Detailed Response
Scriptures
D&C 132
“I’m supposed to believe in a god who issued an FLDS style revelation that states stuff like: the only form of polygamy permitted is a union with a virgin after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent. In case the first wife doesn’t consent, she will be “destroyed”. Also, the new wife must be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be destroyed.”
FairMormon Withdrew Response
FairMormon has chosen to not provide a response.
FairMormon listed this as “Work in Progress” until FairMormon removed the entire response on October 2, 2013.
Numbers 31
“This is truly despicable behavior from God and Moses. Under God’s direction, Moses’ army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some alive, he angrily says: ‘Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.’ So they went back and did as Moses – the Lord’s prophet – commanded, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way, they got 32,000 virgins.”
FairMormon Withdrew Response
FairMormon has chosen to not provide a response.
FairMormon listed this as “Work in Progress” until FairMormon removed the entire response on October 2, 2013.
1 Nephi 4
“The Lord commands Nephi to murder (decapitate) Laban for the brass plates. Never mind that Laban was drunk and defenseless. The argument that Laban would send his servants after Nephi and his brothers is ridiculous considering that the same God who had no problem lighting stones and taming swarms of bees (Ether 2-3) for the Brother of Jared can also preserve Nephi."
- "Speaking for God – The critic, despite not believing in God, presumes to know what God ought to require."
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
FairMormon is incorrect. I’m a deist. I believe in a higher power although I don’t presume to know what this higher power is.
In any event, FairMormon’s claim is an ad hominem attack. What does my belief or non-belief in God have to do with whether Nephi’s killing of Laban was justified? FairMormon’s attack is also nonsensical. Is FairMormon saying that if someone does believe in God they then “know what God ought to require”?
The omnipotent Mormon god is not limited. I think He could have found another way for Nephi to take the clothes off a drunk passed out in the street than violating his command of “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” I find it ironic that this god asks Nephi to violate 4 of his 10 commandments for plates when we read elsewhere in the scriptures of this same god providing a Liahona that will magically display any words he needs the people to know. And not just the Liahona; this same god does it again in the 19th-century by feeding words off a rock in a hat for the Book of Mormon; the same method that Joseph Smith used for treasure hunting.
2017 Update: At the time I wrote the above and when I was attacked by FairMormon, I was a deist. It's been a few years now and my views have evolved after further research and investigation. I currently identify as agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge as to whether or not there's a god but I currently see no evidence to believe in a god/gods.
- The author claims that God did not act to “preserve Nephi”. The Lord did preserve Nephi and his brothers from being killed by Laban....twice.
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
FairMormon creates a strawman. My argument is not that God didn’t act to “preserve Nephi.” Obviously, Nephi was preserved. My argument is rather that the idea of an omnipotent Mormon god resorting to a disregard of his own laws and commandments by condoning and commanding the cold blooded murder of a drunken, defenseless, and immobile man - in light of all of the other options - strikes me as overkill.
- God is not a magician who waves his wand and removes all obstacles. He expects us to do as much as we can. For example, God could have caused Laban to have had a heart attack, or cirrhosis of the liver, and died before Nephi got there, but that is simply not how God works.
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
The scriptures abound with examples of God removing obstacles and performing other acts that might be viewed as “magical” (e.g., parting the Red Sea, sending manna, lighting the stones for the brother of Jared, etc.).
FairMormon chose a particularly poor time to make this argument because even in this instance, God removed obstacles: “And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him unto thy hands...”
The only obstacle God failed to remove was the actual decapitation itself.
So, instead of giving Laban a “heart attack” or a stroke or “cirrhosis of the liver”, God instead “delivered him unto [Nephi’s] hands” so that Nephi was forced to break the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” commandment by violently cutting Laban’s head off.
I'd like to know how Nephi was able to wear Laban’s blood soaked clothes after cutting Laban’s head off and removing the clothing from the bloody corpse. Seems unlikely that Nephi would have been able to fool Laban’s servant Zoram into thinking he (Nephi) was really Laban.
- If Joseph were making the story up, then why not just have Nephi just find Laban already dead in the street? Nephi's account actually seems to have been written to deliberately provide all the proper legal justification for the act, according to ancient Israelite law. This may not appease the ethical concerns, but, the point is, how did Joseph Smith know ancient Israel law so well? This is evidence that it was written by someone familiar with the legal code of that time and place.
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
“If Joseph were making the story up, then why not just have Nephi just find Laban already dead in the street?”
