LDS Missionary Beats Up Mugger w/Gun

[Finrock]

+1

That makes God an accuser. That makes many prophets accusers.

It's not wrong to point out a better way of being. It's a commandment. D&c 88 75-82

But, you aren't God, the One who is omniscient, perfectly just, merciful, kind, and good.

-Finrock

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

But, of course we recognize and acknowledge that what we are dealing with is not God speaking to us, but instead, we are dealing with a fallible mortal who is providing his interpretation and understanding of the words which are written in scripture.

-Finrock

[Ezra]

That makes God an accuser. That makes many prophets accusers.

It's not wrong to point out a better way of being. It's a commandment. D&c 88 75-82

But, you aren't God, the One who is omniscient, perfectly just, merciful, kind, and good.

-Finrock

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

But, of course we recognize and acknowledge that what we are dealing with is not God speaking to us, but instead, we are dealing with a fallible mortal who is providing his interpretation and understanding of the words which are written in scripture.

-Finrock

You just stated the qualitys of God. Then accuse someone who is asking people to read scriptures and be peaceful as bad??

What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.

So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??

Why??

What are you avoiding? Why?

Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43

Really read d&c 88 75-82.

And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.

[freedomforall]

What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.

So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??

Why??

What are you avoiding? Why?

Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43

Really read d&c 88 75-82.

And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.

Ezra, you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs. The ridicule of others is only that...ridicule. When it all boils down, any one of us under the same, exact circumstances would most likely act differently to some degree. It's easy to sit back and say this or that, but real facts always reveal truth and actual reactions and implemented acts of individuals. Just sayin'.

[Ezra]

What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.

So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??

Why??

What are you avoiding? Why?

Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43

Really read d&c 88 75-82.

And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.

Ezra, you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs. The ridicule of others is only that...ridicule. When it all boils down, any one of us under the same, exact circumstances would most likely act differently to some degree. It's easy to sit back and say this or that, but real facts always reveal truth and actual reactions and implemented acts of individuals. Just sayin'.

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with my comment?

[Finrock]

But, you aren't God, the One who is omniscient, perfectly just, merciful, kind, and good.

-Finrock

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

But, of course we recognize and acknowledge that what we are dealing with is not God speaking to us, but instead, we are dealing with a fallible mortal who is providing his interpretation and understanding of the words which are written in scripture.

-Finrock

You just stated the qualitys of God. Then accuse someone who is asking people to read scriptures and be peaceful as bad??

What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.

So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??

Why??

What are you avoiding? Why?

Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43

Really read d&c 88 75-82.

And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.

I've made no accusations and I'm not avoiding anything. My statement does not say that I'm unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that I will label you fallible. I've made some observations and I've provided some statements that happen to be factual. 1. You are not God and 2. you sharing your interpretation and understanding of scripture is not the same as God speaking. First, you are fallible. I don't need to label you that, this is a foregone conclusion. It's more like a reminder. I recognize your fallibility and I think most people recognize that too, just as I recognize my fallibility.

Here is what I'm saying: We aren't dealing with God, we are dealing with people that are fallible, including you, and your thoughts, your opinions, your understanding, and your interpretations. Maybe your interpretation and understanding of scripture corresponds to God's, but maybe it doesn't. I certainly haven't heard God speaking so far in your words. Here is the crux of the matter: I've only heard you speaking your opinions and you making the attempt to equate your understanding of and your interpretation of scripture as the same as if God Himself were speaking. Said in another way, you are trying to assert that if others reject your opinion, your interpretation, your understanding of scripture, they are indeed rejecting the very words of God...News flash: Rejecting your interpretation/understanding/opinion of the scriptures does not mean someone is rejecting the words of God.

-Finrock

[Ezra]

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

But, of course we recognize and acknowledge that what we are dealing with is not God speaking to us, but instead, we are dealing with a fallible mortal who is providing his interpretation and understanding of the words which are written in scripture.

