation from God to me.
I think it’s interesting, though, SC. We like to look back at the old church, or the Nephites/Lamanites and laugh at how silly they are, how they miss the obvious and keep screwing up. I imagine, though, we do the exact same thing (the screwing up part). Although the situations may not be this obvious, there is certainly a HUGE following in the church that the prophet is always right. We may find ourselves looking back in 150 years with a bit of embarrassment about that…
Comment by Enna — December 4, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
Kimberly,
we cross posted, but I was thinking of those very things…
Comment by Enna — December 4, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Kimberly what about people who prayed about prop 8 and felt they should support it, despite misgivings? What about the people who prayed and felt they shouldn’t? Just because someone is headed a different direction, doesn’t mean they are a sheeple. What if God needs people going in two directions?
You can’t assume someone in favor of prop 8 did it just out of support of leaders…even if they tell you that. Maybe they don’t want to talk about their personal revelation. Maybe their unsure about why they shoudl support it and don’t want to have to defend it to you….
Comment by britt — December 5, 2009 @ 12:22 am
No need to get defensive, britt. I’m sure there were plenty of people who did just as you described. I’m speaking of the people I know who opted to follow leaders despite the absence of the comfort of personal revelation that would help them make the decision. This is information shared with me, not anything I interrogated anyone to spill. People in my ward spoke with me, saying they wanted to hear my opinion, since I have a gay brother (which I do not keep secret, by any means), and what was my take on it as a TR carrying LDS… I’m known to be open minded in my ward and sometimes people talk to me if they’d like to bounce something around without feeling judged.
Also, following discussions on this board, there is plenty of questioning going on amongst members around this issue, past and present and it’s not limited to my ward or stake.
Comment by Kimberly — December 5, 2009 @ 12:49 am
I’ll probably sound like a loon, but it wouldn’t be the first time, so here goes:
I would need more background info for some of these scenarios.
1. Is the evidence tampered with? Is someone trying to smear the defendant with planted evidence?
2. Yes, for sure I would do that, although I doubt I would have too many excess possessions. Giving up the excess sounds like the law of consecration, and we are already trying to do that.
3. No, I absolutely would not be quiet.
4. I really don’t know if I could say one way or the other. If it were legal for my daughter to marry at 16 and she wanted to and the church said she should, I would let her decide. If she didn’t want to or was unsure or whatever, I would protect her. Under no circumstances would I ever force any of my children to do anything.
5. I’d like to hear the context on this. Was he saying that God would punish them? Of course I would never agree that a human should punish another human over that, but God can punish whom he wants.
6. I guess my assumption would be that God is wiping them out unless I have evidence to think otherwise.
I do believe I would do anything that God asks me to do. I know I would do most anything the prophet asks. But, no, I wouldn’t do everything I was asked “in the name of religion”.
Comment by Stephanie — December 5, 2009 @ 1:20 am
wow…. maybe i shouldn’t be LDS anymore, considering the fact that now that I read these, I question EVERYTHING about the basis of this religion. Well, perhaps I have been questioning for awhile. But it’s true. I guess I’m starting to believe that God is a forgiving and beautiful God, and wouldn’t ask us to forsake our beliefs, because our beliefs and personal morals are based on OUR FAITH in God! I have questioned some of the things going on in this religion, and personally have judged my friends who no longer go to the temple after being sealed and receiving endowments. But then I realized, I’m judging because I question my own faith in this religion. I DO NOT however, question my faith in God. I’ve grown up LDS, married in the temple, have 3 kids, and I question a lot. It started a few years ago on my wedding day. Receiving my endowments and being sealed to my husband (who is wonderful, and is on the same page), made me feel awkward, not wonderful. Anyone have the same problem as me?
To all these questions, NO!!!!!!!!! I would not do any of it. I find being LDS means following what everyone else would do. To choose the “right” of what our leaders say, not necessarily the rights of our conscience and moral being say. I do things for this church because I am asked to, and it’s what is right to everyone, but not right to me. And I still say yes. Wow, I am that pushover LDS housewife.
Comment by amc — December 5, 2009 @ 3:46 am
I think that for all of us it would involve personal revelation. However, if 16 year olds were told to get married, I’m pretty sure that I was take it to mean that the leadership wasn’t inspired anymore and I would be out.
Whenever something is sexist or racist I just assume that it is manmade, because the God that I believe in is neither of those things
Comment by Jill — December 5, 2009 @ 8:12 am
#25—I see your point/why you would be disturbed at what the girls would say, but honestly I can semi-understand where the girls are coming from. My take upon reading it wasn’t so much a “oh I’d rather die than someone take away my virtue” but more a “what do you mean I should lay back and let it happen? I’m gonna keep fighting like there’s no tomorrow” While the SWAT officer’s suggestion does make sense, it’s an incredibly hard thing to hear. I know *I* would be second-guessing that advice at first; it sounds almost counter-intuitive. My friend recently had an accident while driving. When talking about it later, she said that she knew she had been taught what to do, but in the moment she was so overcome with panic that she made snap decisions that went against that advice. She made it out okay in the end, but admits she would have been better off if she was composed enough to do what she should have. Going back to the scenario you posed, I could see how the girls, even hearing that advice, could still (if heaven forbid they ever found themselves in that situation) feel like they should keep fighting.
On another note, StepfordWife, props for your username. The Stepford Wives is one of my favorite books, as is the 1975 film is one of my favorite movies, and “Bodysnatchers” (inspired by said book and movie) is one of my favorite Radiohead songs. =)
Comment by Phoenix — December 5, 2009 @ 10:28 am
My take upon reading it wasn’t so much a “oh I’d rather die than someone take away my virtue” but more a “what do you mean I should lay back and let it happen? I’m gonna keep fighting like there’s no tomorrow”
My parents always told me that were such a thing to happen to me, I should avoid fighting back because it was just get the guy “riled up” - that it turns on a rapist when the woman fights back. That image sticks with me to this day. I, too, think I would fight back mostly out of instinct, but we really can’t know what we’d do hypothetically.
It doesn’t bother me to think of a woman or girl wanting to fight back to prevent herself from being hurt. It bothers me to think of a woman or girl wanting to fight back to prevent herself (and her future spouse?) from being “robbed” of her “virtue.” Gross.
Comment by Chandelle — December 5, 2009 @ 11:45 am
33, 36, 37 –
I’m afraid there was a time I might have been one of those people. There was an anti-gay-marriage amendment on the ballot one year in my state and as far as I know the church made no statement about it (probably because it’s a conservative state where they knew it would pass).
I was deeply relieved that the church took no position on it because it meant that I was free to vote my conscience in opposing it. If there had been a first presidency letter read in SM about it, I would have had to make the painful choice between obedience and doing what I thought was right.
It’s shocking to me now that there actually could have been a situation where I’d consider voting my conscience to be a sin.
Comment by Mytha — December 5, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
But Mytha wouldn’t you pray? Wouldn’t pray help you reconcile the two..then you could do what you feel is right-which may or may not be what your conscience originally thought.
Chandelle, I agree with that take. I’ve always thought rape took a women’s innocence but not her virtue-does that make sense? It would be impossible to know what you would do. I once heard throwing up on your attacker as a good defence mechanism…dont’ know how you plan that. I don’t know how you would not fight and how at some point you wouldn’t in some ways give in just to survive.
Comment by britt — December 5, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
i might be stating the obvious here (I think I have read all of the comments and no one mentioned it but I could be wrong. Or maybe no one mentioned it because it is so obvious), but did the girls get that idea because Spencer W. Kimball wrote in the Miracle of Forgiveness (if my memory serves me correctly - please correct me if I am wrong) that Spencer W. Kimball that it is better for a woman to be killed than to be raped without putting up a fight.
I read that when I was much younger and I remember feeling like that was such a terrible way to look at that. So guilt-inducing for the victim.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 5, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
These questions seem selective and I’m trying to find the parallels that make them meaningful.
I can see the parallel between #3 and the Mountain Medows Massacre or possibly the blood oath against the US after Smith’s death and #2 is very much like the young girls intimidated into marriages with Joseph Smith. I’m not sure what #1 & 4 are about.
Comment by Withheld — December 5, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Sorry for the typos - grrrr…
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 5, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
#39 - amc…. I am going through a very similar re-evalution of my faith. I hear you.
Comment by orange — December 5, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
No. I would not do those things. I have a hard time thinking of my conscience and personal revelation as distinctively different. I think my conscience has grown because of past revelation, ethical and religious study. It is my guide that a life time has built, it is not some random feelings to be discounted easily or ever.
Do I pray for help, yes but that is still confirmation on the answer I feel is best. Even if my answer isn’t the best it doesn’t follow that the prophet’s answer is the best. It means I have to start over with the study and ask for guidance in my own studies. I still have to come to an answer.
I don’t know if I could ever pray to find out if something is right that I know to be wrong because I believe that knowledge has been gained from experiences that have helped me grow to who I am. I hope that makes any sort of sense.
Comment by miles — December 5, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
miles,
it absolutely makes sense.
Comment by mfranti — December 5, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
My answer would be like most here. Excepting the possibility that I felt the Spirit confirm these things asked of me, I would not act in a way which betrayed the law (so no on #2 and #4). If I felt it were likely that the leadership of the Church were engaged in immoral activity, I would oppose them (so I would start doing some serious investigation on #1 and #5; if I were to conclude the leadership was engaged in nefarious practices, I would leave and oppose them). I would not act so as to infringe upon the free will of others in personal matters (so no on #3).
Since some people have mentioned angelic visitations here, I would have to say that an angel in itself would not sway me. If the Spirit did not confirm the words of the Angel, why would I trust the angel? How would I know it was not in truth a demonic messenger? No, the Spirit would be my ultimate guide, flaming sword or not.
Comment by Derek — December 5, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Okay, it looks like I got the numbering wrong. In order to clear things up (since I’m sure everyone is just dying to know what I think…), here’s my responses.
No.
I would want some reason why he needs my help more than the other places I like to “spend” my charitable giving. My decision would depend on the answer.
No. I would report it to the authorities.
No. If the spirit confirmed the request, then I would invite her and encourage her to follow the revelation. But under no circumstances would I make that decision for her. She is not a possession for me to give to someone.
I leave the Church.
I report the suspicious activity to the authorities and cooperate with them in any way they need.
Again, all of this comes with the caveat that all answers are considered null and void if I feel the Spirit directing me to do otherwise (excepting the answer about the daughter).
Comment by Derek — December 5, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Derek- isn’t there something about shaking hands with the angelic visitor to find out if it’s a good angel or a bad angel?
(that was going around when I was a teen, which was also about the time I started having the dark feelings that only went away temporarily after prayer and permanently after a priesthood blessing)
Miles (49)- I totally get what you’re saying. I’ve never felt like I’ve had major personal revelation, it’s always been more like I’ve been guided in the decisions I’ve made, based on experiences I’ve had, so it would take a very clear revelation to go against what I feel is right.
Comment by Alliegator — December 5, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
miles #49 -
What miles said.
I find it somewhat disturbing that many people would pray to try to find a different answer from what their consciences already are clearly telling them. I don’t have to spend hours on my knees seeking God’s direction in order to know that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, coerce, murder, etc. Even if a religious authority told me to do any of these things, It wouldn’t take me more than a moment’s consideration to know that I must not act against the dictates of my own conscience, and that no amount of prayer would cause the Holy Spirit to tell me otherwise.
Comment by Lorian — December 5, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
I think the only one I could say yes to (and feel ok w/ myself) is helping the prophet with money, as for the jury one, unless I’m told specifics of why the person isn’t guilty I’d have to go for no on that one too.
Church leaders aren’t perfect. I often wonder if people would have stood up to BY regarding the racist comments how many more people we could have brought to Christ. I’m all for not supporting things I don’t believe in, and realizing that we all make mistakes. Good people can do stupid things, yet it is our responsibility to correct the wrongs and not stay silent.
Comment by no name — December 5, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Lorian,
I’m with you on not needing to spend hours of my knees when I already know it is wrong to lie, cheat, etc.
Comment by no name — December 5, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
re: 53
According to the D&C, yes. But color me skeptical: I’m not likely to blindly trust some supernatural entity just because he has a firm handshake. If the Spirit isn’t saying yes (which I presume it would with a true divine being), I’m not buyin’ it.
Comment by Derek — December 5, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
I must have had some leaders who made a big deal of that Derek- because it really freaked me out.
And I agree with you
Comment by Alliegator — December 5, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
This has already happened. In the summer of 2008, California Mormons were asked to give money and vote in favor of Prop 8. Many who did give money had no idea that their name and contribution would become public on the internet. A very small number even lost their jobs.
My answer would be, “Let me pray about it. The Holy Ghost will confirm what is God’s will.”
Comment by Javelin — December 5, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
I’m a pray-er. I trust my own judgment and my own forumlated personal theory but sometimes I feel like I need to check in with Heavenly Father to make sure I’m on the right track, because sometimes I get kind of prideful about my opinions and worldview and forget that there is someone who knows the world and how it works much better than I do, plus the future events that may/may not occur in the aftermath of any decision I may make.
In this situation, I’d definitely be praying, not just for the reason listed above (confirmation of what I thought to be true) but also comfort and strength to heal my dissapointed, broken heart. Been thru it before! Prayer really works, guys.
Comment by sare — December 5, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Praying is a good thing, no doubt about it. But I’d hardly consider it prideful to believe that I understand that jury tampering (lying/bearing false witness), concealing evidence of a crime (bearing false witness), or agreeing to murder (conspiracy to commit murder), are blatantly wrong.
The other three situations (paying off the prophet’s personal debts, allowing my 16-year-old daughter to marry on the prophet’s say-so, or drawing conclusions about the deaths of those who object to the prophet’s teachings) are probably arguably grayer areas. That said, though, I would not pay off the prophet’s debt if doing so jeopardized my children’s well-being. If I had plenty to spare, or even possibly if I had enough to get by on and felt led to take a leap of faith, it’s possible I’d do it, but not if doing so would knowingly put my children at significant risk of going hungry or homeless in the foreseeable future. I believe that my God-given responsibility to care for my children far outweighs any responsibility I might have to care for the prophet’s temporal well-being. He is a grown man and can presumably care for his own personal needs.