The simple answer is that it wouldn’t be as good of a story as finding the same man on the ground passed out and drunk and being told by God to disregard His “Thou Shalt Not Kill” commandment by taking the man’s head off, removing his blood-soaked clothing, putting it on, and going on to fool the man’s slave by impersonating the man he just killed? And to pull off one the more infamous heists in Jerusalem history by escaping with the Brass Plates? That’s just better story-telling.
You’ve got to have cool stories. What would the Book of Mormon be like without this and Ammon’s slicing off and bagging all those arms with a steel sword that never existed in pre-Columbian America? And King Lamoni calling for his chariot with wheels pulled by horses? Part of the literary appeal of the Book of Mormon is stories like these and stories such as the Liahona, the sailing to a new continent in submarines, the battles where only one man from each side is left standing, and the glowing rocks. The Book of Mormon just wouldn’t be the same without these entertaining and magical stories.
“This may not appease the ethical concerns, but, the point is, how did Joseph Smith know ancient Israel law so well?”
FairMormon is correct…it does not “appease the ethical concerns”. What seems to matter to FairMormon is not so much the ethics but that Joseph Smith "got it right" it once again! After all, how could Joseph have known?
Except that Joseph didn’t. This “ancient Israel law” which FairMormon does not cite, explain, or elaborate further upon? It’s not a home run.
In fact, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute has to come up with some pretty creative excuses and rationales just so that Nephi is only guilty of manslaughter as opposed to criminal homicide. The Neal A. Maxwell Institute, for example, relies very heavily on Exodus 21:13, Moses killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2, and a heavy dose of liberal interpretation to try to justify Nephi’s murdering Laban.
I’ll let the reader decide what they think about this mysterious “ancient Israel law” that FairMormon points to as a win for Team Joseph.
- Elder Jeffery R. Holland responds to this:
It is wrong to assume that Nephi in any way wished to take Laban’s life. He was a young man, and despite a 600 B.C. world full of tensions and retaliations, he had never “shed the blood of man.” (1 Ne. 4:10.) Nothing in his life seems to have conditioned him for this task. In fact the commandments he had been taught from childhood declared, “Thou shalt not kill”; and he recoiled, initially refusing to obey the prompting of the Spirit. . . . Laban, lying before Nephi in a drunken stupor, has not been guiltless in his dealings with Lehi’s family. In what little we know of the man, Laban has at least: (1) been unfaithful in keeping the commandments of God; (2) falsely accused Laman of robbery; (3) coveted Lehi’s property as a greedy, “lustful” man; (4) stolen that property outright; and (5) sought twice to kill Nephi and/or his brothers. He was, by the Holy Spirit’s own declaration, a “wicked” man delivered unto Nephi by the very hand of the Lord. ("I Have a Question," Ensign, September 1976)
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
I find Holland’s justifying murder because of its religious context very disturbing. This is a classic case of "blaming the victim." Like Holland, Mormon fundamentalist killers have tried to justify Nephi’s murdering a defenseless man because “it was commanded of God”. Ron Lafferty murdered his sister-in-law Brenda and her 10-month-old baby Erica in 1984 American Fork, Utah by slitting their throats and leaving them to die. After the murders, police discovered a written “revelation” in which God commanded Ron and his brother, Dan, to murder their sister-in-law and baby niece.
“In the pre-trial hearing, Ron Lafferty used the Book of Mormon story of Nephi cutting off Laban’s head to try to justify the murders (see Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 3, 1985). The reader may remember that God commanded Nephi to decapitate Laban so that he could obtain the scriptures written on the brass plates. At his trial, Dan Lafferty maintained that ‘the state has failed to prove a crime has been committed because I feel the evidence shows it could very well be the fulfillment of a revelation of God.’” (link)
Even aside from the Ron Lafferty comparison, where is the Christ-like approach of loving your enemy and forgiving those who wrong you? It is doubtful that Jeffrey Holland would recommend killing every person who is found guilty of the wrongs Laban committed. In short, even taking Laban’s “sins” into consideration, killing him remained unjustified.
Exodus 12:12
"God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors? What kind of a god is this? Like the flood, what kind of a loving god would kill innocent children for the actions of others?"
- "Speaking for God – The critic, despite not believing in God, presumes to know what God ought to require."
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
As explained above, FAIR’s assumption is incorrect and their attack is both an ad hominem and nonsensical.
My presumption is that a moral god would not kill innocent men, women, and children over the choices and actions of one man. My presumption is that a moral god is not hypocritical by blatantly disregarding his own laws and commandments by murdering – in cold blood – numerous innocent children in Egypt to give one man a message.