-Finrock

You just stated the qualitys of God. Then accuse someone who is asking people to read scriptures and be peaceful as bad??

What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.

So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??

Why??

What are you avoiding? Why?

Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43

Really read d&c 88 75-82.

And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.

I've made no accusations and I'm not avoiding anything. My statement does not say that I'm unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that I will label you fallible. I've made some observations and I've provided some statements that happen to be factual. 1. You are not God and 2. you sharing your interpretation and understanding of scripture is not the same as God speaking. First, you are fallible. I don't need to label you that, this is a foregone conclusion. It's more like a reminder. I recognize your fallibility and I think most people recognize that too, just as I recognize my fallibility.

Here is what I'm saying: We aren't dealing with God, we are dealing with people that are fallible, including you, and your thoughts, your opinions, your understanding, and your interpretations. Maybe your interpretation and understanding of scripture corresponds to God's, but maybe it doesn't. I certainly haven't heard God speaking so far in your words. Here is the crux of the matter: I've only heard you speaking your opinions and you making the attempt to equate your understanding of and your interpretation of scripture as the same as if God Himself were speaking. Said in another way, you are trying to assert that if others reject your opinion, your interpretation, your understanding of scripture, they are indeed rejecting the very words of God...News flash: Rejecting your interpretation/understanding/opinion of the scriptures does not mean someone is rejecting the words of God.

-Finrock

So your saying I don't speak for God. But you do?

Please help me understand where it's been my opinion? is that not your opinion?.

I have referenced scriptures. You call them opinions. So use scriptures to show my fault. Otherwise what's the point. You have no foundation for your accusation.

[Finrock]

But, of course we recognize and acknowledge that what we are dealing with is not God speaking to us, but instead, we are dealing with a fallible mortal who is providing his interpretation and understanding of the words which are written in scripture.

-Finrock

You just stated the qualitys of God. Then accuse someone who is asking people to read scriptures and be peaceful as bad??

What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.

So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??

Why??

What are you avoiding? Why?

Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43

Really read d&c 88 75-82.

And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.

I've made no accusations and I'm not avoiding anything. My statement does not say that I'm unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that I will label you fallible. I've made some observations and I've provided some statements that happen to be factual. 1. You are not God and 2. you sharing your interpretation and understanding of scripture is not the same as God speaking. First, you are fallible. I don't need to label you that, this is a foregone conclusion. It's more like a reminder. I recognize your fallibility and I think most people recognize that too, just as I recognize my fallibility.

Here is what I'm saying: We aren't dealing with God, we are dealing with people that are fallible, including you, and your thoughts, your opinions, your understanding, and your interpretations. Maybe your interpretation and understanding of scripture corresponds to God's, but maybe it doesn't. I certainly haven't heard God speaking so far in your words. Here is the crux of the matter: I've only heard you speaking your opinions and you making the attempt to equate your understanding of and your interpretation of scripture as the same as if God Himself were speaking. Said in another way, you are trying to assert that if others reject your opinion, your interpretation, your understanding of scripture, they are indeed rejecting the very words of God...News flash: Rejecting your interpretation/understanding/opinion of the scriptures does not mean someone is rejecting the words of God.

-Finrock

So your saying I don't speak for God. But you do?

Please help me understand where it's been my opinion? is that not your opinion?.

No. I'm saying you don't necessarily speak for God. I haven't asserted that I speak for God. I haven't even implied that. In fact, I've indicated that I'm just as fallible as you are. I'm taking issue with you accusing others of rejecting God and His words because they don't agree with you and how you understand the scriptures.

-Finrock

[Ezra]

You just stated the qualitys of God. Then accuse someone who is asking people to read scriptures and be peaceful as bad??

What your comments really say is you are unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that you would rather label me As fallible as what ever the label to avoid the truth in the scriptures.

So if you truly recognize and acknowledge anything. It should be the scriptures. Which I keep pointing to.
This isant about me. But you really want it to be. You keep trying to make it about me. You keep trying to make this personal. why??