As for allowing my 16-year-old daughter to marry, again, I would not do this simply because the prophet said it was the way it should be. If my daughter was being courted by a truly wonderful young man, and, between them, they demonstrated the ability to properly support themselves and any potential offspring, and it was clear to me that they were so well-suited for one another that I could foresee very little chance of them growing apart (all of which I think are about the same as a snowball’s chance in he!!), and they requested I give my permission for them to marry, I might possibly consider it (particularly if I was well-off enough to build an addition on my house, since it’s pretty obvious they’d shorly be moving in with me…). But really, no. I’m not likely to ever give my 16-year-old daughter permission to marry, whether the prophet told me to or not. And I damn well would never marry her off against her will on ANYONE’s say-so.
As to the last situation in which people who objected to the prophet’s teaching began dropping like flies, if the prophet’s teachings were objectionable in some way, you bet I’d speak up about it, regardless of the risk, and I would also run, do not walk, to the nearest legal authorities to report my suspicions regarding the recent demise of other objectors. No one has the right to enforce their religious views on anyone else by means of violence, including the prophet.
There is very little need to pray about any of these situations. The bailing out the prophet’s personal debts involves more an accounting of my own family’s financial well-being. If there was doubt, seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance might be in order, but if it was clear that bailing out the prophet would put my family in serious jeopardy, the answer would be no.
The 16-year-old daughter question would only require prayer for guidance if I truly believed she might be with someone who was well-suited to partner her for life and I just wasn’t sure — but the prophet’s direction would have no bearing on the situation.
The suspicious deaths of objectors would not require any further guidance than the immediate response of my own conscience — someone in authority needs to know what’s going on right now, and I need to speak out against the prophet’s immoral teaching, regardless of the risk.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 12:07 am
re: 58
I think many people in the Church like to get worked up about the seemingly supernatural. Angels, demons, possessions, face-cards, ouiji, Bloody Mary, all those things are much more dramatic and exciting than the mundane stuff of life, and so there is a temptation to get focused on them.
Comment by Derek — December 6, 2009 @ 12:20 am
amc (#39)
my husband and I got sealed this year and it was awkward for us as well….not so much awkward as DISAPPOINTING….
we haven’t been back since….we aren’t sure what to believe…..we question everything and have stopped attending church, too….
I am anything but the pushover housewife and it seems to affect my being comfortable with my personal relief society members…
Comment by lostandconfused — December 6, 2009 @ 1:36 am
Amen on #62, Derek. I knew of one fellow Missionary who was really worried about rebuking Satan in the right manner. Folks, that doesn not happen often, from what I see, in the US at least.
And, I remember the problem in one part of the world, where members kept having conflicts with outright demonic influences, and they would fill in (tell) all the other members every time this happened. A visiting GA was told about this, and he told the members of that area to cease talking about these incidents. These incidents went away after members stopped swelling on them.
Switching gears, what about the 16 year old who gets pregnant in the existing Church. Get married or not? They are already to be removed from YW if this happens.
Comment by Mike H. — December 6, 2009 @ 2:00 am
Lorian: that’s good for you.
My relationship with my Heavenly Father, though, is such that I really do hold Him above everybody else, wisdom-and-ethics wise. So when the instrument He has appointed to sometimes speak to me, I then would go to Him with the information. And if He then confirmed it, then yes, I would do what the prophet asked of me.
That’s really kind of the place you have to be in if you really believe God is God, isn’t it? that He knows all, and that you know little in comparison. And sometimes you’ll be asked to do things you don’t understand or agree with (though hopefully nothing truly extreme, as mentioned in the post. But that happens too. Consider the genocide in the Old Testament. Is there a worse crime, by worldly standards?)
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 3:06 am
sorry. Must have deleted part of that second line. it should read, “so when the instrument that He has appointed to sometimes speak to me, asks me to do something that doesn’t seem right or wise or ethical…
etc.
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 3:07 am
Lorian..widow of Zarapheth. The original question was giving of your excess, but any examination of the scriptures would prompt one to consider all that one has is the Lord’s.
We have Abraham and Isaac, we have prophets who have died for preaching the gospel, we have women who put their lives on the line, or give their children to the Lord. Logic doesn’t lead you to do that. In each case it was revelation.
Part of being religious for me is deciding that God decides what is right. Yes he wants me to use my brain and he is surely not going to command me what to do in every little thing, so I have to reason things out and do what I think is best…but there will be times when I don’t understand what God is doing or why. The whole “my ways are not thy ways” and “lean not to thine own understanding”. Those things wouldn’t be necessary-and they are often repeated in scripture, if everything God commanded was logical and reasonable and moral sounding.
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 9:29 am
I would hope that if I were asked my the prophet to do any of these things, I would reevaluate what type of group/people I had gotten myself involved inand why I might be willing to make allowances for them to ask me to do things that I would otherwise think are immoral or at least hurtful to others. I am pretty certain that if my school chancellor, or my company’s CEO, or the patriarch of my family, or the president of my country asked me to do any of these things, I would distance myself and find others to help me do what I know to be right. So, why would I do otherwise when it’s the leader of my religious group? Oh…because that same leader said I might be damned to hell and points to “the word of god” that I am supposed to believe in, that conveniently supports his claim that I should listen to him. So I have no way out. Unless I want to risk being damned to hell for leaving or disobeying. Where is the line when you will take that risk? I know where mine was.
Comment by BigSister — December 6, 2009 @ 11:53 am
BigSister: see 65 and 66.
It’s not about the group, for me. It’s about God, and doing His will, not mine. Sometimes what God wants doesn’t make sense. That’s a part of being religious for, me, is letting go of logic sometimes.
I look back on my life and think of times where my logic diverged from what I was prompted to do, and am sure as heck glad I did what God wanted me to do.
Not to say that the original post’s examples are God’s will. No, not at all. Just saying you can’t summarily dismiss a commandment, from God or from his Mouthpiece. And in the latter case, I believe I would pray about it before dismissing it, just in case.
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
I have often wondered what I would have done had I been asked to accept and support polygamy. I am pretty sure I would say no to all of these scenarios, barring some spectacularly fiery and angel-filled experience to convince me otherwise. I tend to trust my gut reactions/still small voice/whispering of the Spirit when it comes to stuff.
Except maybe the paying off the (not-so-great-it-sounds) prophet’s debts - but I would give him the same deal members get when they turn to church for financial assistance: here’s some money, but you’ll be working for me (in the yard, cleaning the house, acting as my personal chauffer) 1 day a week to show me that you really deserve it. If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for him.
PS - It seems patently unfair to claim that anyone who voted for or supported Prop 8 was blindly following a prophet against their better judgment. I was against Prop 8, but understand that there are sincere people on both sides of this issue and that many members who supported Prop 8 did so because they earnestly believed in it. That is their right. (For those commenters who have already acknowledged this, thanks, but for those who insist on painting everyone so broadly badly, can you please drop it?)
Comment by Eris — December 6, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
It seems likely that if any of us were to experience a fiery, angel-filled vision, we’d probably books ourselves for a CT. We just know enough now to be skeptical of ourselves.
I wouldn’t obey in any of these scenarios. But I don’t believe in prophets, so I don’t count.
Comment by Chandelle — December 6, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
sare #65 -
Mine, too. That’s why if the word of a human leader contradicted what my conscience tells me is right (which is, after all, the way in which the Holy Spirit most normally communicates with us (just me?) about these kinds of things, I’m going to go with my conscience every time. Humans can lead us astray. Our God-given consciences are far more likely to lead us to truth, IMO.
Believing God is God and that my relationship with God is right would lead me to trust my conscience if a human leader directed me to do something my conscience told me was wrong.
That’s precisely why I do not believe that God EVER directed anyone to commit genocide. Earthly leaders make mistakes now and they made mistakes back then, too. It happens. It’s up to each of us to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and stand up against leaders who would urge us to do things we know are evil.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
britt #67 -
Yes, there is certainly argument to be made for sacrificial giving. Normally, though, such sacrificial giving should not be done at someone else’s expense. I have the right to give of myself all the way up and through the point of death. I have the right to starve myself in order that others may eat. I have the right to give every penny I own and become homeless. I have the right to bankrupt myself and leave nothing to my adult children (who, as adults, would be responsible for their own well-being). What I do not have the right to do, though, is to give resources which are dedicated for someone else’s use, care, welfare and benefit.
Thus, if my spouse is dependent upon my income, resources or belongings, I don’t have the right to give them away without her consent. If I have dependent children, they are my first and foremost responsibility, and I definitely do not have the right to give away resources beyond what seems prudent in providing for their care and well-being.
Does that mean I don’t give to the church? Of course not. I pledge regularly, as well as giving of my time and abilities. But I do not have the right to give to the church money, time or other resources which most properly should be devoted to my children’s well-being and care, or which would materially interfere in my relationship with my spouse.
So, yes, if I truly have “excess” I might give it to the church (though if the prophet’s “personal debts” which he is asking me to pay were incurred due to gambling, frivolous expenditures, building air-conditioned dog houses (a la Jim and Tammy Faye Baker), or the like, I would feel under absolutely no obligation to bail him out regardless).
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
The widow of Zarapheth had a son Lorian. A son who was going to eat that last bit of flour. A son who’s life she arguably saved by giving her last bit of flour and oil away. Her son was healed by the very prophet who had asked her for the last bit of flour.
I’m not saying be stupid and give til you die. or give to get the prophet out of his gambling debts. Please know that. I am saying in some instances something that hard may be asked. It may involve sacrificing your own son on the altar. It may involve giving your last bite of bread-that meant for your child, to someone else.
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Yes, the widow of Zarapheth gave her last bit of flour and oil to make a cake for Elijah, and because of that, her oil and flour were miraculously extended until the drought ended and the famine was over. I get that. I still say that each of us has more responsibility to care for our own families than to pay off someone else’s debts, be he prophet or no. Notice that Elijah was not asking the widow to sell her last bit of flour and oil to pay off his debt at Camel-Robes-R-Us, or to pay his mortgage. He needed food to stave off starvation, and she gave it to him.
Would I give my last bit of food to a prophet and allow my child to starve, if the starving prophet showed up on my doorstep? Hard to say. At that point it really didn’t make much difference, since she and her son would have starved in another day or so, anyway. Saving the prophet from starvation just brought the (apparently) inevitable one day closer. But she was not asked to sacrifice in order to pay off a personal debt or anything similarly trivial. I see this as a major difference between the two scenarios. One is life-or-death for all concerned, while the other involves (possibly) putting my children’s welfare at risk to pay off someone else’s debt (who arguably could be expected to go to work and pay off his own debt, or otherwise manage the settling of his own accounts).
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
my responses to the scenarios presented by the OP range from “no way in h*ll’ to “No.” But then again, I’m having a crisis of faith lately.
Comment by Sherri — December 6, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
True. They were about to die anyway. So one day sooner-would that really matter? Yet her choice was complicated by having a son. Her choice saved her sons life.
The original question was in giving of our excess to pay of a debt.
I agree that our best preparation to serve is to care responsibly for our own. Day to day-that’s how it works. The widow is an example of how to act in an extreme situation, not an example to suggest we should strive to live on the point of starvation.
The point here is wouldn’t it be worth praying about? Isn’t there enough gray here that you would pray about it-not just decide out of hand that the prophet looks healthy he should just work?
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
so. in the name of god, individuals and groups believe they are commanded to kill, lie, steal etc. and we punish them.
how is what they are commanded to do by their prophet or god or spiritual leader any different than us performing any of the acts above in the name of our god?
how do we know that our way is right and their way is wrong?
Comment by mfranti — December 6, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
britt #77 -
Yes, britt. That’s why I said this in my post # 61:
Prophet starving and children starving, all on basically the same time-table = Share what we have and all die together.
Children starving (or even having their welfare jeopardized in other ways) vs. Prophet having his personal debts paid off at my children’s expense = No.
Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
78 - Great question, m.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
I think I’ve realized where we diverge, Lorian. And I’m OK with that.
I’m of the belief that my own logic is not necessarily lead by the spirit. At least not just yet. I’m only, like, 29, and I’m still wrong a lot.
I believe that God commanded what occurred in the Old Testament, and that it’s completely illogical and heinous by today’s standards, but there was a reason. (preservation of the “faithfullness” of the children of Israel.) A similar reason for murder (though only of one man) is provided by example in the Book Of Mormon, when Nephi is commanded to kill a man to obtain an historical record for his people.
He didn’t want to do it. It’s actually a really great example… if you haven’t read it lately you should go read it again.
(I’m assuming you’ve read the BOM).
I think that prophets are fallible and have been, but I’m not sure I get to choose, necessarily, which events are examples of prophetic fallibility, except the ones where God clearly steps in with a correction, etc. Like Jonah, and the Priesthood revelation.
Anyway, I’d be a little hestitant to put myself in that position.
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Maybe I’m misunderstanding(I seem to do a lot of that here.) but,I recall the reaction in seminary I had to the teacher(and other classmates?) who had no problem with God sending a bear to chow down a bunch of children because they were amused by a bald head. How can you worship a monster?
Such a Being is not worthy (there’s that word again) of any measure of devotion.
I remember reading a couple of years ago an interview with a guy chosen not to go on the away mission, but to live and bear testimony to the truth preached by Heaven’s Gate. So here it was all these years later, and that guy really believes they hitched a ride on that spacecraft hiding behind that comet and there he was bearing witness to the truth of it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 6, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
[…] Tags: LDS Church policy, Mormon culture, Mormon politics, Mormon prophets, Obedience Last week a provocative blog post listed the following scenarios and asked what faithful Mormons would do if presented with the […]
Pingback by Follow the Prophet, Unless . . . . « Course Correction — December 6, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
sare #81 - I believe that God is unchanging, eternal. That means that what God would have as a moral certainty today would also have been a moral certainty 4000 years ago. Therefore, if slaughter of other races in the name of God was morally defensible then, it would still be morally defensible today. If it is morally reprehensible today, then it was also morally reprehensible 4000 years ago. So it follows that, if in fact genocide is morally reprehensible today, it was also morally reprehensible 4000 years ago, and, ergo, it wasn’t actually committed with God’s approval or at God’s direction.
Does that mean that God didn’t work with what the Children of Israel did, and still make everything “work together for good?” Of course not. God is quite capable of taking the most hideous mess that humans can create and making it work together for good. Does that mean that God wanted us to create those hideous messes — commit those heinous acts? No, never.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
sare #81 -
And I would be hesitant of putting myself in the position of acting in a manner which seems immoral to me at the direction of a human being. I do not believe that God EVER wants me to compromise the moral standards written on my heart in favor of doing the will of another human being.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
..and i might add that the people i speak of in #78 pray daily if not multiple times a day about the specific actions they may take or are taking.
don’t get me wrong, i believe in prayer but its gets tricky (speaking about this particular post) when you consider other people from religions being able to perform some pretty ugly things.
