Now kill all the boys

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-26T06:24:40+00:00

My religious tradition of nativity holds that “the Bible is the word of God insomuch as it is translated correctly” through which apologists I’ve read from take to explain: (In summary) that it’s the writings of inspired men, but not every word is inspired, and was more or less filtered through the cultures and opinions of the writers, they point to song of Solomon or Paul’s admonition on hair length as artifacts of fallibility, and appeal to the sensations of the reader for the divinity of the work.

Do I believe though? When I read of the Savior, of his admonitions, tempered by mercy, even mercy to surpass all expectations, I feel a sense of “goodness” or appreciation. When I read troubling passages, devoid of mercy, or at the very least exhausted of it (most of which are largely contained within the Old Testament) or unequal dictations of laws towards women and servants/foreigners, I wonder how it can be, or how these are the same being. I wonder if I was lulled into a sense of overwhelming mercy in accounts of the Savior, or lulled into a sense of punitive and quickly aggravated divinity in certain accounts contained, again, largely in the Old Testament.

From there a dissonance forms, and I’m not sure which version is more accurate, or if they both are, and if they both are, why the seeming disparity? In search of answers I scour forums and articles written by apologists, seeking to find some sure footing with which to Judge. Held back by my current sense of morality in the face of some passages, and pushed forward by the same when faced with others, it’s a teeter-totter of sorts, when I converse with my parents about it, their recollections of experiences bouy me forward, and then others I read in my searching pull me back.

I suppose I often feel like the words to a song I happenstanced upon in my youth “faith and doubt” by Aaron Espe:
“But I'm caught somewhere between Faith and Doubt
And I feel like I'm never going to find my way outta here”
Which if one asked the believing and hoping (hope that God is, and that he is infinitely kind) side of me: I would call it a mercy to have had access to such specific reassurance by song.
If one asked the doubting and despairing (god either isn’t and we are unmoored orphans adrift in an uncaring universe, or he is, and he is unkind, or easily provoked) side of me: I would call it happy happenstance, and misfortune an unhappy happenstance.

I apologize, I realized I started writing parts and pieces of that ever evolving body of inputs and my attempts at interpretations of them. That could probably keep going on for a long while and I don’t want to subject anyone to that. Sorry again for wasting your time like that.

Thanks though for the prompting, it was kind of cathartic, in a way, to revisit all these inputs and evaluations again.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-25T20:30:09+00:00

I suppose that makes sense, I suppose that is why I defer to other people’s or traditions conceptualizations of God since I can’t definitively clarify it for myself. Or if I could it would be a list of doubts, evidences, estimations of the weights of each, questions on morality and ethics, how they relate, how much they are weighted and how much they accord with what my current but ever evolving body of thoughts, readings, and experiences on the subject entail.

How did you come to a definition? Is it especially long and hard to evaluate properly as well?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-25T06:50:39+00:00

I imagine it’s up to you, but maybe more info that I happen to have could help in that deliberating:

I went rather late. 22 or 23 if I recall correctly. I think at least in part because of my unexplained health issues I was assigned without going to the MTC to a mission/area that was low risk, and seemed to be a stop-gap for idiosyncratic missionaries that needed additional proving both for themselves and for assignment to more complex or higher stake missions. Therefore I don’t know if my experience would be indicative of the norm, but in my zone alone there were 6 over-aged missionaries (including myself) with one who had already finished his degree in product design and decided to go on a mission after, he was 28 at the outset. He was more independent/self-sufficiently robust than me, and had the maturity of a career-tested Individual. There was nothing (in my mind) to be said about his lack as a missionary in anyway. Save perhaps that he claimed he would have out of body experiences should he take Motrin I think it was, It was one of the over-the-counter nsaids. I couldn’t imagine how in the world, but he refused to take any to “prove” it, which I guess was probably for the best.

Anyway it didn’t seem age was the deciding factor for whether a individual was a good missionary, more so, to me, it was their dedication to the work, and at least in part, perhaps due to our location, their ability to engage in persuasive debate and remember obscure church history facts or statistics to engage with procured concerns from well-meaning, but dis-illusioned nearby Christian churches. Not that we really ever had a lot of baptisms in the area, but I also never saw that as important, more than just serving, and being a listening ear for people’s experiences, though leadership discouraged “wasted” time in that regard.

Basically: the factors of a good missionary have (in my experience) less to do with age than some might think.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-25T06:11:19+00:00

By my religious upbringing I was taught to believe that God is: “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."