Why??

What are you avoiding? Why?

Really read d&c 98. Really read d&c 121 33-43

Really read d&c 88 75-82.

And if you have read them. What do those scriptures say? Some key points.

I've made no accusations and I'm not avoiding anything. My statement does not say that I'm unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that I will label you fallible. I've made some observations and I've provided some statements that happen to be factual. 1. You are not God and 2. you sharing your interpretation and understanding of scripture is not the same as God speaking. First, you are fallible. I don't need to label you that, this is a foregone conclusion. It's more like a reminder. I recognize your fallibility and I think most people recognize that too, just as I recognize my fallibility.

Here is what I'm saying: We aren't dealing with God, we are dealing with people that are fallible, including you, and your thoughts, your opinions, your understanding, and your interpretations. Maybe your interpretation and understanding of scripture corresponds to God's, but maybe it doesn't. I certainly haven't heard God speaking so far in your words. Here is the crux of the matter: I've only heard you speaking your opinions and you making the attempt to equate your understanding of and your interpretation of scripture as the same as if God Himself were speaking. Said in another way, you are trying to assert that if others reject your opinion, your interpretation, your understanding of scripture, they are indeed rejecting the very words of God...News flash: Rejecting your interpretation/understanding/opinion of the scriptures does not mean someone is rejecting the words of God.

-Finrock

So your saying I don't speak for God. But you do?

Please help me understand where it's been my opinion? is that not your opinion?.

No. I'm saying you don't necessarily speak for God. I haven't asserted that I speak for God. I haven't even implied that. In fact, I've indicated that I'm just as fallible as you are. I'm taking issue with you accusing others of rejecting God and His words because they don't agree with you and how you understand the scriptures.

-Finrock

Where have I done that?

This reminds me of one sided bias media coverage saying trump is a racist with out anything that actually backs it up. If there is proof I will gladly look at the evidence.

[Finrock]

I've made no accusations and I'm not avoiding anything. My statement does not say that I'm unwilling to listen to scripture to the point that I will label you fallible. I've made some observations and I've provided some statements that happen to be factual. 1. You are not God and 2. you sharing your interpretation and understanding of scripture is not the same as God speaking. First, you are fallible. I don't need to label you that, this is a foregone conclusion. It's more like a reminder. I recognize your fallibility and I think most people recognize that too, just as I recognize my fallibility.

Here is what I'm saying: We aren't dealing with God, we are dealing with people that are fallible, including you, and your thoughts, your opinions, your understanding, and your interpretations. Maybe your interpretation and understanding of scripture corresponds to God's, but maybe it doesn't. I certainly haven't heard God speaking so far in your words. Here is the crux of the matter: I've only heard you speaking your opinions and you making the attempt to equate your understanding of and your interpretation of scripture as the same as if God Himself were speaking. Said in another way, you are trying to assert that if others reject your opinion, your interpretation, your understanding of scripture, they are indeed rejecting the very words of God...News flash: Rejecting your interpretation/understanding/opinion of the scriptures does not mean someone is rejecting the words of God.

-Finrock

So your saying I don't speak for God. But you do?

Please help me understand where it's been my opinion? is that not your opinion?.

No. I'm saying you don't necessarily speak for God. I haven't asserted that I speak for God. I haven't even implied that. In fact, I've indicated that I'm just as fallible as you are. I'm taking issue with you accusing others of rejecting God and His words because they don't agree with you and how you understand the scriptures.

-Finrock

Where have I done that?

This reminds me of one sided bias media coverage saying trump is a racist with out anything that actually backs it up. If there is proof I will gladly look at the evidence.

Well, the most recent accusation was directed at me in this very interchange we've had.

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

In this post you are saying that you have been speaking the words of God. You are the messenger and are speaking scripture. You are saying that by rejecting what you are saying, I'm rejecting the words of God.

The poem you quote implies that you are a lonely person because you aren't popular because you always speak the truth.