- This had nothing to do with God deriving some sort of pleasure from killing "innocent children for the actions of others." God didn't want to kill anyone. Over and over and over again Moses came to Pharaoh, asking him to let the children of Israel go. The Pharaoh refused the request every time. There were nine plagues the preceded the Passover; Pharaoh could have gotten the message, but he didn't. This was God's last option, not His first. He took no delight in it.
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
“This had nothing to do with God deriving some sort of pleasure from killing ‘innocent children for the actions of others.’ God didn't want to kill anyone. This was God’s last option, not His first. He took no delight in it.”
This is another example of a strawman. I have never argued that God derived pleasure in killing people. This is what I actually wrote in the CES letter:
God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors? What kind of a god is this? Like the flood, what kind of a loving god would kill innocent children for the actions of others?
FairMormon misrepresents my argument by basing their entire response about God not getting “pleasure from killing” or that “God didn’t want to kill anyone” or that he “took no delight in it”. The simple fact is that this Bronze Age story demonstrates that God killed numerous innocent children to give the Pharaoh a message. Whether or not this god “delighted” or “didn’t want to” or “derived some sort of pleasure from killing” all is just irrelevant misdirection.
In FairMormon's universe, it’s morally justifiable for an omnipotent God to murder numerous innocent children over the choices and actions of one single man.
"Over and over and over again Moses came to Pharaoh, asking him to let the children of Israel go. The Pharaoh refused the request every time. There were nine plagues the preceded the Passover; Pharaoh could have gotten the message, but he didn't. This was God's last option, not His first. He took no delight in it.”
God asks Pharaoh to let the people go and Pharaoh refuses. So…God kills numerous innocent children to change one man’s mind. Heart attack? Nope. Stroke? Nope. Head cut off Nephi style? Nope. This omnipotent God’s “last option” is instead to kill innocent children throughout Egypt so that one single man gets the message.
I find it incredible that FairMormon sees no problem with pinning such despicable, primitive, immoral, and insane Bronze Age behavior on God Himself.
- The killing of the Passover lamb and the placement of its blood above the doorway was a symbolic representation of how Christ would save us through his sacrifice.
- President Joseph Fielding Smith said:
When the Israelites left Egypt, the Lord gave them the passover. They were to take a lamb without blemish; they were not to break any of its bones. They were to kill it, cook it, and eat it with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. This feast they were to remember annually thereafter until Christ should come. This was also in the similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If you stop to consider it, it was at the time of the passover that our Lord was taken and crucified in fulfillment of the promises that had been made that he would come to be our Redeemer. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 1:22)
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
I appreciate FairMormon’s lesson on the proper methods of observing the Passover, but this lesson misses the point entirely. The point is that, in addition to dealing with Pharaoh, this god kills numerous innocent children throughout Egypt so that we can have a bizarre and disturbing “symbolic representation of how Christ would save us through his sacrifice”?
I can't accept that God chose to kill innocent men, women, and children for “symbolic” and “representative” purposes.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
"Got a rebellious kid who doesn’t listen? Take him to the elders and to the end of the gates and stone him to death!"
- FairMormon creates diversionary distraction with mislabeling in an attempt to diminish the insanity of this scripture.
- "Shrillness makes you appear silly and inaccurate – When critics become shrill, they sacrifice accuracy and begin making silly sarcastic claims."
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
How is my statement “silly and inaccurate”? How is my statement “shrill” and “sarcastic”? And even if my statement were shrill or sarcastic, FairMormon’s premise fails here because my statement is entirely accurate. Notice that FairMormon does not dispute or disagree with my statement. Instead, they choose to diminish the absurdity of scripture like this by distractedly mislabeling my argument as “shrill,” “silly,” and “sarcastic”; all while stopping short of disagreeing with it.
What’s silly here is the following scripture:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place…and all the men in his city shall stone him with stones, that he die…
- The Law of Moses was a very strict law that was designed to teach the Children of Israel obedience. It was indeed quite harsh when compared to our modern standards, although one can still find equally harsh penalties in some parts of the world among certain cultures. When Jesus Christ came to earth, He fulfilled the Law of Moses.