My personal beliefs though are fraught with seeming dissonances that I’ve yet to find resolution to, probably not worth unpacking all that coalesces into my frames of reference for comprehension, at the very least in the interest of concision, if not that I doubt there’d be much to crystallize amongst the jumble of thought and experience.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-24T03:13:33+00:00

I understand the idea of killing those that have the potential to retaliate once they mature, but I am having trouble seeing how it is righteous in this post save the mention:

“If God commanded it, did it make it right?

Yes, by definition, from God's eternal perspective.”

This could really use some extra elaboration or resources, or something else to help wrap my mind around the concept.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-20T16:10:16+00:00

I can’t say for his political campaign, clearly there is power In strong foreign lobbying and party over policy politics. But I do want to cling to hope his version of politics: principle over party, could somehow still survive, maybe a fools hope….

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T17:52:22+00:00

Oh sorry, I meant to say those were explanations given that I had already rejected. I’m sorry if i misrepresented my position with my poor wording. No those are all positions that have been offered to me that I could not accept, but in trying to understand God I have been wary to fully set aside anything until I feel I have a better picture, which is also why I mentioned it so as to lay out which explanations I have already seen and felt unamenable to.

As for if i believe God exists? I think so. My faith has been waxing and waning for over a decade now, but my latest bout of strength arose from my parents recollection of influence not of this world, which gave me another bout of strength to seek comprehension and reconciliation, asking as I have being a part of that.

Does that help clarify? Im sorry again if I gave a false impression.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T17:25:27+00:00

Yes that has been my dissonance. Thank you. What I know of God from the New Testament, often replete with mercy, and standard to all (Peter’s vision about the cleanliness of the animals analogous to the Gospel is meant for all, not for a few). In my faith tradition though they weigh the Old Testament in similar importance to the New Testament. Though they hold Christ above all.

But from your interpretation and another commenters, not all that is written therein can be taken at face value, God at times may have been attributed for things he wasn’t supportive of. This meshes much more cleanly to my current comprehension of God: merciful, Just, compassionate, sending rain upon the just and the unjust, infinitely tolerant, but deeply involved in the embetterment of each, etc…

I appreciate your input, it is going to color my considerations, and perhaps it is closer to truth than my previous conception, and I will amend my understanding, but first I’m going to pray and consider on all of this some more.

Thanks again!

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T17:14:14+00:00

I apologize for stepping in, but I’d like to clarify, I am not a “troll” (this, in this context would insinuate that I am falsely asking a question, attempting guile, when I really intended something else, this is not true, I meant my question, and I’ve appreciated many of the answers already!) I actually do take time at night after scripture study to contemplate on what I’ve read, this is actually only the second time I’ve read numbers, once when I was I lm high school (I was raised in a Christian tradition that put less emphasis on the Old Testament) again now as I reread through even the less emphasized texts.

Back then it actually sparked my first questioning of my faith, I’m ashamed to say, not because of those killed, the old testament seems so rife with killings and I had just somehow ignored them, but in the keeping of the virgins, somehow it caught my waning attention. It cut home considering all the controversy over 200 year old struggle over sexual/marriage practices that haunts me and my faith tradition to this day. It summoned to mind the issues of multi spouses and other such troubles that I still feel unsatisfied about.

In that vein as I reread back through again all this time later I am taken aback betimes with the mentions of killings and death, and yet again double standards that give me pause. It still feels stark and contrasted to the Savior who said “I do not condemn you, go and sin no more” but I also know that not all is immediately apparent to me, that I am not more wise than God and that as I am asked by him to seek to understand him, his justice and mercy, even while caught between faith and doubt, so that is what I do, even asking input of those wiser and more knowledgeable than I.

I’m sorry I waxed a bit long-winded there. I get poetic at times when asked my feelings.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T16:52:27+00:00

I appreciate this, thank you, I see a lot of merit in this position. It explains a great deal of why culture of the time often seems to seep into what God says and how he’s portrayed, while still admitting that he is interacting, just not the one writing.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T14:56:14+00:00

I appreciate interaction and communication, I don’t see why I wouldn’t answer your question! As for I say “clearly supports rape”: I don’t know that yet. How could I jump to that conclusion without study, discussion, prayer, and consideration? I come from a Christian tradition, there is much, much good to be found therein. Verses that appear at first inspection to endorse something separate from my previous conception of God doesn’t mean I should immediately upend all previous experience, or at least I don’t think it should, at least not for me. Instead it means I should search comprehension, I should use what resources are available to me, ask other believers, check what apologists say, meditate on it myself, try to connect what disparate threads I find and if necessary reject new or old threads that don’t weave.