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you are speaking the truth, and speaking God's words, and rejecting the words you are speaking is the same as rejecting God. In the post above you accuse me and it seems others as well of shooting you, the messenger of God.

-Finrock

[shadow]

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Good point. Thanks.

10 And thus he (Moroni) was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.

11 And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery;

12 Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.

13 Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives (unless someone's pointing a gun at you, then it's OK to NOT defend yourself ).

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

16 And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

"resisting iniquity"? Say whaaat?
Just curious, why would God want a militia as stated in the Constitution? Why would Ezra agree with this, as he's done? Sure, it's for protection from a tyranical government, but what's the difference if you're being robbed from tyranical people? Why defend anything?
Be like Moroni, defend yourself.

[Finrock]

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Good point. Thanks.

10 And thus he (Moroni) was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.

11 And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery;

12 Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.

13 Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives (unless someone's pointing a gun at you, then it's OK to NOT defend yourself ).

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

16 And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

"resisting iniquity"? Say whaaat?
Just curious, why would God want a militia as stated in the Constitution? Why would Ezra agree with this, as he's done? Sure, it's for protection from a tyranical government, but what's the difference if you're being robbed from tyranical people? Why defend anything?
Be like Moroni, defend yourself.

As I was reading your quote from the Book of Mormon, I recognized something interesting. When carefully read, that scripture says that one can defend themselves against their enemies even to the shedding of blood, if it were necessary. Also, you should never cause offense and never raise your sword against your enemy except it were to preserve your life. Then, it says that their faith was that if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God, that God would prosper them, warn them to flee, warn them to prepare for war, and also that God would let them know "whither" they should go to defend themselves against their enemy. First, it is interesting to note that it seems that this scripture does not give a blank permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood. It also seems to imply that the people will know how and when they ought to defend themselves because the people themselves were "faithful in keeping the commandments of God". This also seems to be saying that if we are keeping the commandments of God, then we will be justified in whatever action we decide to take. In other words, the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and by being close to the Spirit, we will be justified in what we do, even if it requires the shedding of blood.

Also, the word whither can mean "to what place" and it can also mean "to what point or degree." If we read whither as "to what point or degree" then that part in the scripture has a different meaning than just speaking to a particular place where we can go to defend ourselves. It would imply that God will tell us, if we are keeping His commandments, to what point or degree, or in other words to what extent we should go in order to defend ourselves.

So, it seems that if we are to be justified in committing violence against our enemies, we must be sure to be keeping the commandments of God and being close to the Spirit, otherwise we will not be justified in committing violence against our enemies. Clearly, it seems to me, that this scripture is not a blanket justification or blanket permission given to us to shed blood even when we are doing it to defend ourselves. There is an important and critical qualifier, this qualifier being that we are keeping the commandments of God, which would mean that we have the Spirit and are being guided by the Holy Ghost in our actions.

I think if we act to defend ourselves to the point of bloodshed but we are not keeping the commandments and we are not being guided by the Spirit, then we won't be justified in our actions of violence.

-Finrock

[shadow]

First of all the missionary didn't shed blood (kill anyone). Secondly we can surmise that it isn't our place, even Ezra's place, to judge this missionary without even getting his side of the story.

[Finrock]

First of all the missionary didn't shed blood (kill anyone). Secondly we can surmise that it isn't our place, even Ezra's place, to judge this missionary without even getting his side of the story.

I agree that it isn't our place to judge the missionary because if the missionary was keeping the commandments of God and was living close to the Spirit, the missionary may have been acting as he was being directed by the Spirit. If he was being directed by the Spirit, then the missionary is justified.

At the same time, we can't assume that just because we are defending ourselves against our enemies, that we are justified in our actions of violence towards our enemy. Going back to the scripture in Alma 48, it seems to me that we are justified in our actions, whatever that may be, even to the shedding of blood if necessary, when we are keeping the commandments of God and are acting as the Spirit directs.