- The following were defined as crimes worthy of capital punishment:
- Murder (Exodus 21:12-14)
- Striking your parents (Exodus 21:15)
- Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
- Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17)
- Bestiality (Exodus 22:19)
- Divination (Exodus 22:18)
- Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
- Violating the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)
- Rebelliousness (Deuteronomy 17:12)
- Incest (Leviticus 18:6-17)
- Homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22)
- Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2)
- Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-21)
- Premarital sex (Leviticus 21:9)
- Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16,23)
- False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:1-11)
- Rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)
- The author's point seems to be that a kind and loving God would not ever condone such things. However, God reminds us that his ways are not our ways in Isaiah 55:8-9:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Quotes to consider
- From the The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy:
Verses 18–21 describe the procedure to be followed if a son is repeatedly insubordinate and his parents conclude that there is no hope of reforming him: they are to bring him before the town elders who will hear the case and, if they agree, order his execution. The law seeks to deter filial insubordination, but, by requiring that the case be judged by the elders, it also places limits on parental authority, as does the preceding law. Earlier, in the patriarchal period, it appears that the father’s authority over his children was absolute, like the patria potestas of early Roman law, even to the point of his being able to have them executed for wrongdoing; this is implied by Judah’s ability to order the execution of his daughter-in-law for adultery, with no trial (Gen. 38:24). The present law respects the parents’ right to discipline their son, but it prevents them from having him executed on their own authority. This may only be done by the community at large on the authority of the elders.
Ancient Near Eastern laws and documents also mention legal action by parents against misbehaving children. The grounds include such offenses against parents as disobedience, flight, repudiation, lawsuits against them, failure to respect and provide for them in their old age, and striking them. The punishments range from disinheritance to enslavement and mutilation.
Filial insubordination is a grave offense because respect and obedience toward parents is regarded as the cornerstone of all order and authority, especially in a tribal, patriarchal society like ancient Israel. If the death penalty specified by the present law is meant literally, it implies that biblical law regards insubordination and the danger it poses to the stability of society more severely than do other known ancient Near Eastern laws. The fact that Exodus 21:15 requires the death penalty for striking one’s parents, whereas the Laws of Hammurabi require only that the son’s hand be cut off, supports this inference. Nevertheless, some scholars, modern and ancient, believe that the death penalty stipulated in the present law is meant only rhetorically, in terrorem, to strengthen parental authority and deter the young from disobedience. As in the case of the apostate city (13:13–19), halakhic exegesis subjected the law to an exceedingly narrow reading, according to which it could hardly ever be carried out. Several rabbis held that it was never actually applied, but was stated in the Torah only for educational purposes.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
I will respond with what I’ve stated in Letter to a CES Director:
“To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy, child abuse, stoning disobedient children, pillage, plunder, sexism, racism, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, killing people who work on the Sabbath, death penalty for those who mix cotton with polyester, and so on.”
“As a believing Mormon, I tried to rationalize some of the craziness by saying, ‘Oh, this is in the crazy Old Testament when the Law of Moses was in force. Christ came and fulfilled the Law of Moses.’ The problem with this is that the crazy god of the Old Testament was Jehovah. Who’s Jehovah? The premortal Jesus Christ. So, Christ is the crazy god of the Old Testament. The Christ of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament are light years different. Again, I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well.”
FairMormon’s above response does not counter or answer anything. FairMormon’s answer is basically:
Yes, this is crazy but we cannot claim that ‘a kind and loving God would not ever condone such things, however. God reminds us that his ways are not our ways’! In other words, you cannot understand it and you shouldn’t question it because we’re trying to put this insane, immoral, and primitive Bronze Age stuff into the mysterious and metaphysical realm of 'god’s ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts'!
This line of thinking requires believers to believe in or do anything without thinking for themselves. I reject the inconsistent, insane, immoral, and barbaric Bronze Age style god who commanded and endorsed such despicable and immoral Bronze Age laws, commandments, and behavior clearly displayed in the scriptures for all to see.
FairMormon may be okay with pinning all this rampant and despicable immorality on God. I’m not.
Exodus 35:1-2
“God commands death penalty for those who work on the Sabbath trying to support their families.”
FairMormon Withdrew Response
FairMormon has chosen to not provide a response.
FairMormon listed this as “Work in Progress” until FairMormon removed the entire response on October 2, 2013.
Numbers 21:5-9
"God doesn’t like to hear whining and ingratitude so he sends out a bunch of snakes to kill the people. When the people had enough of the snakes, they ask Moses to tell God to quit it. God decides Moses is persuasive and tells Moses to put a snake a pole and tell the people to look at the pole and they won’t die. So, the pole is built, the people look at it and they don’t die. The moral of the story? Don’t whine or God will send in the snakes."