Comment by mfranti — December 6, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Lorian, no one here is talking about doing the will of a person. We’re talking about doing the will of God.
Nephi is a great example. He wasn’t all that easy to convince. He didn’t want to kill Laban, though Laban earlier had tried to have him killed, and had stolen from him.
These are exceptional examples. This isn’t the norm.
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
britt #87 -
Actually, that’s exactly what we’re talking about. The real question here is:
“Does one attempt to discern the will of God, or does one accept the prophet’s directives as being the will of God? Does one trust one’s own judgment regarding the will of God, or does one accept the prophet’s judgment as the will of God?”
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
And the key point with regards to the above would be the additional condition: “…when one’s own judgment and discernment point to something other than the directives and judgment of the prophet…”
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
That’s the real question at issue here. IF your conscience, your discernment, your judgment are telling you something very different from what the prophet is telling you, do you accept the prophet’s directives, or do you trust your heart and your own personal revelations/conscience/guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
You’re right, killing all those people was illogical and heinous by any standards. I guess what I meant was, it happened a lot back then. But that doesn’t make it morally “correct” in and of itself.
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
And what’s the problem with saying a quick prayer? I can see how it might be a sign to you, Lorian, of personal moral weakness, perhaps, to even question for a moment any of these scenarios. But I feel like God doesn’t necessarily operate within Man’s moral schemas… He’s eternal. He knows the end game. And sometimes it’s completely illogical to you, now, what you need to do to have a better life, later.
It seemed illogical to me, for a little bit, to consider divorcing my husband (I was a HUGE molly mormon in every sense of the word… and Divorce just wasn’t an answer that I even put on the table. Until God put it into my mind (ironically, during an edowment session at the temple.) But I’m so glad I followed God and not my own flawed conception of morality (very flawed, now that I look back on it! I mean, the guy did try to end my life).
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Sorry for that confusing conflation of parentheticals.
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
sare - I love a good conflation of parentheticals.
No, I never said there was any problem with saying a quick prayer. There is never a time when prayer is, in and of itself, “inappropriate.” What I said, though, is that there are some issues where I believe it is possible to be absolutely confident regarding the moral validity of a scenario with no need to spend hours agonizing on one’s knees. Things like murder. Any human being, regardless of religious status, who tells me to murder someone, or bear false witness against someone, or hide evidence of someone’s murder, is not, ever, imparting God’s will to me. I am absolutely confident in that statement.
Does it hurt to pray about it? Of course not. But I am confident in my ability to make the determination of moral rectitude without any further evidence than that of my own God-given conscience. What I find disturbing is not that someone would pray, but that someone would consider it necessary to seek God’s will regarding a directive to murder, bear false witness or join in a murder conspiracy after-the-fact. I see no moral dilemma here. The answer, as far as I can see, should be immediately obvious — God would never countenance these activities, and therefore, the directive must be coming from a false prophet.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Lorian, no one here is saying that they would take even the man they felt was the prophet’s word for it. Almost every single person (who answered close to an affirmative) answered that they would pray about it…seeking God’s will.
We wouldn’t change our conception of right and wrong, even in a situation because a man said so, but because God said so. The man saying something may prompt us to ask, but it wouldn’t change our response to a situation without clear confirmation from God.
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
britt
Regarding Nephi and Laban. We only have Joseph Smiths translation of what Nephi claims. I’d like to hear Laban’s version, and I would like to especially hear what Zoram had to say. Oh. and the Angels version too.
All that trouble to steal the Brass plates, and the Nephites dwindled in unbelief anyway.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 6, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
All that trouble on the cross and most of us reject Him anyway
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
britt #95 - I think the difference, though, is that you would give the prophet the benefit of the doubt and actually feel the need to question your conscience and God’s specific commandments if the prophet commanded you to do something so directly in contradiction to your own conscience and God’s commandments. I would not feel the need to give anyone the benefit of the doubt who told me to do something so morally reprehensible as to murder someone. And it makes me just a tad uncomfortable that others would.
The fact that you would question your own morals enough to feel the need to spend time and energy in discernment of the truth if the prophet asked you to murder someone suggests to me that you would actually consider murdering someone at the prophet’s direction. That’s what freaks me out, here.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
britt #97 -
Um, what, exactly, are you trying to say here, britt? That I reject Jesus? On what would you be basing such a claim?
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
No Lorian, just commenting on Suzanne’s post about how she was saying having the Brass Plates wasn’t “worth it” because hundreds of years later the Nephites fell into unbelief. I’m not even implying she doesn’t believe in jesus. I was just commenting on the funny way she had of putting on her judge hat and deciding what’s worth it when we believe God decided differently.
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
britt
I see a humongous difference between whacking off the head of a drunk guy you find passed out in the street and the actions of Jesus.
What did Jesus say when the guys ear got sliced off by Peter, something along the line of –Live by the sword, Die by the sword. Sheath your sword.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 6, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Okay, I’m glad it wasn’t about me, but I still don’t get it, britt. You say you;re not claiming that Suzanne rejects Jesus, but isn’t that what you said in #97? Or am I just not understanding you? Were you talking about the Nephites rejecting Jesus? Or Suzanne? Because it sounded like you were referring to present commenters. Color me confused, I guess.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Lorian:
I think you’re what some would call a “strong compatiblist,” meaning that you believe that science/logical reasoning and faith will always lead you to the same conclusion.
I’m more of what they call a “weak compatiblist” (I hate the way they term that, and think it deserves a different one). I believe that they will both lead to the same answer most times but if the answers are ever different, then faith trumps my own ideas and reasoning…which would lead me to my knees if I were asked by the prophet (who I truly consider to be God’s mouthpiece) to do something my moral reasoning contradicted.
At least, that’s what I remember from like 8 years ago in my critical thinking class. SO I’m probably totally off. Anyway.
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Except that I’m not comparing science vs. faith. I’m comparing conscience vs. faith. Those are quite different entities, IMO.
If science conflicts with faith, then I can see some cause for spiritual discernment, to determine whether faith has made false assumptions or whether science has disregarded fundamental truths.
But when conscience conflicts with faith, particularly faith, not in God directly, but in someone else’s representation of themselves as a spokesperson on God’s behalf, I’m going to go with conscience every time.
And that last part is particularly crucial — when we say “faith” in this context, we are referring to “faith that what someone tells us about God is so,” not directly to “faith in God.” I don’t question my faith in God, at least not in any ultimate sense. What I question is my faith in what others may tell me “God says” or “God wants.” That’s really very different.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Hmmm, yeah, this has always been a really tough one for me, as well. We barely blink when we read and teach about Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son. But we hear about Andrea Yates and we all yell “Psycho!”. She said God told her to kill her 5 (?) kids. Did any of us pray about that before we morally convicted her? Doubt it. Yet Abraham…
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 6, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Lorian, #104,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don’t beleive in God, but if there were a God and he is the all-knowing, all-loving, etc. God that created us and gave us our brains and conscience, we would not need to pray about the morality of certain actions. Some religious scholars actually equate conscience woth the Spirit.
A conscience that contradicts God’s will would be a cruel scenario indeed.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 6, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
I guess what I mean by “logical reasoning” is anything mental that is manmade… which IMO includes any kind of moral idea of the universe that my own human, fallible mind generates.
yes, including the idea of genocide as the most horrible crime possible. That’s an idea in my head, created by a lot of different experiences in my life, things I’ve read, my perception of human beings and their worth, and the idea of death and suffering.
All these things are wonderful ways to live your life… moral strength and courage is imperative if you’re going to do anythign to help the world.
But it’s still a human construction (IMO, but I don’t think IYO. Am I right?)
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
Further a GOD-GIVEN conscience that contradicts God’s will would be a cruel sceanrio.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 6, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
And one critical thing to realize is… for me, the prophet is God’s mouthpiece. “By my own mouth or the mouths of my servants, it is the same.” So when we discuss a prophet’s commandment, for me, we are also (most likely… though leaders are fallible) disucssing God’s commandment.
And you’re right… its’ a very difficult conflict to understand. But I feel I have a pretty strong testimony that it’s the way God works in this world… fallibility is something he deals with when he sends messages to his Children sometimes.
Comment by sare — December 6, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Yeah, and since “prophets” are clearly fallible (no one is debating that here), when a prophet clearly says or does something that goes against the very conscience that God gave us, why do we even have to pray about it?
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 6, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
oy…
Suzanne was implying getting the plates wasn’t worth it because the nephites fell into unbelief anyway…
so I was likening that to saying Jesus dying must not be worth it then because many people reject him.
I’m not saying anyone here specifically is rejecting Jesus…just speaking generally that people do reject Jesus, and God felt it was worth it still. Worth sacrificing his Son so those who believed in Him could come back. Worth it even when tens of thousands of people reject Him.
Does that make sense at all?
I believe the Book of Mormon is true. i believe an angel told Nephi to kill Laban..the plates were worth it. That’s not an easy thing to stomach-the killing part. That’s serious hard stuff. In the scriptures Nephi doesn’t have an easy time of it. He goes back and forth with the angel a bit…the second angel he’s seen in a few days, making this mission appear pretty important. This isn’t an ambiguous case. The angels words and Nephi’s hesitation are there in detail.
Is that easier to stomach than the passover and death of the first borns? we’re good with a God that kills people himself, but not asking his people on a RARE occaision to kill someone?
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
sare
My understanding from reading popular accounts of neurological research is that morality is innate in Humans and other social mammals.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 6, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
No. You’re wrong with that, britt - “we’re” not okay with a God that kills people himself. Realtiy is that GOd is in control of everything himself anyway. So every murder, every rape, every single bad occurence, God allows. Whether you think it is by his hand or not.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 6, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Lawyer Lady…every kiss, every hug, every bit of kindness, every opportinity to share your love is only possible because God allows us the opportunity to touch each other’s lives. You want to keep your daughter safe from rape, heartache, suffering? Great, but she will never know love or joy either. The same freedom that allows for love allows for hate.
At some point as a parent we all have to let go..let our child date, let them drive, let them take responsibility for themselves. We know that will result in heartache and pain, a crash or two and various other problems, yet we let them go.
Comment by britt — December 6, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
sare - #107
No, I don’t think conscience, at least as regards certain moral imperatives such as murder, is a human construct. I will qualify that statement, however.
I believe that it is possible to warp one’s conscience through repeated abuse — abuse by another of oneself, abuse by oneself of others, or abuse by oneself of oneself. I think the conscience can be numbed by repeatedly offending against it.
I also think the conscience can be oversensitized by early training — such as that of someone raised in a strict religious background such as the Assembly of God where I was raised, who taught that most things short of simple breathing were “sins.” It is possible to develop a conscience which veritably seethes with self/other-inflicted torments over miniscule acts which qualify as nothing more than whims and nuisances in a realistic world-view. This is what Roman Catholics would refer to as “scruples” — and they should know.
The guilt induced by an overly-religious upbringing can be excruciating.
There are, additionally, some people who are apparently born without a conscience. They know right from wrong only in the abstract context that “doing right” will be looked well upon by those around one and probably ingratiate one with them, and “doing wrong” will likely bring punishment of some sort, which punishment may well be worth risking in order to have what one wants. Such people are typically diagnosed as “sociopaths.” They generally become very good at manipulating others to get what they want, and never suffer actual guilt for wrongs they inflict on others in the process.
The thing which leads me to believe, though, that conscience is, at some level, universal (with a few exceptions) is the fact that certain basic concepts are accepted by every society as being universally morally offensive, including the murder of innocents and the sexual violation of very young children. Are there layers and add-ons and distortions? Sure. But when it comes to moral absolutes, such as murder, I’m reasonably confident that most of us have an inborn, trustworthy and reliable moral compass which we should be able to follow when directed by others to commit an act which would violate it.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
You know… i might just add a tiny bit to this discussion, that it actually wasn’t a prophet that asked Nephi to kill Laban, it was God specifically. Still, even with God asking him to do something so horrible, it was still hard for him and he had to question a few times.
Some of us rely on our hearts/spirits to guide us. Some of us rely on our logic/spirits to guide us, doesn’t mean one is more correct than the other. It’s they way we were made, the gifts we were given, the experiences we’ve had in our lives.
M– prayer isn’t a fail safe. In fact, often times we answer our own prayers on certain things and don’t really listen to the Lord, both good and bad people. I think we are given conscience for a reason, but also, it isn’t a fail safe… and if you add religious in-grain-ment it can change loads of decisions. ..
Comment by Sunshine — December 7, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Lorian so whatt do you do with the passover - killing of the first borns…or the flood?
Comment by britt — December 7, 2009 @ 12:07 am
#114 -yes, it’s late here and my atheism is coming out too much. I just don’t see how God gets a loophole and a free pass for every possible scenario.
After my husband died unexpectedly, and someone we knew was facing a life-threatening illness or injury, I cringed when somone said (around our children) well, we’ll pray that God heals them. What message did that send to my kids? Your prayers weren’t numerous enough, valiant enough, faithful enough?
If someone dies, it was God’s will. If someone doesn’t die, God answered our prayers. And then there is always the “God is refining you and building your faith” line. I hardly think my devastated children really cared about any of the above scenarios when they arrived home to find their father dead. Sounds harsh, but man, after an 8 year battle with trying to find faith - it was IMPOSSIBLE to look those little kids in the eye and say “Just trust God”…
Ugh, things are not as simple as you try to make them, britt.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 7, 2009 @ 12:11 am
If the pope, the “Mouthpiece” of god for catholics, had asked catholics to do any of the things listed above in the original post, I suspect the LDS church would use this is support how “untrue” and “abominable” the catholic was and is. But when our “true” prophet asked the early members of the church to do these things, it was directed from god. People did it because god revealed to each and every one of them that it was his will. They didn’t do it because their peers were doing it. They didn’t do it because they were charmed by a very charismatic leader. They didn’t do it because they were taught to do so by their families or husbands. They didn’t do it because it gave them a sense of community and eventually contributed to their sense of heritage. They didn’t do it because were caught up in wanting to be part of something bigger than themselves. They didn’t do it because life just doesn’t make sense and when someone comes along with a “plan” from god as to how it does make sense, they find it appealing and are willing to do or give anything to participate in something they couldn’t make up on their own. People did it because a man told them that god told him it was his will and, I suppose, it simply is that sometimes doing what god wants doesn’t make sense.