-Finrock

[shadow]

Going back to the scripture in Alma 48, it seems to me that we are justified in our actions, whatever that may be, even to the shedding of blood if necessary, when we are keeping the commandments of God and are acting as the Spirit directs.

-Finrock

I'm not sure the pre-qual is that we have to be keeping the commandments. I think, as per the God inspired Constitution, we are justified in defending ourselves anyway- that alone is a God-given right and responsibility. In other words, anyone can defend themselves, not just the righteous.

[Finrock]

Going back to the scripture in Alma 48, it seems to me that we are justified in our actions, whatever that may be, even to the shedding of blood if necessary, when we are keeping the commandments of God and are acting as the Spirit directs.

-Finrock

I'm not sure the pre-qual is that we have to be keeping the commandments. I think, as per the God inspired Constitution, we are justified in defending ourselves anyway- that alone is a God-given right and responsibility. In other words, anyone can defend themselves, not just the righteous.

True, anyone can defend themselves. That is why I said the "scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood." And that "the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and by being close to the Spirit, we will be justified in what we do, even if it requires the shedding of blood."

The point I'm making is that we don't have a blanket justification to cause violence or to shed blood just because we are defending ourselves from our enemies.

-Finrock

[Ezra]

So your saying I don't speak for God. But you do?

Please help me understand where it's been my opinion? is that not your opinion?.

No. I'm saying you don't necessarily speak for God. I haven't asserted that I speak for God. I haven't even implied that. In fact, I've indicated that I'm just as fallible as you are. I'm taking issue with you accusing others of rejecting God and His words because they don't agree with you and how you understand the scriptures.

-Finrock

Where have I done that?

This reminds me of one sided bias media coverage saying trump is a racist with out anything that actually backs it up. If there is proof I will gladly look at the evidence.

Well, the most recent accusation was directed at me in this very interchange we've had.

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

In this post you are saying that you have been speaking the words of God. You are the messenger and are speaking scripture. You are saying that by rejecting what you are saying, I'm rejecting the words of God.

The poem you quote implies that you are a lonely person because you aren't popular because you always speak the truth.

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you are speaking the truth, and speaking God's words, and rejecting the words you are speaking is the same as rejecting God. In the post above you accuse me and it seems others as well of shooting you, the messenger of God.

-Finrock

No you have it wrong. The shooting the message and messengers is reference to scripture And prophets. quoting them it's not my words their words. Plus how is that me accusing other who don't believe the scriptures and quotes from prophets as rejecting God.

they have done that themselfs.

Me repeating their words is not accusing. It's saying I agree with scripture and prophets. And giving a reminder of what they said.

[shadow]

Going back to the scripture in Alma 48, it seems to me that we are justified in our actions, whatever that may be, even to the shedding of blood if necessary, when we are keeping the commandments of God and are acting as the Spirit directs.

-Finrock

I'm not sure the pre-qual is that we have to be keeping the commandments. I think, as per the God inspired Constitution, we are justified in defending ourselves anyway- that alone is a God-given right and responsibility. In other words, anyone can defend themselves, not just the righteous.

True, anyone can defend themselves. That is why I said the "scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood." And that "the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and by being close to the Spirit, we will be justified in what we do, even if it requires the shedding of blood."

The point I'm making is that we don't have a blanket justification to cause violence or to shed blood just because we are defending ourselves from our enemies.

-Finrock

I haven't seen anywhere that states any person, righteous or not, doesn't have a right to defend himself even to the point of shedding blood. Are you suggesting you can't defend yourself unless you're righteous or that you can only defend yourself up to a certain point then you have to give up?

[Ezra]

First of all the missionary didn't shed blood (kill anyone). Secondly we can surmise that it isn't our place, even Ezra's place, to judge this missionary without even getting his side of the story.

Shadow

D&c 98

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;

24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

Meted out as a just measure unto you. means that if you are not doing as the lord asks then what they did is what God would have done to you. So until we reach perfection. We will be tryed by God and meted.

Let's back up a bit

11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.