- FairMormon claims I’m being sarcastic for taking the story literally and for viewing it from a moral standpoint while failing to address the immoral problems, actions, and god this story presents.
- The moral of the story is that one who looks upon Christ will be saved from spiritual death, not ‘don't complain or God will kill you.’ The sarcastic version of the story offered by the author robs it of any coherent meaning.
- The snake on the pole is a representation of Christ and the atonement. Those that simply looked at it were saved from physical death. Those that look upon and accept Christ are saved from spiritual death. What is amazing is that there were people who simply wouldn't look at it, despite how easy it would have been to do so. They simply refused to believe.
- The following FairMormon comment was deleted by FairMormon on 7.13.13:
“The author also offers a number of sarcastic and sophomoric interpretations of scripture, such as this description of Numbers 21:5-9”
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
These were people who were murdered – via fiery snakes – by this crazy god. What kind of a Father sends in poisonous snakes to kill many of His children in order to teach a lesson? Remember, the Children of Israel didn’t just stumble randomly upon a bunch of deadly snakes and then look to Moses to be saved; God Himself sent the snakes in to begin with. He created the danger first and removed it only after Moses’ request and even then only for those who would look at the snake on a pole.
What kind of a Father – after murdering his kids with snakes – then repulsively has one of those snakes placed on a pole telling His other terrified, bitten, and dying kids to look at if they want to live? It’s completely insane.
Regardless of the spin (which I’m very familiar with having learned it in seminary, mission, and Church) that is made today in an attempt to make the story appear less insane, it’s a despicable story that more likely has its origins from Bronze Age tribesmen than from an actual god and his crazy prophet, who himself commanded genocide for virgins in Numbers 31.
Apparently, in FairMormon's universe, interpreting this story from a moral point of view is “sophomoric.”
Judges 19:22-29
“After picking up his concubine from his father-in-law’s house, a certain Levite settles in Gibeah for the night. The men of the city attempt to sodomize him, but end up raping the concubine until her death. As a response, the Levite dismembers his wife’s corpse and sends her body parts throughout the land of Israel. Who needs R or X-rated movies when you got scripture like this?”
FairMormon Withdrew Response
FairMormon has chosen to not provide a response.
FairMormon listed this as “Work in Progress” until FairMormon removed the entire response on October 2, 2013.
I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time
racist…polygamist god but a part-time psychopathic god
“Again, I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well.”
- Latter-day Saints do not believe in a "part-time racist," "psychopathic schizophrenic" god.
- Some Latter-day Saints believe that God has more than one wife, and some do not. There is no official Church position on this subject.
FairMormon deleted their above response. See screenshot.
Jeremy's Response to FairMormon
"Latter-day Saints do not believe in a 'part-time racist,' 'psychopathic schizophrenic' god.”
If Latter-day Saints believe and accept the god of the Old Testament, then my view is that they believe in a psychopathic schizophrenic god. They just know him by another name: Jehovah. God's conduct in the Bible fits precisely within the definition of the term "schizophrenia."
If Latter-day Saints believe in a Church led by modern revelation guided by god, then what else do you call a god who denies a specific race of people from the saving ordinances of the Temple for 130 out 183 years based on the color of their skin?
If not racist, what else can god be considered, when 10 of his so-called prophets are on record of pointing to god for 130 years as the reasoning behind their racism? It wasn’t full-time and it definitely was racist. So yes, my view that the Mormon god is a part-time racist god.
Whether Latter-day Saints have their heads in or out of the sands of denial over this historical fact does not alter or diminish the record that the Church and its “prophets” for 130 years pointed to the Mormon god for justification of its institutional and theological racism.
"Some Latter-day Saints believe that God has more than one wife, and some do not. There is no official Church position on this subject.”
Yesterday’s doctrine isn’t “officially Church position” today. Yesterday’s prophets teaching that the order of God and Heaven is polygamy are today’s heretics.
There is a reason why “some Latter-day Saints believe that God has more than wife”. Polygamy is all over Mormonism, even still in 2014. We have two polygamist Apostles (Nelson/Oaks). We’re still sealing men to multiple women in the Temples. We have canonized scripture (D&C 132) from the Mormon god Himself on the game rules of polygamy.
Even if the Mormon god didn’t have plural wives, he condones polygamy. He commanded it. Two of his living Apostles are polygamists. His Doctrine & Covenants still condones it. His “prophets” taught it was essential for exaltation. If the Mormon god is not a practicing polygamist, he most certainly is a polygamist at heart.