Comment by BigSister — December 7, 2009 @ 12:18 am
LL, after my nephew got diagnosed with Leukemia I had a change of thought/heart. It’s not necessarily what God wanted, but simply a natural occurrence of whatever… some people get cancer, some people get healed, some people don’t, and God isn’t near as involved as we think he is, but no matter what happens (in my experiences) he is with me to over come whatever hate, hurt, anger, sadness I may feel….
And, I’m very sorry for your loss and the loss your children have felt.
Comment by Sunshine — December 7, 2009 @ 12:19 am
I don’t believe that those accounts are actual, literal events as transcribed in Genesis/Exodus. I believe that they are oral legends regarding events which took place: So, rather than the global wipe-out described in Genesis, the actual event was likely a large but still reasonably localized flood, the account of which was passed down in stories, and explained in tradition as an “Act of God.” The account of Noah and the Ark was added as a kind of morality play, to give more meaning to an otherwise unexplainable event.
The Exodus account of the first Passover likewise, was probably based upon a series of natural catastrophes (though, interestingly enough, there is no record of the events in any concurrent Egyptian historical accounts — you’d think something that catastrophic would have garnered at least a mention in Egypt’s historical records).
Human beings are always looking for explanations which give meaning to tragedy, and which allow us to maintain a sense that, even if we find ourselves in circumstances which are beyond our own control, surely they must be directed by the hand of God. And while I do not dispute the idea that God does control human circumstances, I would also say that many times human “histories” of direct intervention from God are likely mythological and allegorical in nature. I do not believe in a literal 6-solar-day creation occurring 6000 years ago, for instance. I believe that the story of Eve and the Serpent is allegorical for the topic of how evil entered the world and why God allows evil to take place.
The events recorded in Genesis and Exodus were not written down until thousands of years after they occurred. A great deal of moralizing, extemporizing and interpolation can take place in a thousand years of passing down an oral tradition.
And no, I don’t believe that God held the writers of scripture by the hand and dictated every word which flowed from their pens, any more than I believe God did this with all of the tens of thousands of copyists and translators who later touched those works and passed them down into subsequent generations. Do I believe there is validity and truth to be found in scripture? Absolutely. Do I believe in literalistic understanding of scripture? No.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 12:24 am
britt
The Bible gives us multiple versions of the same story.
We only have a translation of Nephi’s version. Maybe the angel would say I said no such thing. Maybe Zoram would say that’s not how it went down, that Laban choked to death on his own vomit. We only have Nephi version, and I think that a story without independent verification is not a valid reason for another person to kill someone else.
I think that a bible verse saying “thou shall not sufferest a witch to live” is not a valid reason to burn thousands and thousands of people.
And not just witches, but heretics were killed so they could not lead others into unbelief.
And I cannot fathom a just and loving God sanctioning it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 7, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Sorry - My #121 is addressed to britt’s #115.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 12:25 am
#119 - Yes. Great comment. Hence, my earlier post about Andrea Yates. How is it that we so readily accept someone’s account of God’s command while we scoff at other’s view of God’s command? It is really rather arrogant and presumptive.
That is why I agree with Lorian that if there is, in fact, this great idea of a loving, gracious, omniscient, all-powerful creator - that gave us our brains and our conscience -then there are eternal (non-changing) truths that would be present in all of us. It would not take away our agency, it would just clear up a lot of confusion. For example, I know stealing is wrong, but I am human and I let envy get the best of me and I steal my neighbor’s necklace when I am visiting her house. I knew it was wrong (conscience). I stole it anyway (agency). And I will suffer the result (consequence).
In other words, it doesn’t take away agency at all. Just recognizes a consequence.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 7, 2009 @ 12:27 am
“It’s not necessarily what God wanted, but simply a natural occurrence of whatever… some people get cancer, some people get healed, some people don’t, and God isn’t near as involved as we think he is”
If that is the case, why even go through the effort of praying at all? What is the point of supposed intercession? Why do we pray for someone in need if God isn’t involved in our day-to-day?
But thank you for your kind comments. I actually do appreciate those sentiments as these general debates are not persona; to me. We’re all just struggling together here…
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 7, 2009 @ 12:31 am
Gee, I know of such accusations against Manager of some energy companies who dump large amounts of very toxic & carcinogenic things into the environment. Other have discussed what kind of religious beliefs these polluters could possibly have & still do that.
Comment by Mike H. — December 7, 2009 @ 12:35 am
I totally understand what you are saying and asking. I’m certainly not trying to convince you of my beliefs because they come from my own very personal experiences as do yours. I know that I can pray for anything I want, and I know just the same I won’t get what I prayed for, but it’s not going to stop me from praying. And, it actually gives me more peace to know that God isn’t as involved in the outcome of illness, car accident, murder, rape because I understand what it is. It’s called choice and accountability and often times the Lord lets us maniacal people make seriously stupid choices, and those choices we make we will be held accountable for. Us… not God… us, those who made those choices (stole the necklace, murdered, raped, lied, cheated).
Comment by Sunshine — December 7, 2009 @ 12:49 am
Lawyer lady, I ‘m sorry. I can’t imagine how that would feel to tell your children their dad died.
The world is not black and white for me. It’s not like all of my prayers have gone the way I thought they would. I have had experience with praying for years for things and never getting the help I needed or the answers I sought.
In these particular situations, because of the drama of them, I know God would answer my prayer or He knows I would not act…prophet in my face or no.
Lorian, the myth and fable version of the Bible is a fascinating one to me….for this reason. The flood is not the most amazing event of the Bible. hard to understand? yes. impossible to imagine? yes. The walls of jericho coming down, the plagues in Egypt, the Jonah in the belly of a fish…it is all miraculous. The thing is the hardest thing, the most impossible thing in the bible is the birth, life, death and suffering of Jesus Christ. The existence of a savior who can save us from our sins. Life after death, a change of heart, forgiveness…much more miraculous than a flood. much more amazing than a slew of frogs or water turning to wine or any of it.
For me, because I believe Jesus died and can save me, can change my life and help me two thousand years after he lived…the rest is child’s play for a God who can do that.
I really believe nothing is too hard for the Lord, without caveat. It’s not nothing to hard for the Lord, except for the flood…that would have been a bit much. or except for manna, or except for your least favorite or least plausible miracle… If God can save us through His son, He can do what he says he can do.
Now that does create a challenge when our prayers are unanswered and help doesn’t come in the way we expect-or at all, or the blessings we desperately seek don’t happen. We don’t know the timing the reasons, the truth, the whole picture. Sometimes that makes for an awful mess. Sometimes that leaves a struggling person with a huge gaping hole-wondering what they could possibly pray that would be right-afraid to ask anymore-not wanting to be disappointed or even hope. The purpose of prayer is not to make sure God knows what we think and gives us what we know we need, it is to understand the mind and will of God and receive blessings that may be contingent upon our asking.
Comment by britt — December 7, 2009 @ 7:05 am
Well, thank you for your kind sentiments Sunshine and britt.
I do have to say, though, that these replies are still very unsatisfactory to me. Not unsatisfactory in the sense that, “Hey, God doesn’t give me the things that I want!” [Stomps feet].
Unsatisfactory in this sense:
Family A: Dad has a heart attack and lands in the hospital. Family A asks all famliy and friends to pray feverishly for Dad. Family and friends do accordingly. Dad dies anyway. Family A hears a lot of, “It was God’s will.” And, “God was calling him home.” And, “God had a greater mission for him on the other side”.
Family B: Dad has a heart attack and lands in the hospital. Family B asks all famliy and friends to pray feverishly for Dad. Family and friends do accordingly. Dad suvives. Family B hears a lot of, “It was God’s will.” And, “God answers prayers.” And, “God has shown his mercy and grace”.
So, if God had a will for Family A and Family B, how in the world does it make sense to tell people to pray? Or that if we ask earnestly and seek Him, our prayers will be answered? And how do you explain this to your children when they’ve prayed so hard and so valiantly and yet…
But then theur friend’s mother survives her brain tumor and they’re told God answered people’s prayers?
There still has been no satisfactory answer to this for me.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 7, 2009 @ 7:30 am
I don’t think you do explain it to children, I think you pray God will help them understand.
The “God has a mission on the other side” could be particularly hard for children to hear, because they would feel pretty darn sure he was needed here.
I’ve sometimes wondered why Christ prayed in the garden of eden to have the cup removed from him…maybe its a similar thing
Comment by britt — December 7, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Lawyer Lady,
I feel you so much. I understand that pain, that doubt.
Comment by miles — December 7, 2009 @ 9:42 am
The missing component here is the surrounding social pressure to do what the prophet says. It’s not like these questions were asked in a vacuum, out of the blue. There was a pattern. And saying no to the prophet meant facing your community, for whom no reason to disobey was sufficient.
Comment by Justin — December 7, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Lorain, I’m 99% in agreement with you. I do try to hold out the 1% theoretical possibility that the Lord could ask something completely antithetical to rational understanding based on the story of Israel and Isaac, or some of the other Biblical accounts given here, and the understanding that His perspective is so much broader and deeper than mine that He might ask something which seems completely incomprehensible to my moral understanding because my understanding is so much more limited in him.
But for all practical purposes, I don’t see the Lord ever asking us to do anything so blatantly violating the understanding which we do have, so contrary to his teachings about justice, mercy, honor, etc. I just don’t see it happening. And I’m worried about anyone who would fairly easily accept the concept that he would. If we realistically accept such a thing, how are we any different than the followers of Jim Jones, or Koresh, or the Taliban, or any other religious group which has followed a leader to do something so counter to basic morality?
And I’m also more in line with your thinking as to the active work of the Lord on earth. I consider myself something of a Deist Mormon, because I don’t think the Lord is nearly as active in our day-to-day lives as we think. For example, there was a teen in my neighborhood who died a few years back. He (we’ll call him Jim) and some friends had gone on a road trip to Southern Utah, and had decided to come back overnight after a full day of partying (Mormon-style; no drinking or anything naughty). Because the SUV in which they travelled was full, Jim decided to ride lying down in the back behind the seats. The driver eventually did one of those momentary dozes, swerved into the other lane, and then overcorrected and rolled the vehicle. Jim was thrown from the vehicle. He was helicoptered to the local hospital. The father declined to send him to the more advanced and specialized trauma unit at the university hospital. Jim lasted for a couple of weeks in the local hospital. The consensus around the ward was that the Lord had taken him for a greater purpose. I don’t get it. What, did the Lord have them to decide to come home late at night when they were tired? Did God inspire Jim to ride without a seatbelt? I suppose it is conceivable that once Jim was in critical condition, The Lord guided the father to decline to move Jim, so that Jim was more likely to pass on, relieving his suffering. But if any of those things are true, what does it say about free will? If God is going to manipulate our decisions in any of those ways, how can we deny predestination? No, this whole thing smells much more like the natural consequences of decisions made rather than any divine involvement, whether the Will of God or the Weaving of the Norns. I think most belief in the intimate involvement of God is, as it was here, the efforts of humans to derive some comfort from the various events in life.
Comment by Derek — December 7, 2009 @ 10:14 am
That’s a good point you bring up (several posts ago) about conscience being innate. In the LDS church we call that “the light of Christ.”
I just feel like it’s something I can trust only in association with confirmation of the spirit, because my own mind is imperfect and my own conscience and feelings get mixed up with experiences, hurts, emotion. For me, the “safest” place to put my trust is God (through personal revelation.) And the Prophet is a quick step to personal revelation… he can lead me, just as conscience can lead me, or a spirital experience can lead me. Since all these things are routes, for me, to truth, I tend to take all of them very seriously.
So I’d pray in each circmstance. The prophet route can have an element of fallibility, but so can my own conscience or “light of Christ” because… hey! I’m also fallible
I love this discussion. Seriously. My mind was racing last night and I had to restrain myself from reading after 10:30 pm ( my now self-imposed bedtime, because I have to get up in the morning to 5 kids age 7 and under.)
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Lawyer Lady, In the movie “Shadowlands” C.S. Lewis addressed that particular problem this way:
“I pray because I can’t help myself. I pray because I’m helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time- waking and sleeping. It doesn’t change God- it changes me.”
In other words, God already knows what is going to happen. But he wants us to be in relationship with him, and prayer is the way to do that. Elder Maxwell taught over and over again that we pray to align our own will to God’s and not vice versa.
As far as God commanding cruel things in scripture, I tend to agree with Lorian. Scriptures are written by people who are trying to figure out how God works in their lives. Sometimes they attribute perfectly natural occurrences to the will of God, and often they view their own triumphs as a result of their righteousness (I wish we had the Lamanites’ history in their own; it would likely be quite a different story.)
One example: My dad is a lawyer and judge, and he believes that most of Nephi’s writings read like a legal defense. Much of what Nephi says about his own rightness and his brothers’ wrongness seem to be there in order to justify Nephi taking over the birthright, and most particularly to justify Nephi’s murder of Laban. It’s clear that years after it happened he still felt bad about it, even though he believed God had told him to do it. I wish we read the scriptures in context much more than we do, keeping in mind that they were written by specific people with specific agendas and all the limitations that come along with being human.
Comment by Chelsea — December 7, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Sorry, that should have said “I wish we had the Lamanites’ history in their own words. “
Comment by Chelsea — December 7, 2009 @ 11:08 am
britt #128 - My beliefs used to be very similar to your own. I was brought up to believe that some of the animals not in existence today (dinosaurs, for instance) were extinct because, for some reason, Noah fail to get them onto the ark.
It wasn’t until I got to college that I first encountered (in my religion classes at a Christian college) the concept of “demythologizing” the Bible. I came to understand, for the first time, that most of the writings of Biblical periods contained accounts of “mythological” events, and that mythologization was actually a literary device used by the writers and story-tellers of the period which allowed them to demonstrate ideas, concepts and characteristics about their subjects and protagonists to their audience. If we are to understand the power of Thor, we must know that he has a mighty hammer which, when he brings it down in the mountains, causes thunder. If we are to understand Hercules to be the son of a human and a god, then it’s important to portray him as being able to accomplish some superhuman tasks. If we are to understand that Pharoah is god-like, or the decendent of gods, then he must be able to perform miracles. It was readily understood at the time that such stories were told to suggest characteristics of the hero, rather than as literal descriptions of things that the hero was able to do.
Does that mean that Jesus didn’t do miracles? No, not necessarily. But it does suggest that there are more important facets to his ministry than his ability to walk on water.