So God will try us and see our reactions.

21 Verily I say unto you, that I, the Lord, will chasten them and will do whatsoever I list, if they do not repent and observe all things whatsoever I have said unto them.

All things. Not some all. Now we are back Back to 23-24

25 turn the other cheek.
26 turn it again . That makes 3 and your reward doubled unto 4 fold.
27 those strikes against you are counted by God.

30 if your enemies are delivered to you by God and you spare them you will be rewarded and blessed even your children to the 4th generation. 100-150 years. Not bad.

31 or you could do what he did to you in kind. And are Justified.

So we have a really cool opportunity to have some major major blessing if we bare it patiently.

Or we are simply justified in beating up one of Gods other children.

Which option would you choose? Depends on the situation. I never said he wasn't justified. I said that my heart tells me he missed out on an opportunity.

[freedomforall]

someone-on-the-internet-is-wrong.jpg (81.31 KiB) Viewed 1015 times

[Finrock]

I haven't seen anywhere that states any person, righteous or not, doesn't have a right to defend himself even to the point of shedding blood.

Well, to be clear, I haven't spoken about rights. I've spoken about whether one is justified in using violence or shedding blood in order to defend themselves. Let me also clarify that to me "shedding blood" doesn't just mean to kill someone, but it can also mean to injure someone. Earlier you quoted Alma 48 in order to say that we can defend ourselves. I responded to that quote of yours after reading the section you quoted from Alma 48 because I noticed something that was interesting to me. A careful reading of the portions from Alma 48 that you quoted seems to show that we don't have a blanket justification for shedding blood even in situations where we are defending ourselves. I'll quote what I wrote earlier because it is in that post where I brake down my understanding of that scripture and the part that I found interesting:

As I was reading your quote from the Book of Mormon, I recognized something interesting. When carefully read, that scripture says that one can defend themselves against their enemies even to the shedding of blood, if it were necessary. Also, you should never cause offense and never raise your sword against your enemy except it were to preserve your life. Then, it says that their faith was that if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God, that God would prosper them, warn them to flee, warn them to prepare for war, and also that God would let them know "whither" they should go to defend themselves against their enemy. First, it is interesting to note that it seems that this scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood. It also seems to imply that the people will know how and when they ought to defend themselves because the people themselves were "faithful in keeping the commandments of God". This also seems to be saying that if we are keeping the commandments of God, then we will be justified in whatever action we decide to take. In other words, the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and by being close to the Spirit, we will be justified in what we do, even if it requires the shedding of blood.

Also, the word whither can mean "to what place" and it can also mean "to what point or degree." If we read whither as "to what point or degree" then that part in the scripture has a different meaning than just speaking to a particular place where we can go to defend ourselves. It would imply that God will tell us, if we are keeping His commandments, to what point or degree, or in other words to what extent we should go in order to defend ourselves.

So, it seems that if we are to be justified in committing violence against our enemies, we must be sure to be keeping the commandments of God and being close to the Spirit, otherwise we will not be justified in committing violence against our enemies. Clearly, it seems to me, that this scripture is not a blanket justification or blanket permission given to us to shed blood even when we are doing it to defend ourselves. There is an important and critical qualifier, this qualifier being that we are keeping the commandments of God, which would mean that we have the Spirit and are being guided by the Holy Ghost in our actions.

I think if we act to defend ourselves to the point of bloodshed but we are not keeping the commandments and we are not being guided by the Spirit, then we won't be justified in our actions of violence.

Are you suggesting you can't defend yourself unless you're righteous or that you can only defend yourself up to a certain point then you have to give up?

No. See my post above and consider again what I wrote to you earlier and the additional clarifications below:

...[A]nyone can defend themselves. That is why I said the "scripture does not give a blanket permission for someone to defend themselves against their enemies by the shedding of blood." And that "the idea is that it is our responsibility to be close to the Spirit and if we are close to the Spirit, then we will be guided in how best to defend ourselves and by being close to the Spirit, we will be justified in what we do, even if it requires the shedding of blood."