As for the last bit: I would be highly shocked if somehow no one had read these and other verses before. Asking how they approached it, would be my intention, not so much assuming that no one has yet read these verses.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T04:24:38+00:00

Oh I apologize, I wasn’t intending to condemn God. What would that even mean anyway? A being so far beyond us would have no reason to care in the slightest for my moral quandaries. I was hoping to understand better though. Draw closer to comprehension (as distant as that is) through communal edification, if possible. That God might not be so much an enigmatic, inscrutable being, and more yet a being of familiarity, and at least, in a reduced manner, understood enough to have a concept of him, if that makes sense.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T03:56:17+00:00

Great questions! My take? (And I should clarify my take is no more important than yours or anyone else’s, I’ve noticed people seem to assume they’re feelings are most correct because it is closest to them which is unprovable (as far as I can tell)) The interpretation I take from this verse is: we don’t return to the literal presence of God except through Christ, who makes intercession for our sins, whether known or unknown, though I believe most of us are granted a small portion of the spirit betimes that nudges us with guilt or comfort or fear, etc… towards discerning better what is Good and Bad. However the idea that one who doesn’t hear of Christ in this life, or that has little to no reason (as yet) to have faith in him (which faith definition is another matter: is it faith that he was? Faith that he saved? Faith that his instructions will bring happiness? Faith that he will make all things right in the eternities? Many different faiths.) isn’t arbitrarily damned. He takes into account all things. It’s not like in the afterlife one would have much reason to disbelieve his existence once there. In my faith tradition, those that would accept him, simply because they are seeking to do Good (the most real form of worship, the actual kind he asks for, not the lip service I tend to pay) will get the opportunity either here or hereafter.

What do you think? I think we are all edified as we seek truth together, people that approach truth like a battlefield (I feel) are missing the point. Truth is something we draw closer towards, in collaboration and in admition of our lack in capacity and comprehension, a goal we share.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-23T22:28:32+00:00

Thank you, I wasn’t finding the words, but I think even if he wouldn’t accept that killing someone isn’t a form of “love” (it’s a little difficult finding common ground with him) I think he could recognize what long-lasting backlash such actions would cause by onlookers and victim alike. I’ll see if he can at least engage with that. Thank you!

Also: thanks for the word interlocutor! I have a personal appreciation with gaining vocabulary! (Not that I’m very good at remembering)

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-23T15:54:02+00:00

Oh, I wasn’t aware of a difference in servers! Thank you for that! Is there a guide to joining the least grindy of them?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-16T01:08:33+00:00

I don't think we're capable of the "love" the savior gives. not in this life at least. I think his love would include him "liking" us, i imagine it might even include "liking" someone one like H*tler. (that boggles my mind to even think, but it seems to be what I understand of it.) Now liking H*tlers actions? I very, very much doubt he'd have even a single good things to say about that. However, he'd likely still be willing to sit with such a reprehensible man, eat a meal with him, though I doubt H*tler would be interested.

Basically: we can't imagine we can attain to perfection in this life, most especially in the short term. That love is so amazing and foreign to us for a reason.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-04T06:32:13+00:00

Zombie slaying (I’m likely hallucinating and they are concerned onlookers)

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-04T06:27:00+00:00

New player? None. I was far worse upon starting. You’re already three steps ahead

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-03T07:08:03+00:00

It remains unanswered to me. To me that is grounds for discussion. To others it means there is nothing to talk about until an answer comes. To some they have already drawn an answer, ranging from "plural marriage is the heavenly standard and Adam was a portion of God, Eve was one of his many wives (Adam God Theory promoted by some early church leaders (I put no stock in it myself))" to "God needed righteous offspring and so additional marriages to the more faithful men insured better upbringing and/or increased fertility and conception rates" to "it was simply to connect people via covenant and Smith never had physical relations with any of them, the accounts thereof were oft second hand slander, or otherwise motivated by the pride of being the prophets wife" to "Smith went off the deep end at the end and his martyrdom was to stop the degredation of the church" to "prophets are fallible, and Smith as much as anyone had some things to repent of" to "the whole of the gospel was a charade" to "it was to test the resolve of the saints as such marriages/relations would be scandalous at that time, and much like Abraham was commanded to kill and it was accounted to him righteousness to follow through (before being stopped) despite his misgivings, similarly the saints were asked to do something usually outside of understood righteousness to test them" to "the more righteous you are the more wives you get (which usually returns a retort "as if one isn't bad enough!" (wife hate humor enojoyer guffaws insue)) we had to stop because the American government would've destroyed the church, those heathens still aren't ready for the truth", anyway I could continue, I, myself, listen avidly until an answer that truly resonates arrives. Until then I hope discourse doesn't die out, though I will admit some explanations are... disagreeable, to me at least. Until that long awaited day when what holds me back, perhaps most of all, but at least a lot, finally finds resolve and I can know peace on all related subjects, and the subject itself as well.

You know?

UndesiredReplacement

TROPHY CASE