At first I found this idea disappointing, upsetting and disturbing. My faith, as taught to me, was dependent upon all of those miracles and stories being absolutely, 100% factually correct in every detail, in order for me to feel safe that I could trust in God to be there for ME. If God didn’t rescue Jonah from a whale’s belly, then how could God be powerful enough to rescue me from the dangers and trials of my life? If Jesus didn’t multiply a handful of loaves and fishes into enough food to feed 5000 people, then how could I trust that he would be able to meet my needs?
What I came to realize, though, was that my faith in God as the Creator Being who formed and presides over the universe does not have to depend upon whether or not Moses’ staff really did turn to a serpent, whether Moses actually did see a bush burning in the wilderness without being consumed, whether there really is a Garden of Eden somewhere on earth with angels with flaming swords blocking the entrance. The fact that no Egyptian histories confirm the Biblical account of the plagues has no bearing on my faith in God, nor does the fact that science proves the earth and its inhabitants to have been in existence for eons longer than 6000 years. None of that is faith-shattering for me, because my faith in God is not dependent upon those things being literal events.
As Jesus said to Thomas, “Blessed are those who see not, and yet believe.” I don’t need to see miracles to believe that God exists and cares for me.
Demythologizing the Bible — sorting out the true history from the allegory and the allegory from the mythical elements — does nothing to detract from the truth of its real messages, that we should love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbor as ourself. As Jesus said, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” That would lead me to believe, then, too, that anything which contradicts either of these two commandments, contradicts the law, and that a prophet who espoused such would be a false prophet.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 11:13 am
sare #134 -
What about simply having the dictates of your conscience confirmed by the dictates of the commandments? It would seem to me that everything Jesus is recorded as ever saying countermands at least the three worst scenarios given in the OP. I have a hard time understanding why that wouldn’t be sufficient evidence to confirm one’s conscience telling one not to do those things and not to believe the man, calling himself a prophet, who urges one to do those things.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Very well said Lorian. I wish I had learned that in seminary. It wasn’t until I got to my upper level English courses at BYU (after my mission) that it was suggested to me that the Bible contains a lot of mythology. Such a basic tenet of understanding scripture, but it had never occurred to me, and it certainly never came up in any of my religion classes.
Comment by Chelsea — December 7, 2009 @ 11:20 am
LL, I’m not really sure you are looking for an answer, and I don’t know that I could give you and answer that would heal, or help you because you did ask, I would like to give you a brief description of why I pray.
Prayer is so much more than just asking for someone to be healed (and I think you know that). A big misconception about prayer is, if you don’t get the answer you want then you must not be worthy enough to receive it. It is also perceived that you must not have prayed hard enough, or you weren’t faithful enough, or you didn’t follow the commandments perfectly. That’s not what prayer is about. Prayer is the way I/we can communicate with the Lord. I talk to him everyday. I yell at him, I cry to him, I express my anger over a very painful friendship, I tell him my weaknesses, and I apologize for misgivings, and I ask for help in my relationship with my husband.
At some point I hear him respond, I get a peace that I had not known. I get understanding, I get the knowledge that I don’t know everything and in due time, with my continued obedience, I will receive the revelation and understanding I am searching for.
Even though I said the God isn’t near as involved in our lives as we think he is, he is there regardless. He allows for people to choose, to grow, to learn, and he won’t take that away. And, I would probably cry with my children, hold them, and tell them that I don’t understand why Daddy had to die and so and so didn’t. I would tell them that I am hurting, that I feel angry that he’s gone, and that sometimes I feel angry with God for taking him. Then I would cry some more… and then I would do my best to pray again, with my children.
Comment by Sunshine — December 7, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
I’m just sayin’, I’d pray about it before completely dismissing a command outright.
Jesus commanded to Love thy Neighbor, and Love God. Those are the two basic commandments. Killing someone would seem to go against these commandments. But in Nephi’s case (and I do believe it happened as he recorded in scripture) he was commanded to Kill in order to preserve the gospel for generations thereafter.
God’s morality, to me, is not something I can completely understand. I believe God leads me in my own morality, but like a child being led by parents, sometimes I believe things for the wrong things, or assume things, or missapply doctrine or commandments. So the best thing to do when you’re given what appears to be conflicting commandments is simply to ask, for me.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
sorry… typos. I’m typing fast because i have to start my kids on their next school activity. I meant “Sometimes I believe things for the wrong reasons”.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Wow, Lawyer Lady, why don’t you ask us a hard question for once?
You know, I’ve always struggled with this concept. I feel like we hear so many contradictory things, especially as Mormons:
- the parable of the women that petitions the wicked king
- scripture after scripture about “ask and ye shall receive”
- the idea that we don’t pray to change God’s mind, we pray to find out His will
- a constant dichotomy between what is God’s will versus what is man’s free agency
Is there even an answer to this question??
I’ll tell you what works for me (besides the old Cherry Dr. Pepper and a Heath bar trick!)… I pray because it makes me feel close to someone. I pray because when I do, sometimes God reminds me that He loves me and knows that I’m struggling. Sometimes He tells me I’ll be okay, even if okay doesn’t mean things are going to get easier. Sometimes I think that if I had more faith, maybe my prayers would be answered; I can’t recount how many times I’ve heard that God wants to bless us, if only we’d have enough faith in Him. Maybe I just don’t think I deserve it enough to believe He’d actually give it to me. I can see how that would be true.
The only way I can reconcile any of this is believing that at the end of the eternal day, there is a purpose to the trials that we have in life. Sometimes He does a greater work by saving the father, sometimes His purposes are better accomplished by the father dying. And His purpose is to bring ALL His children back to him. I don’t know how He does it, in my mind the only thing that we even can have faith in, is that He will make all things right for us, and that He will support us through all the awful days ahead.
When I was 19 I was in a car accident very much like the one Derek describes, but I was the driver and my friend was the one that was killed. I agonized for years, for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest was that we had specifically prayed for safety during our drive. What did it mean that we were not kept safe? I could only understand it two ways - God didn’t care or I wasn’t righteous enough to have that prayer answered and an innocent person died because of it.
I think this is still something I’ve got a lot of healing to do on. But I’ve started to see a third possibility. Maybe it’s possible that God could’ve saved my friend. I don’t know how much He directly interferes with our agency. But the bottom line is He did not. So why pray? I can only come back to the first thing - because when I do I feel like God knows what I’m going through and that helps me now. Sometimes I think it’s just keeping up the habit of making Him a part of my daily life, because those sweet feelings are actually pretty rare compared with how often I pray. For me, it comes down to this: I feel better when I pray often than when I don’t. So I pray.
I think all those things that we say, “It was God’s will.” “God was calling him home.” “God had a greater mission for him on the other side” “God answers prayers.” “God has shown his mercy and grace” are often platitudes that we use as humans to try and understand suffering. Maybe sometimes they are right, probably they usually are not. Maybe it would just always be better to say, God’s will is ALWAYS done (He is God, afterall), and we’ll try and figure out how to go from here…
Comment by Enna — December 7, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
sare (#141), it just scares me that there are people who would trust a command from the prophet more than their own moral judgment of what is intrinsically right and wrong, particularly with regards to things like committing murder or otherwise causing direct harm to others. I find that astounding and terribly, terribly disturbing.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
I can understand why that would be scary.
I think that the idea of following prophets, believing really, and truly in the miracle of revelation from God through the imperfect vessel of a human being (including yourself, if were talking about personal revelation), is a very scary, and potentially dangerous one.
But it’s true. For me.
You have to admit, though, that there are plenty of people who have committed atrocities because they feel God spoke directly to them, as well as atrocities committed because a “prophet” commanded them.
Faith, in and of itself, is a risky business.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
“a very scary idea”…
sigh.
Ok off to finally take my morning shower… I conquered a mt everst of dishes this morning.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
sare #145 - I’m not opposed to prophecy — in one’s own spirit or through another person, up to a certain point. That point, though, is where the “prophet” commands me to do something which I know to be morally incorrect. I must take responsibility for “testing the spirits,” and the way one does that is by measuring the message against what one already knows to be moral and righteous.
In the case of an individual who hears voices within himself or sees visions telling him to do something which would by normal standards be blatantly immoral (go around murdering people, for instance), I would consider that person insane. Not a prophet. Mentally ill. God does not send people visions or voices telling them to kill people or commit atrocious acts.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
sare
You wrote, “he was commanded to Kill in order to preserve the gospel for generations thereafter.”
So with this precedent in mind, were the founding fathers of Massachusetts correct in executing Mary Dyer to save their city on the hill from the heretical Quakers?
Are Dominionist Christians correct in calling for the Death penalty for all those they deem Non-Christian? They do cite God.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 7, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Derek, I don’t think anyone here considers these situations anything but extremely rare - very rare situations
I’ve always felt God will use the good people he gets back, but I don’t know that he is inspiring them in little ways and tweaking all of fate so they die.
Lorian, I understand the idea that they could be myths and I get that there could be mistranslations. I worry though when we say they must be myths (not saying you are saying this, but I have heard it) because such and such is impossible. I do believe with God nothing is impossible.
I really do think it’s worth thinking about that Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemene prayed that this cup would pass from him…nevertheless. We focus on the nevertheless, and that is great and an important part of prayer. But here we have the perfect person praying the bad stuff will not happen-the stuff that really makes the culminating part of his mission. He was praying for another way.
Us praying for someone not to die, or something bad to not happen, or something bad to end-it must still be worth praying because Jesus prayed that way. It didn’t “work” becuase that was the will of God…not because Jesus didn’t have enough faith or if he had been something enough.
I don’t know..something to think about
OH and this is bugging me. the whole angel nephi-Laban thing was bugging me, so I reread it this morning. He spoke with the spirit, not an angel. Sorry for the wrong information. Totally my fault.
Comment by britt — December 7, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Suzanne,
I sure hope not!!
But I can’t say for certain what God has commanded another person to do. Personally if I were in the actual situation (say if I were Mary Dyer) I’d do my level best to avoid being killed. And if I were a bystander, I would not stand by.
This whole thing doesn’t absolve you of being a good Samaritan and following your own conscience at all. My discussion is of when you personally feel like one route to God’s will conflicts with another route (your own conscience vs what the prophet commands.)
And my own method is simply through prayer, to confirm it personally, directly with God what I am supposed to do, in that situation, rather than dismissing either source out of hand.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
sare, the thing which disturbs me about the idea that someone might need to go to prayer to “confirm the prophet’s message,” should the prophet give a message which is directly in contradiction to the most basic moral principles, is not that I don’t think God answers such prayers, necessarily, but that I have no particular faith in that person that he or she will properly discern God’s answer (which I expect would be a resounding, “HELL, no!!!”), if they are not capable of discerning the fact that the prophet is telling them to do something immoral in the first place. The fact that they feel the need to go to prayer to discern an answer which I believe should be staring them boldly in the face is what concerns me. People don’t always listen to what God is telling them, even when they are supposedly in prayer to seek God’s will.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
re: 149
To what are you referring? The sorts of occasions in which the Lord asks something which seems counter to our understanding of morality? I’m sure that’s true, but there are some in the Church who believe this is a distinct possibility–remote, but distinctly possible. For me, I doubt it’s anything more than theoretically possible.
If you were referring to the concept that The Lord is directly intervening in our lives, directing who gets promoted, who goes on what mission, who marries whom, who suffers tragedy, and who dies, then I think there is a rather large segment of the LDS culture that believe God is intimately involved in the details of our lives.
Comment by Derek — December 7, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Oh sorry I was referring to the Lord asking something counter to our understanding of morality…I expect that would be VERY rare.
I know people who pray about paint color, so I get that some people think that God cares about every. little. detail.
Comment by britt — December 7, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Lorian,
I think most people would be taken aback (even the most relgious mormons or catholics) if their leader told them to do any of the scenarios listed in the post. I think most would really feel a need to go to God themselves, if they didn’t outright just refuse to follow.
There is that class of people you mentioned– sociopaths, who might go ahead and follow the prophet without question because they have absolutely no desire or need to follow moral or conscience.
There are also those who are easily decieved, and those who bend easily to social pressure.
I’m not in the last couple categories, I don’t think. I’d pray about it, though. I’d expect the “hell no” and be completely taken aback if God gave me another answer. And like I said in my first post, i’d need the spirit to comfort me and help me through the sitation (either having to do something I didn’t understand, or realizing the Prophet was trying to mislead me.)
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Should say the last few categories.
I hope I’m not a sociopath. Pretty sure I’m not!
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
I’ve got family on both sides of the last question; one that BY didn’t like, we’ll call him Cody–he later disappeared under suspicious circumstances–the killer later (much later) confessed. It’s as bad as you imagine. His wife’s family (my family), even though they, as far as I can tell, knew just who the killers were (the knowledge was passed down to me, and has separate confirmation) didn’t do anything.
Nothing. While I would like to believe that I would be a hero, I don’t know if I would. It’s easy sitting here in my mostly-warm house without those life and death decisions. But from the pov of my family back in the 1850’s in Utah, what was their range of choices? Object, and be targets themselves (with the damage it would cause their families) or just shut their mouths? The fact that this tale has caused my family such angst 150 years later speaks to the difficult issues involved. Would you do “the right thing” if it meant hurting your family, or would you keep your peace? I’m not sure of my answer.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
sare #154 - No, I don’t think sociopaths would be the ones unquestioningly following the prophet with blind obedience. Sociopaths rarely do anything blindly. Their major consideration is their own self-interest. I think we can mostly leave them out of this discussion, as their motivations are quite different from those we are discussing. They would typically BE the person who had managed himself into a position of authority and would want to control others for his own self-interest and gain (as a false prophet might be).
I think, though, that there are some very good, well-meaning people who are so deeply convinced of the “rightness” of religious authority and so unwilling to consider the idea that the person in authority might actually be in that position because he or she is working from a position of self-interest, that they are blind to the faults of those in positions of religious authority and unable to see or understand that if the person is asking them to do something which violates their own conscience, they have the right, no, the responsibility to emphatically refuse.
I am not, by the way, lest anyone panic and misjudge what I’m saying here, in any way suggesting that ALL people in positions of religious authority are sociopaths, or acting out of self-interest, or in any way abusing their positions of authority. I’m not indicting any prophets, past or present. I’m only pointing out that when someone who is sociopathic, or otherwise functioning from a position of self-interest, greed, or other unrighteousness does make it into a position of religious authority, there are always plenty of people ready and willing to follow him or her to the very gates of hell. They have been conditioned to an attitude of blind obedience toward the holder of that position of authority, and, while they may pay lip service to their right to act on their own conscience, when confronted with an actual choice, they have difficulty hearing their conscience over the demands of the authority.
