What is the role of a prophet?

[Anddenex]

Most of the interpretations I have seen on that verse, see it as talking about accidentally killing someone. Maybe a person was thoughtless, careless and someone else died. The accident being an "act of God" aka God delivering. Coming after verse 12 it reads as exception to that verse.

This interpretation also has the benefit of being more practical. This is the law that they are to enforce. It is much easier to tell if something was an accident versus being able to tell if the Holy Ghost prompted someone kill 'legally,' from the point of view of the third party that enforces the laws

Interesting, I have never heard anyone refer to this verse as accidentally killing someone until now.

[Vort]

Interesting, I have never heard anyone refer to this verse as accidentally killing someone until now.

In the context of the surrounding verses (12 and 14), I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. The sanctuary cities were established as a refuge for those guilty of accidental homicide.

[Anddenex]

In the context of the surrounding verses (12 and 14), I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. The sanctuary cities were established as a refuge for those guilty of accidental homicide.

I am missing where you see "accidental" in the scriptures. Please provide where these verses specify "accidental".

It is not specified in the summary of the chapter, nor is it specified in the verse itself. Verse 12 only specifies, "he that smiteth..."

In verse 14, "presumptously" means going beyond what is right or proper, or taking liberties. Guile means - insidious cunning in attaining a goal. In light of these two verses I am not recognizing any "accident" in these verses. I see "intention to" but not "accidental.

If an accident is the meaning of the verses, this is the first time I have ever been introduced to this interpretation.

EDIT: Why would God have a law of putting someone to death for an accidental homicide? (Question removed from response, this was the Law of Moses, and thus insignificant question)

Edited November 30, 2012 by Anddenex

[RMGuy]

Nuremberg was about murdering people. Sustaining your bishop is about helping him implement a Scouting program that you can see is wasteful and suboptimal. Comparing the two is ludicrous.

This from the person who compared loaning a temple recommend to

"The violent rape and dismemberment of an Afghani (sic) woman..." lol, ok.

-RM

[estradling75]

Very simple translation

Verse 12 If you kill some one you will be killed

Verse 13 Unless you didn't mean to, in that case you still killed someone so you will be punished by being forced to flee

Verse 14 But if you planned it out to kill someone then the punishment is death

[RMGuy]

What would happen to them if they didn't flee?

-RM

[Anddenex]

Very simple translation

Verse 13 Unless you didn't mean to, in that case you still killed someone so you will be punished by being forced to flee

I suppose this is my hold up, nothing in the verse mentions "unless you didn't mean to."

"If you lie not in wait..." In other words there was no intention to...

"God delivered him into your hands..." I am confused as to how God delivering someone into someones hands to kill them would be an "accident."

"Then I will appoint...." The person now has the opportunity to flee, appointed by the Lord.

In my personal interpretation, I see Nephi's experience with Laban a perfect example and fit for this scripture.

Nephi did not lie in wait. God did deliver Laban. Nephi purposely killed him. God appointed a place to flee.

What part of the scripture to you specifies, "Unless you didn't mean to..."

[Vort]

This from the person who compared loaning a temple recommend to

"The violent rape and dismemberment of an Afghani (sic) woman..." lol, ok.

I realize that the difference might be a bit subtle to you, but it's important, so try to follow:

You directly made an equivalence between Nuremberg and sustaining one's bishop: "This smacks to [sic] much to me of the Nuremberg defense." In other words, This sounds just like Nuremberg (where people were murdered). Well, no, in fact, it does not.

On the other hand, I was making a comparison of logical type: You claimed the fact that loaning a temple recommend "[did] not change the efficacy of those ordinances" as a justification of the practice, or at least of an excuse why it was no big deal. I merely showed that your justification was irrelevant and did not in fact justify anything, since any number of awful and horrific things don't change the efficacy of temple ordinances, either.

[Vort]

What would happen to them if they didn't flee?

They would be executed by the blood avenger.

[estradling75]

What would happen to them if they didn't flee?

-RM

My understanding (which I know is incomplete) is that the family of the victim would be entitled to seek out and kill the offending party, legally. Thus once someone dies at your hand their family is after you until you reach an appointed city of refuge. At that point the victims family must then go to the city elders to make their case.

If it was not an accident.. then the offending party was sentenced to death. If it was an accident then the offending party had to stay at the appointed city until the death of the High Priest. That was the sentence (kind of like jail time)

"God delivered him into your hands..." I am confused as to how God delivering someone into someones hands to kill them would be an "accident."

Take it less literally and more poetically. It can be taken as a variation of the "It was an Act of God." When you hear someone say it was an Act of God you think accident... While God could have made it happen more likely it was just something that happend and God allowed it

[Anddenex]

Take it less literally and more poetically. It can be taken as a variation of the "It was an Act of God." When you hear someone say it was an Act of God you think accident... While God could have made it happen more likely it was just something that happend and God allowed it

Thank you. I will research this a little more.

[Traveler]

I agree with you RM on this factor. On my mission a Bishop begin allowing his wife who was the Relief Society President to conduct sacrament meetings, and also allowed women to pass the sacrament. As a result of no one standing up, the whole ward was disbanded.

My father also tells me of an experience in Alabama, during the time we lived in the ward, where the Stake President asked the EQP to allow a 19 male to live with them who recently was released from jail. The EQP prayed about it, and received a witness from the Lord to "NOT" allow the young man to live with them. The S.P. persuaded and out of respect for his S.P. he allowed the young man to live with him. The result, the young man committed adultery with his wife, and his wife left him and the kids for this young man, ran away with him.

It is always better to follow the Holy Ghost, then good intentions of our leaders. At the same time, if we make such a decision then we better be right, or we are breaking covenants.

EDIT: As pertaining to a prophet's counsel, or an apostles, I don't think they are in the same boat as a Bishop or an S.P.

Hmmmmm - it appears that some do not understand what it means to sustain and support your leaders. It does not mean we never ask for clarification nor ever question - nor does it mean that we do not present issues to higher authority.

Again - do we understand the oath and covenant of the priesthood? Rejecting someone called and ordained in the priesthood is the same as rejecting Christ and the Father

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.

Sustaining and supporting does not mean we sustain and support just those that we agree with completely or those we like a lot. It would not be necessary to have a commandment unless there were those that thought they were somehow justified.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

Hmmmmm - it appears that some do not understand what it means to sustain and support your leaders.

I understand it just fine Traveler, whether you personally think I do is moot.

Again - do we understand the oath and covenant of the priesthood? Rejecting someone called and ordained in the priesthood is the same as rejecting Christ and the Father

Yes.

Sustaining and supporting does not mean we sustain and support just those that we agree with completely or those we like a lot. It would not be necessary to have a commandment unless there were those that thought they were somehow justified.

Agreed, however, are you then in the assumption the EQP was right in following the S.P. and not his answer from the Lord?

[slippyslayer101]

Thank you everyone for your insights!

[mnn727]

Bruce R McConkie on past statements of leader (specifically about Blacks and the Priesthood, but the principle is the same for any statements):

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things .... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 Aug. 1978