The point I'm making is that Alma 48 doesn't give us a blanket justification to cause violence or to shed blood even in cases where we are defending ourselves from our enemies.

And I add to what I wrote above that although we can defend ourselves (and there are ways of defending yourself without shedding blood or without violence), Alma 48 seems to be telling us that we are justified in shedding blood to defend ourselves only in very specific circumstances, namely in situations where we have been directed to do so by the Spirit. This is why we can't just assume that the missionary was wrong in their actions even though they used violence against the perpetrator in the video. If the missionary was acting under the direction of the Spirit he is definitely justified in his actions and even did the right thing. If he was not acting under the direction of the Spirit, then it isn't certain that he is justified in his actions, based on a careful reading of Alma 48.

-Finrock

[shadow]

Finrock, show me the part in Alma 48 you keep referring to. Thanks.

[Finrock]

No. I'm saying you don't necessarily speak for God. I haven't asserted that I speak for God. I haven't even implied that. In fact, I've indicated that I'm just as fallible as you are. I'm taking issue with you accusing others of rejecting God and His words because they don't agree with you and how you understand the scriptures.

-Finrock

Where have I done that?

This reminds me of one sided bias media coverage saying trump is a racist with out anything that actually backs it up. If there is proof I will gladly look at the evidence.

Well, the most recent accusation was directed at me in this very interchange we've had.

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

In this post you are saying that you have been speaking the words of God. You are the messenger and are speaking scripture. You are saying that by rejecting what you are saying, I'm rejecting the words of God.

The poem you quote implies that you are a lonely person because you aren't popular because you always speak the truth.

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you are speaking the truth, and speaking God's words, and rejecting the words you are speaking is the same as rejecting God. In the post above you accuse me and it seems others as well of shooting you, the messenger of God.

-Finrock

No you have it wrong. The shooting the message and messengers is reference to scripture And prophets. quoting them it's not my words their words. Plus how is that me accusing other who don't believe the scriptures and quotes from prophets as rejecting God.

they have done that themselfs.

Me repeating their words is not accusing. It's saying I agree with scripture and prophets. And giving a reminder of what they said.

If you simply quoted scripture and provided no commentary, interpretations, judgments, or ideas, then you would be right. However, you are quoting scripture in support of your hypothesis or you idea. When others do not agree with your hypothesis or your idea/understanding/interpretation of the scriptures you quote, you accuse that people have rejected the scriptures/prophets, etc. You are repeating the same fallacy in this post. Just quote the scripture and supply no commentary or if you supply commentary/interpretation then recognize that your personal interpretation of the scripture may be in error and allow others to disagree with your interpretation without accusing them of rejecting the scriptures or the prophets.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Finrock, show me the part in Alma 48 you keep referring to. Thanks.

It's the part you quoted, unless I got the reference wrong (just checked again and I did not get the reference wrong):

10 And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.

11 And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery;

12 Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.

13 Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

16 And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

-Finrock

[Ezra]

Where have I done that?

This reminds me of one sided bias media coverage saying trump is a racist with out anything that actually backs it up. If there is proof I will gladly look at the evidence.

Well, the most recent accusation was directed at me in this very interchange we've had.

Doesn't matter when you quote him from scripture and prophets. Those are his words. Shooting the messenger or message or pointing fingers at them is only a justification and fortification of your ignorance.

From a song from kings of convenience

Misread

How come no-one told me
All throughout history
The loneliest people
Were the ones who always spoke the truth
The ones who made a difference
By withstanding the indifference
I guess it's up to me now
Should I take that risk or just smile?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxE7IRizjI

In this post you are saying that you have been speaking the words of God. You are the messenger and are speaking scripture. You are saying that by rejecting what you are saying, I'm rejecting the words of God.

The poem you quote implies that you are a lonely person because you aren't popular because you always speak the truth.