Witness people who allow their children to be molested by priest in the Roman Catholic Church (and actually, by priests and ministers in many religious groups — the Roman Catholics just have a particularly bad set-up because of their views on celibacy). Many of them say afterwards that they knew, at some level, what was happening, but couldn’t bring themselves to question the priest’s authority. In fact, there are quite a number of cases where adults have been sexually abused by priests — consentual only in that they did not feel they had a right to say “no” to the priest.
There ARE people out there who would kill because their religious authority commanded it. Witness the abortion clinic shooters and bombers who believe that God wants them to put a stop to abortions at ANY cost. Most of them have been, perhaps not put up to the actual act of violence by their religious leaders (though I think some may have been), but certainly encouraged into the mindset which led them to commit these murderous acts by the teachings of their religious leaders.
Some people are sheep-like, and will follow a bad shepherd as readily as a good one. That’s why when I hear religious people putting their own conscience in the backseat when considering a command from a religious leader, it gives me pause. I trust that no one here would actually go through with the commission of a crime if ordered by a prophet — that all of us, even if we had to stop and consider it and pray about it for a while, would come to our senses and not actually DO it. But I think there are more people that I’d like (out “there,” not here) who would take the position that obeying the prophet is always right, and that, even if he commands you to do something wrong, you will be counted as “right” by God for obeying him.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
I was actually obsessed with this question as a child–where did the heroes come from? My hunting through WWII history showed me that heroes popped up out of nowhere. They’re just random people who, for whatever reason, behave decently when all around them are being cruel, and enforcing the cruelty culture-wide.
One of my main reasons to separate from Mormonism. Religion, as far as I can see, makes one less likely to take the leap towards unrewarded goodness.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
Good points, djinn. I can respect a healthy fear for the well-being of one’s family far more than a simple blind faith that the prophet could never lead you astray. I think that’s an entirely different issue, and a very understandable one. I’d like to think I’d be brave enough (or stupid enough) to scream it out in the public square (I’ve never been accused of being able to keep my mouth shut…), but where my kids are concerned I can find motivation.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Now I’m on a badly-thought-out roll. Prop. 8. Decent mormons said “no marriage rights for people whose sexuality we think is ucky,” that is, they behaved cruelly because their religion told them to. (Yes, “marriage” has no “traditional” meaning, or rather, it has so many to make the thought meaningless.)
Confirmation in real-time.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Lorian, I was perceived as walking away from my family, including my siblings that, due to the size of my family, I had essentially raised, when I stopped attending the Mormon church. So, maybe I would have kicked up a badly-thought-out fuss, as I have examples of this in my past.
But I wasn’t sitting in nowhere, Utah, a woman, with no way to get out. I plotted my escape. How we behave is so dependent upon our individual circumstances. Everyone thinks that we would have housed Jews in WWII Germany. How many Germans did? It’s a heartbreakingly small amount.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
Oh, and we’re not even talking about my ex’s family that were involved (but not exactly directly, though very very close–they certainly did nothing to stop it) in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. \
Decent people do things that those of us in our warm houses typing away on the internets (in different circumstances) find appalling. Rwanda wasn’t that long ago, let alone the invasion of Iraq by, well now that I think about it, US.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
I promise, I’ll stop posting soon. The only Mormon that I am aware of that objected to Nazi rule was Hellmuth Huebner. He got ex-ed for his troubles.,
I think I’ve previously mentioned how I had a boss that was a kid in Germany during Hitler’s rise to power and WWII. (Yes, I’m that old.) Her family were totally Hitler supporters, because as what they saw as his conservative stance–for example “kinder, kirche, kuche,” Woman’s role was to be confined to children, the church and cooking. Unlike those degenerates of the Weimar era, who had an inkling that women could do something else.
djinn out.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
You’re absolutely right, djinn. That’s what scares me about this issue.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
It haunts me, Lorian. I really try to be a decent, moral human being. But my choices don’t always work out so well. Sometimes the choices I have made, honestly trying to be a moral being, disconnected from the society in which I find myself, have turned out worse than if I went full-sociopath.
I have no answers. Just doubts. About myself. You, I give a pass.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
And you, too, everyone else on the thread.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Ahh, the beauty of a quiet conversation when no one else is reading.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
As is typical for me, I missed the main point in #163. I had a MORMON boss (born Mormon in Germany) during Hitler’s rise to power –she lived in Germany through WWII–she was in what became East Germany, and escaped during the final stages of the war to Utah. She told me that her parents voted for Hitler because they believed that Hitler was the more moral character due to his conservative views on matters such as women’s place in society.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
I can think of many times I behaved cowardly when there was much less on the table than the lives of my loved ones. Do we behave better when the stakes are higher, or worse?
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Djinn,
true, true, true.
It’s so funny because on this thread I almost feel like I’m playing devil’s advocate. If I were talking to *anybody* else about this issue, I’d probably be defending the position of personal revelation and responsibility above all else. In this case, we started out with the discussion of prophets and following them, and I ended up defending the other “boundary” I guess of my own field of belief as regards prophets and whether we should follow them or not. Because I do still believe in prophets.
The MMM is a fascinating topic. There was so much going on behind the scenes with that issue that both sides never talk much about. Trauma on the part of the Mormon Settlers, the doctrine of blood atonement which was misinterpreted (those who believe the leaders weren’t involved wodl say) by those people, living far out in the middle of nowhere, afraid of a repeat of Haun’s Mill, etc. Plus the Fancher-Baker’s background, which involved the murder of Parley P Pratt, and their braggery and troublemaking througout the settlements as they traveled south. None of those things justify what happened, but the settlers were so trigger happy and so completely ready for a fight, that they took things way too far.
Would I do the same in that situation? I sure hope not. But I know humans are capable of these things, and I am a human. Reading and studying about it hopefully cuts down on the chances of my doing any such thing… hopefully I’d recognize what is happening and the spirit would be able to override fear and zeal.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
and before I get an onslaught of but…but…but… about what I have said about the Fancher-Bakers, I have done a great deal of research on this issue and read quite a few original documents, including letters and journal entries and newspaper articles from the time etc, anythign I could get my hands on, because I’m writing a novel kind of about it.
The archive people at the BYU special collections library probably think I’m apostate by now, because of some of the things I’ve asked them to fish out of their dusty archives for me
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
oh hey, don’t forget about the muslims…
Comment by SUNNofaB.C.Rich — December 7, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg
Comment by barmy stoat — December 7, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
sare, the Fancher company did not brag about Parley P. Pratt’s murder. Everything I have read says that this was an after-the-fact justification by, well, my kid’s relatives. More likely, the Arkansas travellers had no idea who Parley P. Pratt was. Don’t defile those that were killed. Just don’t. NO. No. no. NO. BS on you studying the issue if you state that sort of blood-libel.
Yes, that sort of talk was bandied about by THE MORMONS whew knew the story. This does not mean that the Fancher wagon party themselves had any idea about this particular bete noir.
Fuck you. Speaking of bad words.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Oh, sare, why do you think the Fancher-Baker party had anything at all to do with the murder of Parley P. Pratt, other than the state from which they emigrated? Parley P. Pratt met Eleanor McLean in San Francisco; she subsequently lived in New Orleans (briefly) with her children before moving to the Utah Territories. Her husband Hector McLean tracked Pratt to Arkansas, where he (McLean) killed Pratt. Arkansas was just an innocent by-stander.
Research, yur doin it rong.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
That’s a great quote, barmy, and I tend to agree with it. Not that there is nothing good to be gained from religion, but bad religion, or bad religious leaders can lead to incredible evil.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
in the interest of factual accuracy, as far as I can tell, the story that the Fancher party were bragging abou the murder of Parley P. Pratt began during the travels of the Fancher party through Utah. It doesn’t mean that the Fancher party had anything to do with it, though, for, among other reasons, those I stated.
For another reason, the Fancher party were hungry and scared to death. Etc., etc., etc.
Glad to know people like someone or other are still justifying mass murder. Might have something to do with this thread.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
So, britt, Mountain Meadows Massacre? Good idea?
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
If you wonder about my passion on this subject–MMM– it is because I am still (I suspect) living with the fallout. Not pretty.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
“Oh, sare, why do you think the Fancher-Baker party had anything at all to do with the murder of Parley P. Pratt, other than the state from which they emigrated? Parley P. Pratt met Eleanor McLean in San Francisco; she subsequently lived in New Orleans (briefly) with her children before moving to the Utah Territories. Her husband Hector McLean tracked Pratt to Arkansas, where he (McLean) killed Pratt. Arkansas was just an innocent by-stander.”
Sorry. Meant that the settlers somehow got the idea that this particular group was involved in his murder. As to whether or not someone in the Fancher party actually did it, I have no clue. Just know that the settlers thought they did…
Whether they did or not still doesn’t justify what the settlers did.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
And djinn… love you, but sometimes you’re as prickly as a cactus!! Where did I justfy the Mountain Meadows Murders? I didn’t.
To really get a good feel for this event, you need to realize realize that what happened was a tragedy not only because of loss of human life but because trauma and misperceptions and fear on both sides did have a lot to do with what happened. Thus, it becomes even more scary, the thought that these were normal people, who ended up committing an atrocity. Imagining yourself in their shoes can only strengthen the lesson, in my humble opinion. Thinking of the settlers as heartless, cultist cold blooded killers does nobody any good.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
sare, you said, and I quote:
This hardly sounds like your slightly later statement “Meant that the settlers somehow got the idea that this particular group was involved in his murder. As to whether or not someone in the Fancher party actually did it, I have no clue.”
Which one is it? One opinion–your earlier one, at least in part, justifies the murder (ii.e., spread enough rumors about “braggery and troublemaking” and you win) while the other (the Fancher-Baker were complete innocents that happened to be from the wrong state at the wrong time) has much harsher consequences. If you really have studied the issue for enough time to put on those white gloves required of actual archival research, I’d expect at least an inkling of a clue, rather than the factually incorrect apologetics you give here.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Just read the thing about you being affected by the murders. OK, you’re justifiably prickly on this subject. But I don’t much like being accused of justifying it, either. I’ve done some real thinking on this issue (and others mentioned here) and put a lot of heartfelt research into it.
My Aunt Carlene thinks that we’re still experiencing fallout from our Ancestors’ trauma after their experience crossing the plains in the Martin company, so it’s funny you mention fallout.
And that’s another good topic, related to following prophets and possible bad decisions… (passionate sunday-school-attenders standing up for the trip, notwisthstanding)
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
OK. Background was the wrong word for it. Maybe I should have put “rumored background.”
The rest was all reported in the papers at the time. Of course it could have all been made up. But nonetheless, the settlements in the far south were spoilin for a fight by the time the party reached them, because of what they were reading in the papers.
Aaaaand I’m done. Sigh. Honestly if we’re going to talk about MMM we should do it on a completely new thread, because there’s a LOT there. And I would come back to this site in a couple days and start commenting again. I think I can take these kinds of discussions in spurts, but not constant doses! Lol. I get emotionally weary when accused of justifying mass homicide.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
I’ve already posted that I would turn the Bishop over to the police.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — December 7, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
No sare, the settlers showed up at a bad bad bad time, and were treated really badly on their sojurn through Deseret (the only person I am aware of that dared offer them some food (onions, if you’re interested) was badly beaten by his very own group the Mormons.
Those settlers are family members. I hardly think of them as heartless, cultist cold blooded killers. I think of them as humans, such as I. I understand that I too, given the circumstances, could commit such a sin, though I hope my history of bad behavior and intransigence will save me.
You are the one that justified the Mormon’s actions by stating that the Fancher party were bragging about offing Parley P. Pratt, when given the historical evidence, this seems hardly possible. You’re the one sorta-weasley (no offense to the weasles amongst us) mass murder, not me. Throw me out. I threw myself out. At least in part to avoid such moral quandries.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Oh bah-ruther.
I did not justify anything. You’re reading my comments through the filter of your own trauma. Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is.
IT was an unfortunate wording…I included the Parley P Pratt thing simply because the settlers thought this was what occurred (and historical documents clearly show they DID think this party had something to do with it.) I’m not saying they DID have something to do with it. The relevant fact is, that the settlers thought the fanchers had something to do with it. And this was part of what lead to the massacre.
*having said that* even if they DID have something to do with it (and it’s unlikely they did) that would STILL not justify mass homicide. I think I’ve said that… half a dozen times already.
I wish people could discuss this issue with a little more scholarly detachment… it was a tragedy, but we could learn from it, you know? We, LDS members of the church who still follow the prophet, could learn from it. Because what the settlers experienced reflect, still, a lot of what LDS people fear and a lot of what goes on in Mormon culture (rumors, fear-mongering, misrepresentation of prophetic counsel and doctrines.)
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
sare, in all fairness to djinn, it your first post about MMM did sound to me as though you were, at least to a partial extent, blaming the victims. I nearly posted about it, but decided not to. But I just need to say that djinn is not the only one who heard that in your post.
Comment by Lorian — December 7, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
djinn, MMM bad idea. Frighteningly shockingly bad.
Was there taunting? possibly, but one doesn’t kill because one has been taunted. Where the saints scared, possibly, but they were in their territory.
I don’t think the MMM was prophet backed.
Comment by britt — December 7, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
What could you learn from MMM, sare? Honestly? Your first post totally bought the idea that the Fancher party were liberally slandering Parley P. Pratt at every instance. Until challenged, you seemed pretty sure that their death though unreasonable, was at least understandable.
Glad I’m posting under a (barely disguised) pseudonym. Wouldn’t want someone to tell you some far-fetched story about me.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
K. I was afraid that would happen.
In no way were the settlers justifiied for what they did!!
But we do need to examine all the facts, including the “whys” and perceptions of those involved in the events if we’re going to fully understand what happened, and try to prevent such an event from occurring again. That was what I meant to do, in my original post… I really do think this is such a trigger issue that people see anything at all as an attempt to justify.
Again. there is no justification for what happened.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
There was no taunting britt, by the Fancher party. They were scared to death; no one would deal with them at all except for the one brave man who sold them some onions and was badly beaten for his troubles.
Would you have helped them? Your insistence that they were “Possibly” “taunting” leads me to believe “No.” My history of not always behaving with the courage and fearlessness that I would like to imagine myself possessing leads me to believe that I too might have committed the same sin, though from cowardice–worse, I’m guessing.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
sare, simple rule. Don’t accuse the Fancher party of causing their own massacre, and people will not come down on top of you like a particuarly gruesome load of bricks. Esp. if the occasional descendent, or the like, is in the conversation.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
Honestly, sare, what sort of research have you done?