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you are speaking the truth, and speaking God's words, and rejecting the words you are speaking is the same as rejecting God. In the post above you accuse me and it seems others as well of shooting you, the messenger of God.

-Finrock

No you have it wrong. The shooting the message and messengers is reference to scripture And prophets. quoting them it's not my words their words. Plus how is that me accusing other who don't believe the scriptures and quotes from prophets as rejecting God.

they have done that themselfs.

Me repeating their words is not accusing. It's saying I agree with scripture and prophets. And giving a reminder of what they said.

If you simply quoted scripture and provided no commentary, interpretations, judgments, or ideas, then you would be right. However, you are quoting scripture in support of your hypothesis or you idea. When others do not agree with your hypothesis or your idea/understanding/interpretation of the scriptures you quote, you accuse that people have rejected the scriptures/prophets, etc. You are repeating the same fallacy in this post. Just quote the scripture and supply no commentary or if you supply commentary/interpretation then recognize that your personal interpretation of the scripture may be in error and allow others to disagree with your interpretation without accusing them of rejecting the scriptures or the prophets.

-Finrock

May Vs are...

If they are wrong then use scriptures to correct them. That your duty.

If they are not. Then why try to complicate it? If your Adding more info is great.

Still your accusing me of doing thing that I have not done. I have not accused anyone of not believing in God or prophets or of rejecting them.

To explain things beyond posting scripture is not accusing others. It's explaining.

If you want to interpret that as me accusing other of not believe God or prophets or rejecting them. I can't stop you from that.

[Finrock]

Well, the most recent accusation was directed at me in this very interchange we've had.



In this post you are saying that you have been speaking the words of God. You are the messenger and are speaking scripture. You are saying that by rejecting what you are saying, I'm rejecting the words of God.

The poem you quote implies that you are a lonely person because you aren't popular because you always speak the truth.

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you are speaking the truth, and speaking God's words, and rejecting the words you are speaking is the same as rejecting God. In the post above you accuse me and it seems others as well of shooting you, the messenger of God.

-Finrock

No you have it wrong. The shooting the message and messengers is reference to scripture And prophets. quoting them it's not my words their words. Plus how is that me accusing other who don't believe the scriptures and quotes from prophets as rejecting God.

they have done that themselfs.

Me repeating their words is not accusing. It's saying I agree with scripture and prophets. And giving a reminder of what they said.

If you simply quoted scripture and provided no commentary, interpretations, judgments, or ideas, then you would be right. However, you are quoting scripture in support of your hypothesis or you idea. When others do not agree with your hypothesis or your idea/understanding/interpretation of the scriptures you quote, you accuse that people have rejected the scriptures/prophets, etc. You are repeating the same fallacy in this post. Just quote the scripture and supply no commentary or if you supply commentary/interpretation then recognize that your personal interpretation of the scripture may be in error and allow others to disagree with your interpretation without accusing them of rejecting the scriptures or the prophets.

-Finrock

May Vs are...

If they are wrong then use scriptures to correct them. That your duty.

If they are not. Then why try to complicate it? If your Adding more info is great.

Still your accusing me of doing thing that I have not done. I have not accused anyone of not believing in God or prophets or of rejecting them.

To explain things beyond posting scripture is not accusing others. It's explaining.

If you want to interpret that as me accusing other of not believe God or prophets or rejecting them. I can't stop you from that.

I'm not interpreting the part where you explain things beyond posting scripture as you accusing others. It's fine to provide your interpretation. However, you have gone beyond just sharing your interpretation. You shared your interpretation and when others disagreed with your interpretation you said that these people have shot the messenger. You have said point blank that people are not rejecting you, but they are rejecting the scriptures and the prophets because all you have done is quote scripture. But, that isn't all that you have done. You didn't just quote scripture. You quoted scripture in order to support your hypothesis and you provided commentary. It isn't the scriptures and the prophets that people are rejecting, it is your interpretation, your hypothesis, and your commentary that people are rejecting.

-Finrock