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
*sigh*
what I said was that their history involved the murder of Parley P. Pratt along with the other “mischief” that was reported by the local papers as they made their way south.
I haven’t researched the Pratt angle because to me, it makes no difference. if there were ONE person in the party who happened to be the murderer of Pratt, does that justify killing the entire party? No way.
What I have done research on is the Fancher party itself (where they came from, the groups that made up the party and there were two distinct groups, very different in nature and background), and the accounts of the LDS settlers at the time, to see exactly how the party was percieved by the people. And the settlers were scared to death.
You state the Fanchers were also scared to death. That doesn’t surprise me. You state that the Fanchers were innocent. That is very likely true. They were the victims, in this situation, not the perpetrators of mass homicide. I’m not on a mission to justify the massacre, or to further indict those who committed it by proving every single one of the Fancher-Baker settlement as beyond reproach. My point (and my research) has been about how people can talk themselves into horrible acts because of their own fear, because of rumors that escalate, and the misperception and too-zealous application of “doctrine.” And that very clearly relates to the original discussion, while I’m not sure how the angle you’re taking does.
?
Anyway.
Where do you get that I’m justifying what happened?
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
To answer your question, I’ve done research to this end:
1) read several issues of local newspapers describing the advent and journey of the Fancher-Baker party through the settlement
2) read several books (half a dozen so far) on the MMM, and followed through on sources listed there, such as letters, autobiographies, and personal accounts (mostly looking them up on the web, but some through library archives)
3) read about Lee and his excommunication, read several different accounts mentioning the exact wording of the instructions given by B. Young and George A. Smith to the settlers, read Erastus Snow’s account.
4) read a great deal about Judge Cradlebaugh and his account and research into this issue when he came to Utah a year later and attempted to prosecute those involved, as well as cradlebaugh’s account in his address to the U.S. Senate.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
“sare, simple rule. Don’t accuse the Fancher party of causing their own massacre, and people will not come down on top of you like a particuarly gruesome load of bricks. Esp. if the occasional descendent, or the like, is in the conversation.”
Good. I’m glad we’re in agreement there, at least.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
And Djinn: simple rule.
Don’t accuse people of justifying mass homicide simply because they attempt to examine the motives of those who perpetuate it. You tend to do this a lot, I’ve noticed…. sail in with accusations. I’ve been put off by it when you’ve done it to others, and having it done to me right now…
Well, I almost wish I DID disagree with you, so that I could tear you up and down with my clever clever words. But I can’t, because we actually agree. It’s kind of frustrating.
Comment by sare — December 7, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
Ahhh, the Martin handcart company. You should be relieved that I have no known relatives in that handcart company. But still, the Mormon Hierarchy, meeting up with them and slaughtering one of their desparately needed cows for a feast (fror the leaders) has pretty much disabused me of anything but that handcart company being the result of personal misdeeds on the part of various people who should have known better at the expense of immigrants who were just doing their best.
I just about walked out of the sesquicentennial celebration of Brigham Young and Company entering the valley at the “This is the Place” monument (an ancestor made the trek, along with three slaves whose names don’t appear, or didn’t last time I looked) when then Governor Leavitt quoted someone, BY? about how the handcart pioneers would survive based on their personal worthiness. I.e., I (BY) have you leave too late in the season, with improperly cured wood and with insufficient supplies, and it will go down in history (aside from those annoying deaths) as a WIn!!! Pump fists in the air!!!!
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Don’t like me, sare (perfectly reasonable, and I’m sure quite fashionable), then argue back. Simple, easy, and totally fun! And you could always win and make me look like a total (choose negative word here.) Extra points.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
sare, you said,
Don’t accuse people of justifying mass homicide simply because they attempt to examine the motives of those who perpetuate it.
From your comment 170:
.
I hope I have showed you that the above statement by you may be something other than the engraved-in-stone truth. Because, as originally reported, not that many hours ago, it did indeed read as a justification of mass homicide.
So, perhaps, some more white-glove research in a slightly different section of the library?
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Sare you said
because it’s exactly my point. I hope you’re impressed by my well-documented inability to Get. The. Point.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
(non-bad word) it. to write the above phrase without double negatives it should read: “Because it’s exactly my point. I hope you’re impressed by my well docmented ability to FAIL. TO. GET. THE. POINT.
(Plus bonus Caps!) And I’m trying to find a cup for you, for our cyber tea party (including tisane-herbal tea-water-whatever.) What are your main artistic interests?
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
Sare, I have this cup with a beautiful, sorta art-deco pattern-prominent teal-maroon design, plus the requisite gold trim so it can’t be washed in the dishwasher; British, bone china, that I think you may like.
Yes, I love to argue, and you are a worthy opponent.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Sare, if you hate those colors, I’ll keep on looking.
Comment by djinn — December 7, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
I’d just like to mention that I spent the large part of today deliberately not commenting on this post. But, my essentially evil nature broke through, and I said my say. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Plus, sorry. I can’t help it, though– I really tried, so I suggest you all just refrain from reading posts whose authors name begins with the non-standard English letters “dj,” Can we all be ( sorta wary but still basically polite) friends?
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 12:16 am
djinn
You do keep things lively.
Now I’m going to go have a cup of tea (mandarin orange spice) in a cheap chipped mug. I hope you enjoy your tea.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 8, 2009 @ 12:50 am
Thank you Suzanne. I’m currently having a nice cuppa in the teacup I promised britt. It has some charming rosebuds on the inside of the cup; fun to see them uncovered as I sip. Maybe it’ll help me sleep. I always end up yelling much too loud; but the Irony, I suppose of a commenter, in a discussion of “what you will agree to in the name of religion and why” repeating the false accusations of what some people did in the name of religion as actual justification for their behavior was too tempting a target for me.
Just turn the computer off, djinn, and enjoy your tea.
Suzanne, my cups are pretty much all chipped, as I use them, and buy them from thrift stores and the like. But then, I’m pretty chipped myself. But you’re welcome to come over any time, though I confess to currently being out of mandarin orange spice. I do have peppermint and camomile, however, if either of those suit your fancy, along with burdock, and cinnamon apple spice. And ginger, of course.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 7:06 am
From sare
sare, the Stake President of the Cedar City region, Isaac Haight, said, when riling up the local population: “I am prepared to feed to the Gentiles the same bread they fed to us. God being my helper, I will give the last ounce of strength and if need be my last drop of blood in defense of Zion.” Those unfortunate souls that killed the Fancher-Baker party were following their ecclesiastical leader, their Stake President.
The question posed by StillConfused was what would you do in the name of religion and why. Here we have a case of what people did for their religion, and why.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 7:39 am
Oh, and Suzanne, I have a cute, slightly chipped mug, hand painted in Italy (not dishwasher safe, not microwavable) that I think you might enjoy.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 7:43 am
I can’t believe I’m still harping on this, but the MMM story is a textbook study of how decent people end up committing horrors. I don’t want to commit horrors, but I might. The best I can do is study those that have happened in the past (maybe I should avoid tragedies that count as personal) and try to learn something.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 7:48 am
OK… I’ll voice the nasty thought running through my head last night. I can’t promise to come back and be able to view the nuclear aftermath, because I’ve got a lot going on today (lessons, etc.)
The tactic of taking an 150 year-old tragedy and making it your own (more than a little farfetched, IMO, sorry djinn… even if you were DIRECTLY related to someone who killed the fancher bakers, you are, at this point, at least 6 generations removed) and then using that basis to say you’re the only one who can ethically speak up on this situation, and that it justififes you making flying accusations about anyone else who is trying to examine the situation, is not the best debate tactic. It may work once, but try it again and people will definitely catch you out.
In addition, I think that you enjoy the debate for ferocity’s sake. Sorry, but I’m not really a ferocious, bloody kind of person when it comes to discussions. I enjoy having… well, a real discussion.
If you want to think that mentioning Parley Pratt at all in the scenario of MMM is “justifying” the homicide, then you’re missing out on an important phenomenon in the whole overarching tragedy. If you want to completely eliminate that piece from the discussion, fine. I won’t mention it to you, again.
But I will definitely be putting every bit of rumor-mongering, gossip, escalated fear and threat of violence from the Mormon settlers in my book because i think it’s an important lesson to learn about our own tendencies… it still happens today. Consider the Barack Obama silliness that’s batted around the Mormon community, the email forwards people send you all the time about this thing and that thing that will ultimately end in the demise of the world as we know it, so we’d better buy up guns and ammo in order to protect or 4-year supply of food from the evil people who will kill everyone to get at their cracked wheat.
I mean, honestly, I’d like to have a conversation. But honeslty, djinn, despite the fact that I *like* you, I also realize this has denigrated to you flailing around trying to find someone to throw something at. Throw it at me, fine. If it makes you feel better.
Comment by sare — December 8, 2009 @ 10:06 am
sare
It is interesting trying to reconstruct motives.
Even though I had no ancestors at Hauns mill, I certainly was taught the story of it and a meaning of it and it became part of my religious mythos.
I was not taught about Mountain Meadows. I had no ancestors who participated, yet if they did, it could have been less than 6 generations.( This has to do with old geezers impregnating their very young wives. )
I have heard that dependents of the massacre victims object to the demonizing of their ancestors.
And while on the subject of motives, I can’t help noticing the Mormons who attacked were materially poor, and the wagon train was materially wealthy..
Is the Mythos of being a persecuted people, one of the factors that lead to a mind set of obedience and retribution?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 8, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
On the subject of ancestors, my friend’s. great a bunch of times grandpa was Lee. Their family concept is that he was the scapegoat in the exing process. Very few people were exd or strongly reprimanded as he was, though others absolutely contributed. They definitely believe he did it and was guilty-no exucses for his behavior, but they aren’t happy with the church’s response.
Suzanne I think there were many contributing factors. It is interesting to consider what makes a group of people vulnerable to making such a horrific decision. Maybe if you feel persecuted (whether it’s an accurate assessment or not) you are more likely to fight back because you feel alone and like no one else will fight for you?
Comment by britt — December 8, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Reading about the Meadows Massacre was particularly disturbing to me. They didn’t just kill these unarmed people, they chopped them up. Even the little girls. That takes a huge amount of depravity to be able to cut up a little child with your own hands. I do not attempt to make any excuses for that violence. I say that it is a situation that is very f*ed up. I come from the south and my family fought on the confederate side of the civil war, which some people may find offensive… but at least they fought man to man and left the little girls out of it.
Comment by StillConfused — December 8, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
All apologies sare; I’m sorry that I misunderstood you. The only reason that my ancestry (or that of my children) is important is because it makes the events personal for me. Would I have been a hero? They weren’t. I probably wouldn’t be either. I wasn’t trying to magnify my place in the world, but rather diminish it. And btw, it’s four generations.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
I have a grandfather born in 1878; it could have been only three.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
And sare, as I do run on, I was trying to speak about how difficult the ethics of the time were to those living through them, especially when religious officials–the Stake President– were urging one on–your point, that the press was full of supposed perfidies of the Fancher party– is pretty much the same point. Sorry I overreacted. Overreacting is what I do best these days. It seems. Sorry again. I just have to pretend that you all are my family,, and speak in the same measured tones (more or less) that I would do with them. But then, nothing interesting ever gets said. Back away from the computer djinn, and no one will get hurt.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
If I may de-lurk and participate in the threadjack:
Celestial Seasonings has a new line of fruit-based herbal teas that are lovely and soothing and taste great. My favorite is True Blueberry, but don’t ask me how they get blueberry into a teabag.
Interesting original post. I almost commented early on about how I could not process much of an opinion with hypotheticals. I had a conversation recently with a person who was trying to deconstruct moral laws and was bravely soldiering on trying to be objective about it. It occurred to me that objectivity in the moral realm is kind of a pie in the sky, since what ultimately matters is what we actually do, and that is always subjective. Still, we relentlessly seek to codify morality and apply it hypothetically to all kinds of stuff. It’s very much a Mormon thing, though we don’t have exclusive claim to it.
So when I am examining historical events like MMM or the handcart company experiences, or even more recent events, I have learned to try to be careful about assigning motives or blame, or drawing too many conclusions before I learn enough about what actually happened. Which is hard enough to do much of the time.
If I’m not making any sense to anyone, feel free to ignore me.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — December 8, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Djinn- I love you. You are a wonderful, passionate person. You stand up strongly for what you believe in. You are admirable. So you are a chipped cup? We are all chipped cups. I love that you are not afraid of those chipped parts–because you are still beautiful.
There is a difference between the church of the 19th and even early 20th centuries and the church today. The church was seen as outside the bounds of general acceptance, it (the leadership and it’s members) did things that were often outside the bounds of accepted and even legal behavior. I know a lot of women here have familiarized themselves with non-church-approved church history and thus do not need to be told about things like blood oaths or questionable deaths or the many other things the church did that cut them off from the rest of society. Yes, the church was persecuted, but they were a very extreme group to begin with, not afraid of fighting back or even fighting first. In old times, the church would sometimes use terrifying means to keep its members in line because the church itself was a sort of rogue organization.
Nowadays the church is much more accepted. It has a lot of political influence and power. It doesn’t need to use extreme measures to keep people in line or exert its will. It can use politics. We should have learned that long ago with the equal rights amendment. We should have learned that again with Prop 8. Even though Mormons only make up about 2% of the California population, most of the funding for Prop 8 came from Mormons. The commercials run by pro-Prop 8 entities stirred up some serious homophobic feelings in people. One of my friends (who is gay) had a brick thrown at his head during the furor, he also had five men try to force him into an alley and beat him up. I’m in Idaho, but I was taking a class at ISU from a Mormon man who, suspecting I was gay (I’m bi), said horrible, threatening things about me to the rest of the class when I wasn’t there and also targeted other students he thought might be gay or have sympathies for gay people.
Now that Mormonism is no longer a rogue organization, they no longer have to use rogue tactics. They’re now generally accepted–and one of the richest organizations on earth. They can use political lobbying and social pressure to get what they want. They don’t need to threaten people with death anymore.
Comment by ayw — December 8, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Thanks, Mommie Dearest, I’m totally going to take your advice about the blueberry tea.
I’ve been reading a book called “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil” by Philip Zimbardo, the psychologist who performed the Stanford Prison Experiment back in 1971. In it, a prison of sorts was built, and an equal number of Stanford students acted as prisoners and guards. Within two weeks, the otherwise exemplary young men chosen to be guards were behaving very close to those poor soldiers caught on film in Abu Ghraib–the experiment was halted.
The findings: Basically that the circumstances we find ourselves in determines our actions much more than we’d like to think.
Zimbardo’s findings, after a lifetime of study (which he calls ‘paradoxical), is that to be a hero, we must resist social influences– among his suggestions for us (or for me, at least), be willing to think: “I made a mistake.” “I am responsible.” “I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority,” “I can oppose unjust systems.”
It’s a start. It’s also a problem in a hierarchical religion like Mormonism, where some, but not all, believe that those above them in the priesthood hierarchy are by their very definition “just authority.” There’s the rub. I’ve certainly failed here, similarly, before, (respecting hierarchy way more than I should and way longer than anyone with any sense would have) and having done so, end up repeatedly failing in a brand new way–authority, bah. But I would like the illusion that I could learn and perhaps even grow, in some ways other than sideways.
Ah, well.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Thanks for the kind words, ayw. I’m sorry you were treated so poorly up there in Idaho; sigh. I’m sure those Idahoans who treated you with such cruelty and beat up your friend thought they were on the good-guy side of the fence. For various obvious reasons that need not be repeated. We all think we’re on the good-guy side of the fence. But sometimes we aren’t, and how do we distinguish?
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
M.Scott Peck wrote an excellent book: People of the Lie- he delves into the nature of evil and how we twist things on both an individual and community level and find ways to rationalize the evil that we perpetrate. I found it to be a profound book and I reread it periodically.
Comment by Kimberly — December 8, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Oh, my friend was in CA during prop 8, I should have made that more clear.
Comment by ayw — December 8, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Djinn,
Apology accepted. Sorry I got nasty, too.
I don’t think we should ever try to assign motives to people, particularly people we can no longer talk to. At the same time, that’s pretty much what history is for, isn’t it? To try to study human beings and their actions and interactions as much as possible, and to get to the point where we understand a lot of what happened, so that we can prevent it happening again (hopefully).
I suppose it could have been three.
I think of my Martin ancestors and I think I’m at generation 7, now.
The whole story of Lee, and the excommuncation, Lee’s story to Brigham and then later, Erastus’s story to Brigham… wow. I mean, we could devote several posts to this subject if we wanted to, there is SO MUCH floating around out there. And let’s face it… even personal accounts from the time were the settler’s on opinions and conjectures, most of it at the time fed by the “official” explanation which was that Indians perpetatuated the crime.
Really the truth that stands out is (similar to the original post) that you cannot absolve yourself of guilt or from the results of your own actions simply because you feel like you’re following a religious leader. I maintain I would Pray if I were ever asked or commanded to do something against my own conscience or moral feelings.
Have a happy Tuesday evening, everyone. It’s nights like this (18 inches of snow on the ground, long day of lessons) that I’m glad I got released from my YW calling last year
Comment by sare — December 8, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
*own opinions and conjectures.* I’m obviously not a very good multitasker when typing is involved.
Comment by sare — December 8, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
sare said:
Quoted for truth, and awesomeness.
Comment by djinn — December 8, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
Just an opinion on poor ol’ Laban getting offed by Nephi:
I forget the source, but I read that the Babylonians tortured to death all the political and military leaders when they conquered Jerusalem. So had Laban not been killed outright by the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem (and battle wounds are rarely quick and painless anyway), he would have died a very painful and horrifying death.
Nephi’s execution of Laban was quick, almost instantaneous, and likely painless, for two reasons:
One: a quick blow of a sharp sword edge or the point to the base of the back of the skull disrupts or severs the medula oblongata, which causes instant cessation of the heart and lungs, and if the subject is conscious causes immediate collapse without reflex.
Two: Laban was anesthetized, passed out, feeling no pain due to drunkenness.
Given that Nephi was a prophet, I’ll accept his version of events.
Another point (well, my opinion anyway): Nephi was not acting on a “prompting of the Spirit” or the “still small voice.” He knew how to recognize the Spirit. This was not his first time in listening and obeying. And, he was already “in the Spirit” by following the directions the Holy Ghost was giving him that led him to Laban. He knew who was talking to him. By saying he was constrained (not forced) Nephi was saying that the Spirit was making it painfully obvious what he was supposed to do, and why.
Comment by Bookslinger — December 9, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Bookslinger
You wrote,”One: a quick blow of a sharp sword edge or the point to the base of the back of the skull disrupts or severs the medula oblongata, which causes instant cessation of the heart and lungs, and if the subject is conscious causes immediate collapse without reflex.”
If this is true, how was Shiz able to run around without his head?
Or is Ether not a prophet?
No matter what happy face you want to stick on it, Nephi murdered Laban who was passed out drunk. This incident has been cited as justification to murder others.
Why is it, as a culture we ignore the anti-nephi- lehi except for their children?.Why the idolatry of stripling warriors? Why the celebration of the bravery of whacking the head off a drunk guy?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 9, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Suzanne Neilsen - fMh is better because of you. Waaaaaaaay better.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 9, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
That Shiz story really got to me as a kid.
I don’t think anybody has justifiied anything on this thread except the right to inquire, when one is giving conflicting spiritual guidance. At least not that I’ve read. Maybe I missed a comment or two.
Comment by sare — December 9, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
*given.* Sigh. Why can’t my fingers reproduce the words in my brain?
Comment by sare — December 9, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
I love this Suzanne. It says that the anti-Nephi-Lehi’s were the most righteous of God’s people. Every time Mormons look at me like a dirty liberal for not supporting the war, I bring up those guys that buried their weapons of war and exposed their necks to their enemies.
I am doing my part my talking about this story CONSTANTLY in my primary class
Comment by Enna — December 9, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
“If this is true, how was Shiz able to run around without his head?
First, Shiz didn’t “run around”. That’s not what the scripture says.
The simple answer is: Coriantumr must not have severed or sufficiently disrupted Shiz’s medula oblongata. The “smiting” must have occurred above that point on Shiz’s head. The location of the medula oblongata (a part of the “brain stem“) is actually low on the head, at the top of the neck. (See Wikipedia.)
The scripture reads: “…save it were Coriantumr and Shiz, behold Shiz had fainted with the loss of blood.
30 And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz.
31 And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.
Some (maybe most) people probably envision that a clean decapitation at the neck occurred, and the “struggling for breath” was out of a severed throat. But the text doesn’t require that. If the cut was above the base of the skull, the medula oblongata would not have been disrupted.
To “smite off” might also describe a blow that removes any part of the head/brain, not necessarily a complete decapitation in the way that a guillotine does.
However, I think the point is that since they (Ether and Moroni) mention that Shiz struggled for a moment, they are pointing out that it was not an instantaneously fatal blow.
Since Coriantumr was a professional soldier, we might assume that he intentionally gave a blow that was fatal, but not instantaneously fatal. IE, he wanted Shiz to suffer a little and know that he was dieing.
And Moroni being the son of a professional soldier, who grew up during war time, and was a soldier himself, he may have known the implications of Ether’s detail of Shiz’s death, and thought it worthy of inclusion.
If the technical details of such a death are important to you, do some research on what part of the bad guy that SWAT snipers aim for.
=-=-=-=-
As far as the “murder” goes, you’ve got a great point. As per my limited understanding of Jewish or Mosaic law, Nephi didn’t have any justification for what he did. His only excuse was “God told me to.” Though God, through the Spirit, explained some of the reasoning to Nephi why He wanted Laban dead.
This leads to another question. If God has the power of life and death, why didn’t God just kill Laban himself, or have him choke to death on his vomit?
My guess: Several reasons. One, it was a test for Nephi. Two, it was to show Laman and Lemuel that Nephi was going to do whatever it took. Three, it was to prevent Laman and Lemuel from ditching the family in the wilderness and going back to resume their previous life in the family home, with the family business, and the family silver and gold.
Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi (and Sam?) were going to be the prime suspects in Laban’s death. They had an argument with him. Laban stole their stuff. Laban had his employees try to kill them. The boys then ran away.
But by losing the family treasure, but more importantly being on Jerusalem’s Most Wanted list, with the threat of getting stone to death, kind of ensured that Laman and Lemuel wouldn’t have ditched the family and gone back.
(How they avoided detection from authorities when they went back for Ishmael’s family, we don’t know.)
My opinion: if anyone wants to accuse Nephi of Laban’s murder at the judgement bar, the Lord will probably say “Yeah, I told him to.”
The Old Testament says that the Lord commanded the killing of plenty of innocents in Egypt (the firstborns), and in Canaan (when Israel was told to kill everyone, men, women, and children), so the Book of Mormon is not unique in this concept. And even more, Laban was not an innocent. If he ordered the murder of Lehi’s boys, he likely had ordered the killing of others beforehand.
But let us also remember that Laban (who we assume still lives somewhere in the Spirit World) has some opinion on all this too.
My point is: supposing that Laban got (or gets) to learn what happened in Babylon’s taking of Jerusalem, coming to the knowledge that his ruling class peers were horribly tortured to death, I think that Laban will (or already has) come to the opinion that his quick and relatively painless death at the hands of Nephi was preferrable to what would have otherwise happened to him.
Comment by Bookslinger — December 9, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
Bookslinger, you really believe that God tells you to kill otherwise harmless (passed-out drunk, the mess with the blood from the chopped off head, etc.) people as a test of personal righteousness? Please stay out of my neighborhood, and if possible, my state.
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Britt, this is the problem. What looks like the will of God to someone, say one of the 9-11 terrorists, looks like something different to me. I’m pretty sure they hade confirmation that they were doing the right thing, or else why the suicides?
I do not trust “the will of God” when it means killing a drunk in a ditch or when it means flying a plane into a buildings.
Humans obviously can be persuaded that any number of actions, self-serving, or useful to those higher than them in the hierarchy are “the will of God.” Nope. Not for me. Send me to Hell if you must, but there are things more important than salvation, and personal integrity ranks right up there.
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Man, I really have to scale it down an Everest-sized notch. Therapy? I met a psychologist I didn’t hate on site.
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 1:44 am
Bookslinger
I can think of simpler story of why a headless guy behaves extraordinarily. How ’bout Oliver Cowdery was staring out the window when Joseph was translating. Suddenly, oh cuss,cuss,cuss, what did he just say.
The Old Testament’s way to violent for me But I admit a certain admiration for the skill Deborah and Jael have with tent pegs.(talk about a breach of hospitality, yikes.)
As for the conquest of Canaan, I refer to the book, The Bible Unearthed: archaeology’s new vision of ancient Israel and the orgin of sacred text by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, and say “What conquest of Canaan?”
I don’t recall Jesus going around (and that includes the gnostic texts) saying death to infidels and be sure to flame broil lots of woman and heretics.(who if you look them up in the Spirit World, will be so ever grateful that their souls were purified.)
Personally, I think God means it when He says,”Thou shall not kill.” So go ahead and spin it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 10, 2009 @ 1:57 am
Ask, or rather challenge, and ye shall receive.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 2:33 am
Matthew 25:45 Then shall he (Jesus) answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Suzanne, Jesus didn’t stint on the “flame broiling” of the infidels.
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 2:42 am
djinn
Have I told you that i appreciate you, I do This is fun.
I refer to the book, The Five Gospels: What did Jesus really say? by Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar
According to them the only Authentic saying you cited was “If any come to me and do not hate their own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sister–yea, even their own life–they cannot be my disciples.”
According to them he was taking on “the primacy of filial relationships” and “confronting the social structure that governed his society” (that’s page 353 in my copy)
That hardly counts as flame broiling. Jesus is not advocating anyone be turned into charcoal.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 10, 2009 @ 3:13 am
Well, it’s a different discussion if we only get to rely on M, Q, and L. Wait, I forgot one. He still wasn’t particularly family friendly in his approach, even if the barbecuing bits came later.
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 3:58 am
But then Suzanne, you (and I) are not sticking to the plain text of the New Testament as it exists in 2009, and so, I believe, is out of this discussion.
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 4:00 am
Suzanne, so when women do the killing it’s okay with you? I get it now. For a second, I forgot where I was.
Comment by Bookslinger — December 10, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Bookslinger, I can’t figure out where Suzanne advocated she-murderers. Could you kindly point out the passage for me?
Comment by djinn — December 10, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Bookslinger
Nowhere have I advocated women become she-murderers. I could call your response stereotypical of patriarchs on the defensive, but would that be sweet and loving?
Unlike the Book of Mormon, where the only woman with names are Sariah, Nephi’s saintly mother and the harlot Isabel(Is this a variation of Jezebel.? What was her namer thinking?), the Bible is full of women who have actual names (imagine that) and behaves in non-stereotypical ways.
Deborah was a prophet and a judge in Israel.
Jael (a kenite) fulfilled prophecy by being ever the good hostess and driving a tent peg into her guests head.
Then the Israelites sang her praises and called her, “blessed among woman”
So I have a certain admiration for women who become popular hero’s in a patriarchal culture against cultural expectations. And I like the the fact they have names.
(And I brought up Jael to note a similar situation to Nephi murdering Laban. And all you can come up with is saying I advocate killing men. And because I made this comment on this site, then so is FMH. How original.)
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 10, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
LOL.
Suzanne, thanks for that.
Comment by sare — December 10, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Suzanne…just an FYI
Don’t miss Abish (she’s awesome check her out-Alma 19-)she raises the queen from a trance like state, testifies to the people, saves Ammon by her quick actions…
Comment by britt — December 10, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
britt
Thanks britt. How could i forget Abish. You’re right, she’s awesome.
It is interesting the servant woman gets a name while the Queen doesn’t.
I have no idea what that means..
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 10, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
That is wierd Suzanne. I like the queen…I’d like to know the name of Nephi’s wife, for that matter.
Comment by britt — December 10, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
I have a firm testimony. I would do whatever asked, on any topic, without question. I have given my whole life to the Lord. Please reconsider your negative answers.
Have a Merry Christmas!
Bishop Javier Bohica
Philippines
Comment by Bishop Bohica — December 13, 2009 @ 6:50 am
Yikes.
Comment by Chandelle — December 13, 2009 @ 11:57 am
I recently had a long conversation with my brother over this issue. I haven’t believed in Mormonism for some time. My brother asked me “If God told you to kill somebody, would you do it?”
My answer was an unequivocal no. He told me that meant I had no faith and was under the influence of the devil. I was genuinely startled by learning he felt this way. No consideration of mental illness, a false prophet, nothing. If the order came from the LDS priesthood, he would do it, even if it was unconscionable. I couldn’t help but think that that sort of dogmatism is exactly what propels people to strap explosives on to their bodies and detonate themselves in a crowded marketplace.
Comment by Molly — December 17, 2009 @ 1:53 pm